Reform School

“Reform” is a common concept in government. My experience has been that whenever government reforms something, it will inevitably be worse. The nine-letter word “reforming” coincides with the nine-letter result: Imscrewed. Big government statists cannot resist increasing government size or power. That is one stark illustration of why the so-called “War on Drugs” has been a forty-year failure. Government and its political enablers have an addiction problem that is much more harmful for the nation than any individual’s reliance on an illicit substance. The only government program that has succeeded at any measurable level is the “War on Liberty” that was begun with little fanfare one century ago.

You may recall the “Tax Reform Act of 1986.” That overhaul was a result of an agreement between President Reagan and Speaker O’Neill. The President agreed to some tax increases in the “reform” bill in exchange for sizable spending cuts in subsequent budgets.  As usual the spending cuts never materialized and a radical transform of the tax code went forward. Prior to the 1986 tax bill interest expenses were deductible, but after passage, credit card and non-mortgage, non-business interest payments were no longer allowed as tax deductions. Personally, interest deductions are not important for me. I would rather eliminate the income tax altogether and eliminate the incessant tinkering and tweaking that costs taxpayers more money while Congress rewards its favored groups or companies.

So, as a brief summary of the prologue, reform generally represents more of the same though worse. As an example, please join me in a “quickie’ review of Ohio Sub. HB 194…of the 129^th General Assembly.

This so-called election administrative reform bill is similar to many other bills under consideration by our legislative bodies. Its provisions resemble tentacles as they weave and wind around so many facets of Ohio election law, and yet….this purportedly comprehensive overhaul ignores a gorilla in the room…a gaping intentional oversight in violation of a court order. The aspect of ballot access for minor parties was never addressed, thus allowing the existing law to stand which had earlier been declared unfair by the court. Similar to Obamacare and so many legislative initiatives, Sub. HB 194 addresses several areas of concern that could result in some unanticipated problems because of the breadth of the bill.

The Ohio bill must have some merit because President Obama’s campaign is opposed to it because of its stricter provisions regarding voter identification…..could possibly limit cheating, and thus, is not Obama-friendly. The legislation covers a broad scale of issues affecting Ohio elections such as we “cannot assume that poll workers erred.” Proof must be submitted before allegations or assumptions are allowed. Clearly the Voter I.D. provision is the lightning rod of the bill as liberals, progressives, Marxists and cheaters are fearful that a photo I.D. would minimize their opportunities for stealing elections.

An omnibus bill that purports to reform a broad swath of law is inherently doomed. Unintended consequences will cling to the legislation like flies to road kill. Opponents will target one or more aspects of the legislation and may seek judicial intervention. Forecasting what some judges would do is similar to predicting when and where a first raindrop may land. Broad based initiatives allow the dedicated public servants to crow about their major accomplishments, and at the same time, condense the heavy lifting of formulating meaningful legislation. This in turn generates more free time for lobbyist-funded meals and adult beverages.

Admittedly I am a skeptic and a cynic, but I do suspect that some omnibus bills are staff-created legislative shortcuts for elected officials. If there is a sincere intent to dramatically change the status quo, the omnibus bill does provide some cover in the sense that changes that may inspire opposition could perhaps, maybe, theoretically, possibly get lost in the weeds of a broad undertaking. In addition, a huge bill that deals with various facets of state law (elections for example) has many sponsors, co-sponsors and amendment sponsors so that disgruntled citizens or groups may find it difficult to place blame for what they believe to be an egregious legislative result. While the omnibus bill may provide a cloak of anonymity for its advocates, it may also lead to glaring oversights….legislators and staff members become so enamored with the forest that individual trees lose their identities.

As the kind trusting person that I am, I will assume that the “too-broad, glaring-omission” explanation is the logical one for the failure of Sub. HB 194 to address the issue of minor party ballot access. Clearly, the elected members of the Ohio General Assembly believe in the Republic and the rights of citizens to freely elect their representatives. Obviously the members of the Ohio House and Ohio Senate would do nothing that intentionally enables a continuing duopoly of power, thought and avarice. After all, the two old parties have shared power, meals and drinks for more than 150 years so it cannot be possible that third-party competition would be seriously challenging to them. Right?

Intentional self-serving denial of opportunity in a republic is just as loathsome as a poll tax or a literacy test. When two parties hold absolute control of the election apparatus, logical reasoning would lead one to believe that power will be misapplied. Because the two old parties have controlled the election apparatus across the nation for so long, they have not been seriously challenged to account for their malfeasance, misfeasance and misdeeds. We have all been losers because of the lack of electoral accountability. Reform? Yeah, right.

Comment:  cearlwriting@hotmail.com   

www.littlestuff-minoosha.blogspot.com

Tue & Wed, 6-7pm on 1370 WSPD, Toledo   www.wspd.com

Reform, Repair, Reject or...Reset.

Anytime a politician at any level of government utters the words “reform or fix,” jump on your pony and head for the hills. You have probably heard the old bromide that “the cure is more deadly than the disease.” How about another old saying to set the tone for our discussion: “Too many cooks spoil the broth.” First of all, I am absolutely opposed to dictatorships, but on the other hand, how can we expect 535 senators and house members to legislate fairly and reasonably for 300 million people? Inevitably, oxen are gored. Our society has functioned as a mobile one in the sense that an individual could through his/her own efforts change his station in life. It seems, therefore, to attempt to legislate for the greater good of the majority is a doomed proposition. Today’s majority may become tomorrow’s toothless minority. In addition, the ponderous process leading from idea to enacted law often puts government response behind the curve. Meanwhile private sector entities that might be equipped to solve the issues addressed by Congress stand down while waiting for the legislative process to runs its course…and the problem either becomes worse or goes away.


Obviously there are government programs or aspects of our lives that could benefit from reform or repair, but when the government attempts to implement the necessary tweaks, they often use a sledgehammer approach. Consequently, the result is less efficiency, more cost, more frustration and less personal freedom. Another old cliché states that a camel is a horse designed by a committee. That is an apt illustration of most government attempts to fix a problem…usually a problem that had initially been created by government ineptness. Tweaking—the fine tuning of an apparatus—could be considered a form of repairing. Reforming is a make over, and repairing is changing the eyeliner. The heavy hand of government, however, often attempts to repair something by using an ice pick to apply the new eyeliner. The result is usually blindingly inefficient and unworkable.

At the present time, public opinion polls would suggest that citizens prefer rejecting the massive number of “reform” proposals that are swirling around the U.S. Capitol. The people seem to be encouraging legislators to follow the medical rule, “first, do no harm.” I have designed and executed polls, and I am generally suspicious about the reliability and validity factors of polls reported in the popular press. But still (another cliché) “where there’s smoke, there’s fire.” In other words, the level of skepticism and discontent that is demonstrated in the polls may not be accurate, but “the natives are clearly becoming restless.” So, rejection of any effort to “reform” may be a reasonable approach to many of the measures before the Congress.

There is a fourth approach to the bevy of issues that confront the nation at this time. It is the one that I prefer. I know, however, that it is the least likely to be applied. Reset…fold the tent, rebuild the foundation, and erect the structure to fit the foundation. Our Founders provided us with a foundation that provided for more personal liberty than at any time in the history of human governing, and we blew it. We have allowed our sloth and our utopian fantasies to lead us down the path of voluntary servitude. We have ignorantly placed our trust in “leaders” whose primary motivation was not the well-being of the nation, but in their own accumulation of power and their insatiable thirst for reelection. They buy us off with baubles. We take the trinkets and give them our “Manhattans.” At the end, we have some cheap costume jewelry, and they own the island. So, my dream, my prayer is that we have the courage to reset. I fervently hope that we have the wisdom to rebuild on the foundation of freedom that they built for us. I long for a nation--actually a people—the loves personal liberty. I wish that I can live long enough to witness the reset of the U.S.A., but if not, I ask for the courage to die for it.

Please respond if you wish, or email me:  cnpearl@woh.rr.com