Isn't It Funny ....

Every now and again, we have to take a look around us and recognize the ludicrous nature of the world we live in.  I'm not talking about the periodic WTF (pardon my capitals) that most of experience on a regular basis, but instead about the ludicrous nature of what we laughingly call civilization in general, and our legal and political systems in particular.  Since many of you out there may have neither the time, inclination, or the twisted perspective seek the 'Pretzel Logic' under which most of us live (and yes, that is in fact a Steely Dan reference).

• Isn't it funny that after being in a potentially life-threatening automobile accident (even a single car one) police will site you for a seat-belt violation?
• Isn't it funny that one of the largest impediments to beginning the necessary infrastructure projects that the federal government has been tell us that we're falling dangerously behind on is the endless regulatory review process that this same federal government imposes on these very same projects? 
• Isn't it funny when a municipality installs red-light cameras, not for revenue, but for safety; then resets the timers to shorten the duration of the yellow lights not for safety (in fact making these lights less safe), but for revenue?
• Isn't it funny that the banking industry in this country is ultimately controlled by the policies set up by the Federal Reserve, which is an independent organizations made up of ... (wait for it)  ... bankers? 
• Isn't it funny that so many called for 'Mandatory Minimum' sentences for drug users, sellers, and distributors?  Then they called for the removal of these minimums since it was unfair to some of those convicted of crimes since it didn't allow for proper judicial discretion.  Now the call is going out for Mandatory Minimums for those using a gun ....
• Isn't it funny that when Republicans refused vote on bills passed Democratic members of the national legislature, they quickly became known as "the Party of No", but when the roles reversed and Senate Democrats refused to vote on bills passed by a Republican-controlled House, so such designation was forthcoming?
• Isn't it funny that the Republican Party which claims to be the most fiscally conservative booted the most fiscally conservative of their party from their Congressional Committee positions?
• Isn't it funny that the Securities and Exchange Commission has special laws to keep anyone from using 'Insider Information' to profit from stock trades, but allows members of Congress to do so without penalty?
• Isn't it funny that the Republican Party is considered to be racist in spite of the fact that not only was the Civil War begun in large part because of the election of the first Republican president and his stand on slavery; but that all of the significant civil rights legislation was passed by a Republican-controlled Congress (against strong Democratic objection) some 100 years later?
• Isn't funny that 'Federalism' stands for a principle in which the central (or in our case Federal) government shares power on an equal footing with respective State governments and 'Anti-Federalism' is about providing more power to that Federal government and less to the States?
• Isn't it funny that you have to show identification of some sort of identification at the Department of Motor Vehicles in order to obtain a form of identification like a driver's license or State ID?
• Speaking of a driver's license, isn't it funny that you have to pass government mandated curriculum of a bare minimum of knowledge in order to receive government issued license to drive, yet no such standard is allowed to be used when it comes to voting? 
• Isn't it funny that tax cuts granted by Congress normally have an expiration or renewal date, and tax increases are almost always permanent?
• Isn't it funny that almost no other laws than the tax cuts passed by Congress have expiration dates? 
• Isn't it funny that Republicans are being called obstructionist for wanting to negotiate areas of the nation's finances, and the President and Democrats are not for refusing to do so?
• Isn't it funny that the Federal Government is apparently going broke over Pension and  Medical Care programs that Congress refuses to address in a fiscally responsible or logical way in spite of (or because of) the fact that they have no vested interest in these programs; having put their own medical and pension benefits outside of them?

Isn't it funny that I'm not laughing either?

The Armageddon List

Don't worry, this isn't my plan to ready myself for survival after the End of Days. Instead it's a reference to a movie of the same title that's seen a lot of air time lately on cable.  That and upcoming political conventions got me thinking about what my list of demands might be as my reward for saving the world.  As is often the case, such thinking inevitably found itself onto the pages of this blog.  After all, what's the point of 'nonsensical musings' if you don't make them public from time to time.  

Have no fear, there will be no requests to bring back 8-track tapes (or cassettes for that matter).  Too many twisted tape, jammed player experiences in my past make that even too nonsensical for me.  Neither do I have anyone that I want to get special consideration for citizenship, or to stay in the Lincoln Bedroom in the White House for six months.  There may be a few musical references before I'm finished however.  In fact, let's start off with a one to get in the spirit things ....

*  It's time for many of these multimillion dollar cry babies in long-touring bands to get over their petty differences and tour with the original members.  Dennis De Young is the lead singer of Styx, Jon Anderson is the lead singer of Yes, and Steve Perry is the lead singer of Journey.  I don't care if the new guy sounds mostly the same, there's just some things that shouldn't be messed with.  And before you ask about Van Halen, I am of the belief that they should tour alternate years, one with David Lee Roth and the other with Sammy Hagar.

*  Every federal agency is to be placed on a 5-year referendum; with both houses of Congress compelled to a straight up or down vote (without dodges or filibusters) on its effectiveness, necessity, and continuation.  

*  I want Will Farrell, Adam Sandler, and Rob Schneider to stop making movies.  They play pretty much the same parts from one to the other anyway, so it's not like they would actually be giving up much in the way of an acting career; but if their absence could save even one life (let alone the intellects of movie-goers around the world) it would be worth it.  Since every actor likes to recognized by their peers before their career is over (and believe me, for these three it is) I would even be willing to start a petition drive to have the Academy of Motion Pictures to award them a special "Lack of Lifetime Achievement" Oscar.

*  Make some of the Networks out there change their names or their programming choices.  If you're the "History Channel", you're about history.  If network name is "Arts and Entertainment", then be about that.  If you want to air trashy reality shows about horribly dysfunctional people, pawn shop thieves, and exterminators; your network name should be NBC (Nothing But Crap).  Oh wait, that's already taken ...  
(Oh yeah, and MTV and VH1 both have to back to playing music videos ...)

*  All laws passed by Congress to likewise immediately become applicable to its members.  Such laws to become retroactive with respect to retirement plans and healthcare; but only long enough to place current and future members onto the Social Security rolls.  I would further like a law added in which the pay of  members of Congress is a daily fee, only for the days during which Congress is in session, and taxed at the highest individual rate allowed regardless of the amount of income earned.

*  While we're at it, can we get a lot less of Donald Trump.  It's bad enough that we have to deal with the over-the-top narcissism of naming everything he owns after himself and put up with combination of egotism and bad entertainment of his faux reality show, without listening to his tin-foil hat opinions on national politics.  Maybe he could use the time he would gain in saving us from his opinions on a new television effort; one where he searches around the world for someone to give him a decent haircut.

*  I want party primary elections to be paid for by the parties picking candidates.  General elections are a civic responsibility (even though most people don't choose to exercise their obligation where they're involved), so I don't mind paying for them.  I'm sick to death however of paying for the two biggest political teams billing me for letting them make their 'fantasy football' choices when others like the Green Party, the Constitution Party, or Libertarians have to foot their own bill. 

*  There is one however, that I will cheerfully steal from the movie:  "Yeah one more thing, um... none of them wanna pay taxes again.  Ever."



I may add to this list in the coming days as more ideas (or suggestions) come to me; so don't be surprised to see this get longer over the weekend.

Less Is Most Definitely More

There's been a little sniping in the mainstream media as the 112th Congress begins its summer vacation.  Of course it's not really a summer vacation because since the middle of the Bush years, neither house of Congress likes to adjourn because it allows a sitting President to make recess appointments that might otherwise not pass the Senate.  Lately the recess appointments have been made anyway, which would seem to make the idea of staying in session to prevent it from happening rather ludicrous; but then again 'rather ludicrous' is usually a safe descriptor of Congress anyway.  But I digress ......

The apparent complaint with our National Legislative body is that it has accomplished too little in the way of passing laws, and therefore has not done its duty. Derision is cast on the 112th Congress for passing a repeal on Obamacare, something that many of those running for seats promised that they would do if elected.  Of course the fact that they passed such legislation 33 times since taking office might be a bit excessive, but could perhaps be explained as simply a reminder that occasionally political promises are kept .... even when doing so is meaningless.

Speaking of meaningless, ABC tells us that Congress has however proposed 60 bills to rename Post Offices, 38 of which passed Congress and 26 were signed into law.  Of course they failed to pass a law to fix the Post Office's indebtedness or even force it to fix itself.  As a consequence, the National Department Snail Mail defaulted on a previous Congressional mandate to pre-fund $5.5 billion in health benefits.  (I guess the check must have gotten lost in the mail.)  While I tend to agree with the assessment of ABC in the poor handling of the Post Office woes (oops sorry, felt like something was trying to come back up on me after making that statement), personally I find this lack of productivity rather refreshing.

The Washington Post disagrees however, and went even further in castigating those now on holiday by showing rather graphically the lack of legislative productivity from the most recent bunch; an illustration which must make Ohio's Speaker Boehner proud.

Courtesy of the Washington Post

Apparently being a newspaper inside the Beltway (though only just barely in the Springfield, VA facility) means that they are, like Congress itself, incapable of a proper assessment where this subject is concerned.  There are far too many laws and regulations in this country already, passed by the eager minds and overly productive hands of a group of people who always seem to legislate for everyone but themselves.  The mind numbing size of the Federal Register alone (the big book of Federal Regulations) has grown rather remarkably over the years from its humble origins of 2,620 pages during the FDR Administration.  In fact, the feds recently took this tome online as the only way to deal with its forest killing proportions, since it adds some 70,000 to 83,000 pages per year. (And probably a good deal more than that this year.)  

That being the case, perhaps we should be giving a standing ovation to lawmakers for the gridlock, deadlock, and partisanship which has characterized the 112th.  (Yeah, I know.  I find the idea of applauding politicians nauseating too.)   Maybe in their final session before the end of the year (which for some will include some lame duck time), we can get them to walk back some of the nonsense they and their predecessors have done over the years; subtracting rather than adding to the confusion of overlapping and contradictory federal, state, and local laws.

But listen, let's not stop with merely handing out kudos to the junior legislative body.  How about a shout out to those on the senior circuit with a 6 year-term to play with.  Oh sure you can talk about the arcane rules of the Senate, and how they've been manipulated to prevent real action on the floor; but one can't help but recognize a bunch of guys who haven't even managed to pass a budget mandated by law in three years.  That's non-performance on an epic scale.

So while the media seems intent on deriding Congress for less bang for the buck (understandable certainly, since it is filled with Republicans after all), I think that we can all easily recognize the debt of gratitude the we owe to the Senate Majority Leader for sitting in a cave on a rock and eating raw fish while contemplating 'his precious' ring of power, one that he may well lose for bringing his part of the national legislature almost to a standstill.  (Oh come on, admit it.  He does look like Gollem.)  Many may find Sen Reid's recent activities objectionable or even detestable, but for myself, I cannot help but recognize that a lack of new legislation equals a lack of new restriction.  While the Majority Leader may be seen by many as an obstacle to progress, I see him as a shining example of what government can do best for the people ... next to nothing.  (Though I can't help but wonder when he and his fellow Democrats will inherit 'the Party of No' mantle that they so richly deserve.)

My only disappointment in all of this is that in spite of the lack of productivity in the legislature, spending continues to increase.  Even in this apparent record level of impotence, these 435 non-union salaried employees seem to be able to throw more money away that their more productive predecessors.  I only wish it were possible to truly celebrate their lack of legislative potency with a corresponding level of frivolous monetary disbursement.  More spending, more borrowing, and more scrutiny over every aspect of our lives.  Yes it appears that were the federal government is concerned these days, even their less is definitely more.

 

Beyond "The Law of Averages"

I did a piece for the Toledo Free Press just a couple of weeks ago called "The Law of Averages".  In it I outlined a number of the different kinds of laws that members of a city council, a state legislature, or Congress can vote on. I thought that I had adequately covered the subject, but I was wrong.  Not normally prone to such admissions (except under torture), it's very hard and rather unusual for me to so quickly find fault with myself (see 'Signs of Ragnarok').  

In truly glaring fashion however, not only were there a couple legislative potentials that I missed, but my failures to definitively inform my readers have been rather glaringly pointed out in the news over the last week.  I have therefore decided (in true Catholic fashion) to confess my sins by citing my examples of this inadequacy, ask for forgiveness from you, and perform an act of contrition (yet to be determined).

Interestingly enough, two of the three examples of the failure I am about to cite do not involve the legislature at any level, but instead the Executive branch of government.  For while it's true that legislatures hold the power to create laws and Mayors, Governors, and Presidents hold a veto power.  Even that veto power can be overridden by a super-majority of law makers.  What cannot be overridden however is the executive branch at these levels simply telling those in change of a law enforcement to 'ignore' the law or regulation in question.

Take for example, the President's recent immigration initiative, which does not even rise to the level of an 'Executive Order', but merely an easing of enforcement of existing law.  And while many can say that this looks suspiciously like "The Dream Act", that was supported by the President, proposed as legislation, and which never passed both Houses of Congress; it's not.  

This 'policy' cannot be considered a law in any way, shape, or form; but is instead the nation's chief executive telling agencies under his authority to perform selective enforcement of laws legitimately passed by the national legislature.  These dictates will continue to hold force until the current or next chief executive sees fit to change them or Congress takes them up in session.  Some might consider such backdoor legislation arbitrary and extra-Constitutional; but unless enough legislators grow sufficient spine to challenge such practices, they hold as much force as any other legitimate legislation.

The second example of non-legislature legislation is the "Executive Order".  This is fact a legitimate ability of the chief executive at some levels of government.  The US President can, for example, issue Executive Orders which become law if unchallenged by the Congress within 30 days of the time they are issued (see the previous paragraph about spinal growth).  

Most of these Executive Orders are fairly innocuous and do little more than remove day-to-day details from Congressional consideration; with for example President Obama issuing one on May 21, 2012 'Providing an Order of Succession with the Department of Agriculture'.  (One can only imagine the chaos that might ensue if the Secretary of Agriculture were assassinated, and no one knew who should assume his authority.)   Others might be seen as a bit more overreaching, such as the establishment of the 'Global Development Council' on February 9, 2012 creating a special council on international trade; or the 'Adjustment of Certain Rates of Pay' order on December 19,2011 which allows the President to set pay scales for certain executive, legislative, and judicial positions.  But again, at least Congress has the right (if not often the will) to challenge Executive Orders and to pass laws they find more appropriate in their place.

(For those of you wondering who the President was who issued the most Executive orders, I can tell you that Reagan issued 380, Clinton 363, and George W Bush 291.  The big winner, not unexpectedly, is Franklin Delano Roosevelt; who from 1933 to 1945 issued an almost astounding 3,728.)

Now the final way to put laws into effect that I've been talking about are the 'regulations' put into effect by agencies full of un-elected bureaucrats.  It's true that agencies are normally created and budgeted in the legislature, but far more often than not, these Frankenstein monsters take on a life of their own, break free of their bonds, and proceed to rampage the countryside. 

This week the CATO Institute issued a Policy Analysis on a particularly egregious abuse of legislative authority contained the the Patient Protection and Affordable Healthcare Act of 2010 (probably from a part of the bill that they didn't read even after they passed it, right Nancy).  In this policy analysis, CATO tells us of the "Independent Payment Advisory Board".

Now when a law is normally proposed, it's submitted in one House of Congress or the other (sometimes almost simultaneously); but it must be passed by both and submitted for the signature of the President in order to become law.  Even after such a signature is given, such laws can be reviewed and challenged in the judicial system, and struck down if they are found to exceed the authority of the government or in other ways be Unconstitutional.  Not so with those passed by IPAB.  According to CATO,

"Blocking an IPAB “proposal” requires at a minimum that the House and the Senate and the president agree on a substitute. The Board’s edicts therefore can become law without congressional action, congressional approval, meaningful congressional oversight, or being subject to a presidential veto. Citizens will have no power to challenge IPAB’s edicts in court.

Worse, PPACA forbids Congress from repealing IPAB outside of a seven-month window in the year 2017, and even then requires a three-fifths majority in both chambers… "

So, at least according to CATO, what the creation of this bureaucratic monstrosity means is that,

IPAB’s unelected members will have effectively unfettered power to impose taxes and ration care for all Americans, whether the government pays their medical bills or not. In some circumstances, just one political party or even one individual would have full command of IPAB’s lawmaking powers. IPAB truly is independent, but in the worst sense of the word. It wields power independent of Congress, independent of the president, independent of the judiciary, and independent of the will of the people.

Before such a bureaucracy truly comes into power and forbids anyone from saying anything against them, let me point out that the 'Law of Averages' dictates that Bureaucrats with that kind of power will abuse it (and us) sooner rather than later.  

You know, it's just possible that in pointing all of this out to you before it jumps up and bites you in the ass, I have in fact performed a true act of contrition.  So just in case this qualifies, "Mea culpa, mea culpa, mea maxima culpa".


      

TFP Column: The Perfect Issue

Being a news-junkie, I normally spend my Saturday mornings reading two newspapers, the Kansas City Star and the weekend edition of the Wall Street Journal (I save the TFP for Sunday).  There was an interesting news story in the latter this week about a bicyclist in San Francisco being charged with felony vehicular manslaughter for allegedly running a red light and striking a pedestrian.  Having dodged a few of these two-wheeled felons over time myself (both on the roads and in the crosswalks), this story intrigued me long after I put the paper down.

Then it hit me!  If you took a city like Toledo, whose City Council is considering putting a Recreation Levy that has to eventually include bike paths, tossed in potential breakthrough legislation prohibiting bicycle texting, added a dash Eco-friendly and Recreation-friendly City Council activity, if you then mixed in a healthy dose of those revenue enhancing red-light cameras along with a pinch of licensing fees for bicycles, sprinkled on a few senior citizens, and added a few tears from that golden oldie 'if just one life could be saved'; you might just have created the recipe for "The Perfect Issue" in politics.  So that's what I wrote about for this week's TFP.

Countless studies, could be followed by endless debates (with politicians flip-flopping and holding logically inconsistent ideas); which in turn could be followed by a seemingly endless streams nauseating rhetoric and pages of useless legislation protecting seniors, bicyclists, and pedestrians (along with all of us in public not texting).  This could be as close to a legislative Nirvana (the place, not the band) as many politicians experience.

Speaking of which, it's still early in the week, and those of you attempting to experience the best of what's going on in Toledo and Northwest Ohio this week would be well-advised to catch up, both in the mid-week 'Star' edition Toledo's largest Sunday circulation and Ohio's Best Weekly Newspaper for the last three years, the Toledo Free Press.

TFP Column: Soda Jerk

While it may seem as if I have been delinquent in putting up a mid-week posting, it's only because every time that I came up with an idea this week, I ended up sending it to Michael Miller at the TFP.  Instead of rejecting both out of hand, amazingly Michael accepted both efforts.  So instead of a mid-week post, you will get a link to a second mid-week column.

The second one this week is entitled "Soda Jerk", and speaks to Mayor Michael Bloomberg's regulatory proposal to ban sugary drinks of more than 16 ounces.  Now NYC's Mayor has already banned smoking (which tends to make people gain weight), and well as the use of Trans fats for cooking in the city.  One cannot help but wonder what the Mayor will ban next if this next effort fails to reduce the weight of New Yorkers fails.  (You also have to wonder if the Mayor has been spending time with Georgia Congressman Hank Johnson, who thought that Guam might tip over if too many people were on it.)

Having produced two 800 word writing efforts already this week, it's likely that I will wait until Saturday to do further structural damage to the national discourse.  There will certainly be more to come from other sources however, at least in Toledo's largest Sunday circulation and Ohio's Best Weekly newspaper, the Toledo Free Press.

TFP Column: The Law of Averages

Well we've got a new texting while driving ban in the State of Ohio, freshly signed by Governor John Kasich.  This law may be going into effect soon, but not before I weighed in one more time on the nonsense of creating laws against things that are already against the law.  While I was at it, I thought that I might kick my two cents in on some of the other kinds of laws that municipal, state, and national elected representatives like to pass and why.  The result became "The Law of Averages" on the TFP website.

But it's summer, and between the mid-week Star edition and the regular weekend one there will undoubtedly be a number of reasons to find a shady spot, relax, and catch up on everything going on in the area in what is (now without doubt) Toledo's largest Sunday circulation, and Ohio's Best Weekly newspaper for the third year in a row, the Toledo Free Press.

(And who knows, there might even be more to come this week ...)

The Inalienable Right to Stupidity

There's been a lot of talk in recent years about the Rights that we have in this country as human beings and as citizens of this great nation (in fact, more than there usually is after NYC's Mayor Bloomberg decided to try and save New Yorkers from large soft drinks).  Some are worthy, some are even inspiring; but some are tedious and boring, some are simply bogus, and some could even be considered rather far-fetched.

No discussion of Rights in this country of course, is ever possible without first mentioning "Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness"  (or Property, depending on whether you go with Jefferson's original, or the sanitized version that ended up on parchment) that has come to define the message in the Declaration of Independence. While this was certainly a sound base to build upon, by the time the Founding Fathers had gotten around to writing the Constitution, many of the same people who signed the Declaration had become rather cynical about what would happen to their Rights when having to replace the looser Articles of Confederation with the stronger central government outlined in this new document.  They were wary and distrustful of the amount of power now being place in the hands of that new government.  (Pretty smart guys those Founding Fathers.)  

In spite of the reassurances of some of the finest minds in the nation at the time as to the limits and restraints placed by that Constitution on this new federal government in "The Federalist Papers", they wanted written guarantees as to Rights that would be protected before signing on the dotted line.  A list of twenty such rights was handed back to the nation by James Madison (Jefferson couldn't help, as he was in France at the time), twelve of which were voted on, and ten later passed to became the first ten Amendments to this new Constitution and came to be known as the "Bill of Rights".

With all due respect to the efforts of 'The Father of the Constitution', who I suspect is now whirling like a dervish during his dirt nap when considering some of the feeble attempts put forward masquerading as Rights in this country, I am shocked ... shocked I tell you, by the big one that even he apparently missed.  I'm not sure for example, that 'affordable housing', 'a living wage', or 'free contraception' would have made any list that he would have submitted to Congress (even if it had been available).  Having just gone through a war with the greatest empire of his time over the Rights they believed that they were entitled to 'by their Creator' ... and won it, I doubt that he would have been amused by such mundane concepts, let alone submit them for serious consideration.  In so doing however, he was in fact denying the people of this country the one fundamental Right that even the Declaration's troika failed to list  .... The Right to Stupidity.

Come on now, admit it.  We're all falling back on this Right far more times than any of us would like to admit (and far more than the ten listed in the Constitution).  Have you bungee jumped lately or jumped out of an airplane with nothing between you and certain death but an over-sized handkerchief? How about ordering that triple cheeseburger with the large fries (you know, the kind that makes your cholesterol go up before the first bite)?  Smoke two packs of cigarettes a day for thirty years and still don't think you're setting yourself up for lung cancer?  Drink a quart of vodka every week, but you aren't concerned about the condition of your liver?  Hitting the tanning booth three times a week, but aren't worried about those new freckles that you're getting? How about when you told one of your friends that despite all the warnings, you were still convinced that you'd get your money back out of Social Security?  See, there you go ... Stupidity.

You know, quite a lot of stupidity that we deal with today has to do with government in one way or another.  After all, it's government that tells us that with each new law or regulation, it can protect us from evil banks, greedy corporations, and predatory merchandisers; and we all know that that's just plain stupid.  Don't get me wrong, I'm not objecting if the government wants to check out the hot dog factory from time to time to make sure that it hasn't become a science experiment.  Nor am I upset that if they want to check to make sure that the teddy bear I just gave my grandchild isn't stuffed with material used to clean up hazardous or radioactive waste.  I'm even OK with a few rules for those in the stock market to make sure that they're not lining their pockets with my money while trading off of inside information.  It defies all logic and reason however, for government to think that we're stupid enough to believe that it can protect us from our own stupidity.  (OK, that issue may still be up for grabs...)

The truth of the matter is that if members of this and previous Congresses, along many of the recent occupants of the White House hadn't kept bailing individuals, corporations, and foreign countries from the results of their moronic actions, perhaps there would be less stupidity in the US, if not the world today.  At the very least, making them pay in full for the stupidity of their actions would have resulted in a 'thinning of the herd' that would probably have raised the average and collective IQ in this country considerably.

Of course maybe the real consideration here is that government simply doesn't like having competition.  It doesn't take an Einstein to look at the imbecilic nonsense committed in Washington DC on a daily basis and come to the conclusion that they would prefer a monopoly on stupidity; and that based on their fear of competition they will do all in their power (no matter how stupid it appears) to reduce the number of players in the game.  

The hard truth however, is that with or without government intervention we will remain the constant victims of our own stupidity.  (Are you paying attention Mayor Bloomberg?)  One could even make the case that continued efforts to protect us from our ill-advised behaviors will in fact increase them through a half-witted (though often astonishingly creative) push back against increasing government interference in the exercise of this fundamental Right.

One might even go so far as to say that a government consisting of professional politicians wishing to serve as our elected officials should be wary of tampering with the inalienable right to stupidity, and  should instead be celebrating it.  What other hope do they have in the never-ending quest for a return to their well-paid positions than to count on the stupidity of the American voter.

 
    

Limited Government

Many of us who have spent any amount of time studying the Constitution still maintain that this document under which the second form of the federal government of the United States was created was designed in order to limit the scope of that government.  While there was a consensus that the Articles of Confederation had created a central body too weak to much longer survive, there was still a great deal of concern so soon after the Revolution that one much stronger would prove equally inimical to both the rights of the states and those of citizens.


And so it was that in "The Federalist Papers" James Madison, Alexander Hamilton, and John Jay sought to allay the fears of the people that this new document did not do just that.  Of course they did so following a very strict interpretation of this document, a point of view no longer widely held by many of those currently in power; but by doing so they managed to get each of the thirteen original States to ratify the document.  Even then, ratification was not assured without an agreement placing some additional protection into the document itself, and the first ten amendments or "Bill of Rights" were born.


Today's far more liberal interpretations of the Constitution, as well as the often voiced concept of a 'living Constitution' are causing some of us to revisit this concept of a 'limited government'.  We are challenged however in that strict interpretation by a two-party ruling elite far more concerned with protecting their own rice bowl than with the rights of the people that they swore to serve when taking their oath of office.  Perhaps therefore, it's time that we took up once again the concept of additional protection from an over-reaching national legislature and bureaucracy.  


I therefore propose that we begin to lobby for an addition to the Republican Party Platform in the months leading up to the convention in Tampa for ... Term Limits.  Don't get me wrong here, I don't propose that we limit the terms in office of legislators, much as I would like to, as there is little chance that we could get those elected to office to lift their heads from the government trough long enough to even consider such blasphemy.  Instead I would like to propose a mandatory limit on the length of time that any new law or regulation can remain in effect without being approved again.  Failing to gain that approval, such a law or regulation in question would be automatically rescinded.  Without seeking demand for a specific timetable, I would off the suggestion of three years for new legislation passed by Congress and one year for new regulations instituted by agencies and bureaucrats without the approval of Congress.


The time periods themselves are less important however than the concept of a forced review.  Suggesting a three year review for legislation should allow for the periodic party swings in the legislature.  If a law has merit, such merit and the law itself should prove easy to defend even amidst the pendulum swings of party public favor and renewal should still be all but assured.  Should such legislation prove over time to have been either inadequate or over-reaching, the three year period should prove sufficient to allow it to lapse with no loss of face to either party or the legislators who originally passed it.


As for regulations, since most do not go through the debate of 'elected officials' in the first place, the review process should come much quicker.  Legislators who have abrogated their Constitutionally mandated responsibility and authority to create law in this country would be forced to take up the issue of accountability that much quicker and at least attempt to do the will of the people; and be themselves judged for doing so.


In addition to addressing new laws, a process which likewise mandates the review of at least 10% of existing legislation should become a part of this obligation.  There are far too many confusing and contradictory laws and regulations on the books to allow for continued addition to their number.  A recognition of this fact and a way to force the a clean up of the issued cannot help but have a positive effect.  A mandatory review would likewise provide the incentive and political cover for elected officials to do so without jeopardizing their political futures.  It would likewise put agencies and bureaucrats on notice that their actions should not be unilaterally attempted without eventual consequences.


Now many might believe that placing Congress under such an enormous encumbrance would not allow them time to pass 'new' legislation or regulation.  So be it!  If one job was created or saved by virtue of bringing the runaway train of the national legislature under even that much control, it would be worth it.  Perhaps the burden of such a mandatory review would be just the caution that Congress requires before imposing its will in the way of new laws and rules. The national register (the list of federal regulations) is already over 81,000 pages long.  That single fact alone should dictate that it's far past time that something can and must be done to provide new limits.  The tax code is over 71,000 pages, far too complex for anyone to comprehend or be able to comply with.  Forcing Congress to review each law or regulation may be just the impetus that they need to simplify the entire tax code.


At the very least, adoption of such a proposal into the platform of one of the major political parties might scare potential candidates from taking on such a burden, and dissuade today's generation of professional politicians from seeking to return to the job.  Recognizing this as comparable 'Labors and Sisyphus' may allow some new blood to finally seep into the anemic arteries of a largely spineless group of lawmakers; thereby promoting the real hope and change that this country so desperately needs.

TFP Column: Stop Panhandling

It seems like it was just couple of days ago that I was telling you about an effort of mine going up on the Toledo Free Press website.  Not wait, it was in fact just a couple of days ago that something did.  But as they say on Monty Python's Flying Circus, "... and now for something completely different".

This whole thing started with discussion on 1370 WSPD radio and a piece on the TFP website got me thinking about panhandling in this country.  Little did I realize that there was such a growing problem with people asking for money on street corners (I only thought that they did it in Congress).

The more I thought about this, the more I came to realize that there were different levels of panhandling, and that some of them were just plain wrong.  As it often does, these thoughts turned themselves into a session in front of the keyboard, with "Stop Panhandling" as a result.


Since this was put up Sunday evening, the week is just beginning and I have no idea what will be going on as the days progress. If you want to know however, you will have to spend a bit of time finding out in Toledo's largest Sunday circulation and Best Weekly Newspaper, the Toledo Free Press.

LegislativeTheory

One popular legislative theory today holds that if you create a bill that's massive and all-encompassing, you will be able to create a law so complicated that not only will no one be able to fully comprehend it (including the lawmakers who ostensibly wrote it), but no future legislature will be able to walk it back. Equally popular is another theory, that says that the best way to achieve this goal is to instead create a multitude of single purpose laws dedicated to a grand design, in the knowledge that by doing so future legislatures will find it impossible to discover and repeal all of them and allow the original purpose to be served. 


Both legislative theories have proven themselves correct, though they deserve no credit for doing so. Rather than proving to be of benefit to the governed, what they've mostly done is to pile insult upon injury. What none of these legislators and legislatures seem capable of acknowledging is their own potential fallibility.  


What in fact, would make any elected official believe that they are capable of (or required to) create a body of laws to cover every aspect of life; and protect the electorate not only from life's toil and trouble, but from themselves? The harm caused from such legislative theory is not restricted to legislatures however. There are after all three branches of government in this country, and the other two are not to be so easily kept from the party. For their part, the Executive branch at every level of government attempts to filter this fire hydrant-like stream of legislative excess (and assert their own control over the process) by selectively enforcing the bills passed into law. 


Those in control of enforcement watch and approve as legislatures across the country pass laws banning cell phone use and texting while driving, while failing to enforce existing laws against 'driving while distracted' that cover a far greater variety of equally dangerous actions. The federal government chooses which parts of immigration law it will enforce and aggressively attacks state governments who seek to enforce the rest. That same federal government selectively pursues voter intimidation law in the case of the Black Panthers in Philadelphia in spite of its own Department of Justice establishing a prima facie case. 


When legislatures fail to serve the grand design of the Executive branch's vision of the country, it simply bypasses the legislative process and resorts to 'Executive Orders' and bureaucratic regulation to get its way. 


Not to be outdone in this contest of wills, the Courts likewise take their turn in the theoretical mayhem. They decide who has standing to challenge existing law (whether they agree that such law violates state or federal Constitutions or not), thereby passively allowing bad laws to stand and good laws to go unenforced. Judges likewise make quick, indecisive, or arbitrary decisions; knowing that doing so is good 'politics' for positions that require re-election, and that regardless of their ruling, the losing side will appeal the decision to a higher level. 


The Judicial process at local, state, and federal levels has become so over-burdened and interminably slow that by the time any final determination is made, the law is firmly entrenched in society and impossible to walk back regardless of the ruling. No matter however, for whether the Judicial branch is able or chooses to rule on the rare challenge made, many more laws remain on the books long after they have become obsolete, ineffective, or just plain stupid.  


For example: In Kansas it is illegal: 
- To shoot rabbit from motorboats. 
- To fish with your bare hands. 
- If two trains meet on the same track, neither shall proceed until the other has passed. 


Ohio instead finds it is illegal: 
- To fish for whales on Sunday. 
- To get a fish drunk. 
- For women to wear patent leather shoes in public. 


In Illinois however, you may be arrested: 
- For vagrancy if you don't have at least $1 in your pocket. 
- If you fail to contact the police before entering a city in an automobile. 


In Chicago: 
- It's illegal for any business to enter into a contract with the city unless it has first checked its records and reported any dealing that it had with slaves in the era of slavery. 
- It's likewise illegal to fish while sitting on a giraffe's neck. 


In New York on the other hand, it's illegal: 
- For citizens to greet each other by putting their thumb to their nose and wiggling their fingers. 
- To throw a ball at someone's head. 
... and my favorite 
- The punishment for jumping off a building is death. 


The whole sad process often seems little more than a comedy of political errors, when not an attempt at forced behavior modification by legislative fiat. Legislatures have long sought (and failed) to establish societal morality by legislative fiat with the force of government behind them. Once you get past the pettiness, the self-righteousness, and lunacy; the only law that ultimately triumphs from these efforts is the one of unintended consequences. It is small wonder consequently that when considering the legislative theory that legislatures at every level of government use, they are held today in so little regard.

Bureaucratic Tipping Point

Like many things throughout history, government bureaucracies may have reached a tipping point in this country. Once considered essential to protection, most (like their union counterparts) have long since become little more than self-perpetuating parasites whose major, if not only concern is in increasing their own size and budget. 


These leeches have grown in number and flourished under oversight responsibilities long ignored by a Congress more concerned with re-election, bring home pork projects, and protecting their own favored status than they are about doing their jobs. But some of these agencies are beginning to reach new levels of arrogance in their continuing efforts at control of every aspect of society, while ignoring any attempts at restraint. 


Two particularly egregious examples of this occurred just this week. Janet Napolitano, the Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), announced the formation of a task force charged with "identifying and assessing the impact that climate change could have on the missions and operations of the Department of Homeland Security". 


The idea proposed here is that the concept man caused global climate change is now a matter of national security. The claim that follows is that since the DHS is in charge of FEMA (Federal Emergency Management Agency), that it needs to extend its mandate into the areas of global climate in order to deal with flooding, wildfires, and hurricane activity caused by such climate change. 


Setting aside that most if not all of the claims tying global climate change to every recent disaster happening in the world are anecdotal, that the model changes on an almost weekly basis, and that there is little or no evidence to back them up; it nevertheless remains that the expansion of her responsibilities is not up to her. Congress in fact created the DHS after the events of 9/11, and set up its mandate under the Homeland Security Act of 2002 to attempt to deal with protection from further attacks. 


In addition to creating this cabinet level department and post in the first place, Congress is further responsible for funding the department for its mandated activities. Since this funding level was set up before the current expansion, one cannot help but wonder therefore what part of their existing responsibilities they will choose to de-fund in order to take on these new ones. Considering that DHS (also in charge of the TSA) failed to recently prevent a man from accidentally bringing a loaded gun on an airplane in Houston, is facing increasing derision for the body scan and pat down policy that has proved all but useless and treats all this country's citizens as potential terrorists, and has failed almost entirely in securing the southern border of this country from the incursion of potential terrorists, continued violation of this border by illegal aliens, and the expansion of Mexican drug cartels; one would think it a tad over-reaching for this department to attempt to expand its responsibilities rather than to properly fulfill its original mandate. 


 DHS is not alone however, and the Federal Communications Commission has likewise moved this week to extend (or perhaps overextend) its regulating responsibilities. 


Yesterday the FCC adopted regulatory control of the internet in the form of "Net Neutrality". The FCC proposes to protect service providers from blocking or slowing access to certain websites, in spite of the fact that such a problem currently doesn't exist. What it will do however, is create a foothold for the FCC in controlling the internet and the beginnings of a regulatory morass that service providers and website hosts alike will have to negotiate in the future. Worse still, is the fact that doing this, the FCC is ignoring the authority of other government branches in its attempt at expansion of its mandate. Congress has already warned the FCC that it has no legal standing for interference where the internet is concerned, and will undoubtedly consider striking down this new expansion by joint resolution. Such a resolution already has wide bi-partisan support, and having the FCC ignore a letter sent to it by 30 Republican Senators last week will undoubtedly add to cry to follow through on doing so. 


Additionally, the FCC makes this move despite a ruling by the DC Circuit Court of Appeals (the court which holds authority in such matters), which told them specifically that they have no authority in the area of traffic management on the internet. 


These two agencies are not alone in writing their own rules, and this is a problem that we often see when dealing with unelected officials. The IRS and SEC can both run their hearings using a rule of 'guilty until proven innocent' regardless of the fact that this goes against existing legal principle in this country. The EPA can decide on its own to assume regulation of carbon dioxide in spite of the fact that it is a naturally produced substance. The USDA can determine the number of bake sales held as school fund raisers and the type of food that can be sold at them, whether this has anything to do with 'Agriculture' or not. 


These unelected sycophants largely ignore common sense, the rule of law, and their elected and judicial counterparts as irrelevant and temporary obstacles to the assumption of increasing power and control they deem necessary to protect us from ourselves. They deem themselves far wiser than the rest of us and above the law ... because for the most part, they are allowed to. While ostensibly operating for our protection, the only ones truly protected in all of this massive regulatory process are the increasing number of government functionaries seeking an ever greater control over every aspect of our lives. 


The increasing pace of this expansion and encroachment may now well have reached a tipping point where such continued growth becomes almost unstoppable however, and the increasing number of regulations (over 78,000 pages of them according to the Federal Register) almost insure that at some point soon every aspect of our lives will fall under the auspices of bureaucratic control and everyone will be in violation of something.

The New Governent Cookie Monster

Update 12/13/10: 
This was signed into law by President Obama today saying, "Had I not been able to get this bill passed, I would be sleeping on the couch." The first lady, presumably the one who would have been assigning sleeping arrangements, applauded bi-partisan support for the bill which she said would insure that "no child should go to school hungry." I would add, "unless they want a cookie..." 


For those of you who believe your federal government has lost its focus on what's really important these days (or just its mind), the proof may just have finally presented itself. 


At a time when Congress cannot seem to agree on a budget months after the current fiscal year has begun, nor decided on what tax rate you are going to pay next year; they have found time to decide what home-made treats can be sold at school bake sales. No, I'm not kidding about this. Senate Bill S3307 (The Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act) has cleared both Senate and House votes, and awaits only the president's signature to become the law of the land. Among other things, it will allow the Secretary of Agriculture and the USDA to limit the number of bake sales held at schools and the type of foods sold at those events. 


At a time of concern over the amount of money being spent by a government already drowning in debt, it will also provide an additional $4.5 billion in funding over the next ten years for free meal programs in and out of school, and nutritional education programs for food service providers at these institutions of learning. (I was tempted to say Government Indoctrination Centers, but my tin foil hat slipped off as I was typing and I managed to forebear.) 


Setting aside the contradictory evidence that the sale of sugary treats at school events is the root cause of childhood obesity in this country, one has to wonder why enlightened administrators and educators in this country are not the best judges of calorie and fund generating activities in their respective schools than a faceless federal bureaucrat who has probably never seen the place. 


It likewise seems curious that these college-educated instructors should not be able to agree that the issue is little more than a simple math problem to determine that the number of calories burned in activity subtracted from the number of calories ingested has more to do with producing the result shown on a bathroom scale than what's on the table at a bake sale. 


Can government be so fat-headed that they believe that yet another law or an additional program will somehow produce a different result in this equation? Can common sense where diet and exercise are concerned in fact be legislated? (Not that I'm looking to open that can of worms ...) And will such rigid control of bake sales actually produce the desired result? Can the cake or pie addict not self-medicate at the local grocery store or restaurant? Can the pizza junkie not only order his drug of choice by phone or online, but have it delivered? Can those suffering withdrawal symptoms from a serious doughnut or cookie habit not stop at the local Krispy Kreme or Duncan Donuts to still the tremors? 


Perhaps more importantly, doesn't the Secretary of Agriculture and USDA have better things to do than monitor fund raising events designed to replace money that government can no longer provide for school activities? Don't school administrators, already in short supply and buried under a mountain of government compliance paperwork, not have better things to do than fill out more of it? 


Doesn't Congress have more important subjects to concern itself with than stepping on the personal initiative (and self-esteem) of students attempting to show some school spirit andsupplement funding for a school band or football team? 


The whole thing would be laughable if it were not so tragic. Fat cat politicians who are normally more concerned with participating in pounding down heart stopping, calorie crushing lunches and rubber chicken fund raising dinners believe that they are the best judges of food intake in this country. Bureaucrats normally more focused with the expansion of their own bloated budgets than with tightening their belts are supposed to micro-manage the fund-raising and diet activities of students that are under their control eight hours a day, five days a week, nine months out of the year. 


I used to believe that 'The Cookie Monster' was an irreplaceable bright blue Muppet created by Jim Henson who first made his appearance in 1969. It now appears however that even this lovable "Sesame Street" fixture is capable of falling prey to the a government takeover. Do not expect Secretary of Agriculture Tom Vilsack to be nearly as cute and cuddly, nor to be using the all too familiar line, "Me want cookie" however. It seems far more likely that his government imposed script will be adapted from that of the "Seinfeld" character the Soup Nazi, "No cookie for you".

Diversity

It is sometimes interesting to see how a word, or a concept is used in real life. Take for example, the concept of diversity. We hear it preached at us every day. We need to encourage a diversity of races in this country. We need to be compassionate for a diversity of religious beliefs. We need to appreciate a diversity of lifestyles. 


In fact, we seem to encourage every form of diversity except a diversity in the ideas, laws, and regulations we are governed under. Why is this form of diversity somehow objectionable. This was certainly not something that we inherited from the Founding Fathers. 


In fact this country was formed by independent states with diverse assets, needs, and goals; that somehow managed to band together for a common purpose. They understood at the time that such an alliance did not force them to surrender such diversity, but in fact cherish and encourage it. So it is that many state constitutions are different (and yet they seem to govern effectively), that the forms that state legislatures take are likewise manifold, and that state laws are in fact more than diverse, being more of a cornucopia of common sense and nonsense. 


One could almost believe that this hodgepodge of legislative efforts was almost intentional on the part of the Founders, as an additional protection against the encroachment of an inherently flawed (as any endeavors of men are bound to be) central government. 


The Federal government for its part however, stifles the very diversity that it claims to desire. In spite of what I am sure are mostly (OK, sometimes) good intentions, the national government can usually be counted on to get it wrong and to write it in stone as it does so. Instead of carefully cultivating and encouraging the states as petri dishes of legislative and bureaucratic experimentation in the possible to be nurtured and cherished, the Federal government instead attempts to coerce and compel states to follow national dictates to the letter. Woe betide the state government that attempts to create or enforce state law that does not conform and kowtow to the legislative and regulatory commandments of the national level. In fact, the full weight of public opinion, of the media, and of the Justice Department is destined to come crashing down on the state that attempts to diverge from national preeminence. (As Arizona found out to its sorrow.) 


As for their own 'experiments', never was the scientific method given such a short shrift. Such studies are usually begun with a pre-determined final report already in place. Experimentation is in fact limited to how much money might be necessary to give such efforts 'a fair chance'. Once a goal and a budget has been determined, equally foreordained results are sure to follow; as bureaucrats attach themselves to funding like a barnacle to a ship. And like that simpler (and perhaps more intelligent) parasite, they continue to draw sustenance from their position of security while impairing their host in the process. 


I have nothing against the concept of diversity, and in fact find it an often worthy ambition (when it's not used in and of itself as a goal). Strange then that our national government (its champion) stifles such ambition and diversity in its name. Perhaps however, it's simply like the character Inigo Montoyo points out in "The Princess Bride" when speaking about the word 'inconceivable': "You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means."

What's In A Name?

Having recently had parts of The Bi-Partisan Campaign Reform Act (better known as McCain-Feingold) struck down by the Supreme Court, you would think that Congress would hesitate to once again attempt to institute controls in campaign finance mostly designed to insure re-election of incumbents. 


Proving once again that no bad idea should be abandoned however, such an effort recently saw the light of day in the form of The DISCLOSE Act. Congress claimed yet again that election spending must be both restrained and transparent lest the entire electoral process implode from rampant abuse. (Would that Congress could turn the same careful scrutiny on its own hidden and unrestrained spending.) Debate on the issue was blocked in the Senate however by a Republican minority that is often accused of the most heinous abuses in this area. 


The demand for restraint and transparency called for by Democrats might seem ironic however, considering the lack of either behavior on the part of the sitting President (also a Democrat, by the way) in the last election; even though the supposed protections afforded by McCain-Feingold were in place (though it must be conceded in all fairness that such behavior was not strictly required of him under its provisions, since he took no federal matching funds). 


There was little redeeming in this latest failed legislative effort, excepting perhaps for its name (or more accurately, its acronym): Democracy Is Strengthened by Casting Light On Spending in Election. Even those of us who believe that such legislation is misguided at best, and an abridgment of the rights of free speech and assembly in this country at worst, had to admit that the name was a damned good one. For all of its failings, Congress it appears is quite good at the business of adroitly labeling its sometimes odorous pieces of tripe in order to disguise their maleficence. 


Take for example the recently passed health care reform legislation, known in Congress as The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. As we are only now beginning to discover (you have to pass it to know what's in it), this cleverly named bit of legal maneuvering apparently provides little in the way of a true patient bulwark, and even less in the way of affordable care (unless perhaps, through the potential affordability that rationing provides). It proved a very clever alias though, if what you were attempting was to obscure the legislation's inherent deficiencies. 


Yet another example might be recently passed financial reform, known in the Capitol as The Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform Act. Although little was done in this edict to prevent banks from the risky investments or the mortgage industry from the abuses that triggered the fall of Wall Street (and encouraged Congress to spend trillions in bailout money), and though it might be considered questionable to saddle this law with the names of two members of Congress who failed in their oversight responsibilities during the crisis that brought its supposed necessity; the name of this law admirably performed the required function of concealing its failings. 


The Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (better known as the Stimulus Bill) was yet another classic example of a well-named wolf in sheep's clothing; performing apparently little in the way of actual recovery (a topic still argued by economists attempting their own financial recovery through articles, books, and mainstream media appearances) and even less in the way of spending that could be called real reinvestment (excepting of course, investing in the growth of government). 


One cannot help but look at such practices and hearken back to the heady days of the 2008 election, when then candidate Barack Obama said: "You can put lipstick on a pig. It's still a pig." in order to characterize the program of legislative changes proposed by his opponents. Both candidates (and their running mates) went on to make "lipstick on a pig" iconic for the attempt to cover up something awful through the application of external enhancement to hide its true ugliness. 


And while it often seems that Congress is incapable of doing anything of real value for the country with the exception of taking frequent recesses, credit must be given where it's due (probably to creative staff members) for perhaps proving that the lipstick rule has exceptions. Even when their legislative efforts are intrusive, onerous, or downright dangerous; Congress has managed to artfully disguise their true intent to regulate, restrain, and defraud the American people through appellations that are little more than the masterful application of surface decoration to porcine labium. (See, I can do it too!) What's in a name? When it comes to the naming of legislation by Congress, apparently far more than legislators attempting to perform the function of cosmetologists hope we can see through.

The Stupid Treatment

Is it just me, or has the world begun treating people as a lot more stupid in recent history? I find myself asking this question regularly as I look at the way that we are being treated by everything from entertainment to politics. I submit the following as evidence:

• Television networks seemed convinced that we will be entertained by shows about about the lives of people whose company we would take great pains to avoid.
• Pharmaceutical companies attempt to convince us in commercials to have a doctor put us on medications that have the potential of causing such side effects as rectal bleeding or death.
• Syndicated radio shows that we can listen to for free attempt to convince us that I should instead pay them a monthly fee to watch them perform this show on our computers. (How we are supposed to work using that computer while doing so is strangely left unexplained.)
• Infomercials seemed convinced that our lives would be truly fulfilled if we would only start that collection of quarters, buy a new set of knives, or trade in a working vacuum cleaner for any one of a dozen different new ones. (That is of course, when they are not telling us that they know the secret of making money, and they will share it if we share some of our money with them. I know it too, it's getting a bunch of mooks to send you a check to learn your secret.)
• The lawyers in Congress tell us that health care is too expensive because the doctors make too much money, while the doctors say that the cost increases in medicine are mostly about the cost of hiring lawyers to defend themselves in lawsuits.
• Car companies provide a warranty on the engine and drive train of up to 100,000 miles, but provide little or no warranty on the body or interior of the car. (What good the engine and drive train will do me without the body and interior has yet to be explained.)
• Some scientists tell us that the human race must stop producing greenhouse gases before they drive the temperature up from 2 to 10 degrees and melt the polar ice caps causing cataclysmic floods. Then they tell us that if we do so, it will only make about .5 degrees difference in those increases.
• Karl Rove (the Deputy Chief of Staff under former Republican president George W. Bush) wants us to believe that what's wrong with the country today is that Democrats are spending too much money, when the Administration that he worked for was doing pretty much the same thing on only a slightly smaller scale.
• Democratic Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi tells us that Congress needs to pass health care legislation first, so that we can learn what's in it afterward. (which may not make sense but does kind of solve the problem that Congress has been having in reading bills before voting on them)

I'm sure that there is a reasonable and logical explanation for the apparent disconnect of such information, but I'm damned if I can figure out what it is, which is I suppose why I at least am considered stupid. 


Now perhaps there is a government study currently going on somewhere, consuming vast amounts of tax-supported resources to come up with a truly scholarly work on the subject. Have no fear however, when and if the answer is finally released in such a ponderous document written in academic code, we will all probably be too stupid to understand it.

New City Legislation

On Tuesday, City Council stepped forward to pass new legislation to make it illegal to pass a bicycle without a minimum safe passing distance of at least three feet. Councilman Steve Steel sponsored this legislation, stating after its passage that even though it would very soon become law: - that it was not currently seen as a problem in the city - that it would be difficult to enforce - that it would not of much concern to police - that for the most part, the law would only serve simply on an educational basis (assuming of course that it's not forgotten in the next month). 

Perhaps however the real impetus to pass such legislation, much like the rush to pass the texting legislation currently under review, was to allow grandstanding politicians to get ahead of a parade of similar legislation currently under consideration at the state level in so as to appear even more caring to voters. 

Now some of you may remember that I tried to deal with this law, as well as the previously mentioned local texting while driving ordinance under consideration in my proposed TOAD (Toledo Omnibus Auto / Bicycle texting while Driving) legislation last week. Obviously, I was not only unsuccessful in getting these two pieces of legislative nonsense combined, but equally impotent in getting them thrown down to defeat.  

Not to be deterred however, I am seeking to change tactics, seeking a different kind of legislation for Toledo. I now am therefore proposing the Add / Subtract Stupid Laws for Toledo. This legislation, which for simplicity's sake will be dubbed the "ASS Laws for Toledo" will seek to force council to remove one stupid law from the books every time that they add a new stupid law to them. 

My hope is that if we cannot prevent City Council from continuing to pass legislation best used as natural plant fertilizer, that we can at least try to maintain a consistent relative volume of such ignorant pronouncements on the legal books of Toledo. I urge each of you to call or email your district City Council person, and all of the at-large members of council, and urge them to vote for the ASS Laws for Toledo.  

Update: 

It has been brought to my attention that some people may be offended by the acronym used for the proposed landmark legislation that I have put forward. It appears that the word "ASS" can be considered offensive (possibly by those who feel that they could be considered one themselves). 

An alternate acronym has therefore been called for, and while I am obviously disappointed after all of the previously expended effort in coming up with this rather clever acronym, in the end I find that the principle of the law itself is more important than the name by which we call it. I have therefore withdrawn any objection to a change (and besides, if just one life is saved ...). As a consequence, please feel free to now use DUMB as the replacement name for this proposed legislation, with this acronym in turn standing for Delete Unnecessary Municipal Bullshit. 

Understanding that words do mean things, I have promised to apologize for any offense that might have been caused to members of City Council for the use of what was apparently considered an offensive acronym if any such elected representative of the city will apologize to me for what I consider the even more egregious offense of the idiotic legislation being debated in City Council when they have more important things to do.