Abba has been selected to be enshrined in the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame. Quick: spell Abba backwards. Personally, I’m pleased that they will be honored. Platform shoes, plaid suits, and rather hot ladies have finally been recognized and given their rightful place in modern musical history. If my fading memory hasn’t deceived me, I seem to recall that in their early years of international recording, Abba sang the English versions of their songs phonetically because they didn’t speak the language. While I was pondering this little factoid (or fantasy-toid), I heard on the news that the Senate version of the Healthcare Reform Bill had not yet been written. Or if it had been committed to paper, then Senate Majority Leader, Harry (Dimbulb) Reid had it safely sequestered in an undisclosed location (probably in Al Gore’s Social Security lockbox).
Whoa, what a coincidence! As I listened to the various senators, pundits and newscasters discussing the Senate bill, I was struck with the nagging sense that they were just like Abba. They were mouthing the words, but they didn’t know the language. How mind-boggling is that? A bill that is more than two thousand pages (we suspect) that may contain measures that will radically alter one-sixth to one-fifth of the U.S. economy, and they do not know what’s in it. I have this mental picture of Senator Reid with a humongous bottle of White Out in his hand, opening the lockbox, pulling out the pallet of paper and making his daily alterations. The point is…how can a mystery bill of such great magnitude be rationally debated if only a few people know what’s in it? What’s wrong with this picture? I know what the Majority Leader is doing. He is attempting to secure sixty or more votes for his proposal before submitting it to open examination and condemnation. So, what we have is the American Beef Producers discussing Jello. Instead of a thorough analysis of real meat, we have duck and feint shadow boxing. Meanwhile, the majority staff diligently labors to produce a far reaching document that is all things to all people (at least 60 of them) while siphoning more droplets of freedom from the people.
On a related matter, I’m quite concerned about the power of congressional staff people. Members may come and go (not frequently enough), but staffers stay there forever…unless they run for their former bosses old seat. It has been a “red light” for me for many years, but I was reminded anew by a note in www.Redstate.com by Erick Erickson. He identified a communications weasel for the Senate Republican Campaign Committee named Brian Walsh. Basically, Erick suggested that Walsh preferred to have the committee support moderate or liberal republicans at the expense of more conservative ones. The SRCC is not an official committee of the Senate, but is wholly controlled by the republican members. If an entity under the purview of the more conservative party cannot refrain from supporting liberals and moderates, how can one expect the staffs of the formal committees of the Senate to be cognizant of conservative policies? How can we expect those staff members to endorse personal freedom when the power of the collective is so appealing? How can we expect entrenched staffers to cherish liberty when they fervently promote larger government?
Can we term limit congressional staff? If Members of Congress can catch Potomac Fever, then what do we do about staff members who contract Potomac Fossilization? If you suspect that I am overreacting, then peruse the voting results from The District, Southern Maryland and Northern Virginia. Permanent staff and federal bureaucrats are clustered in those areas. Overwhelmingly leftist and pro-big government, they trek into the city everyday to wreak their havoc, and then retreat to their safe havens after demolishing our personal freedoms. There must be an answer.
Romans 8:15 informs us that “Abba” means Father.
Father, help us.
Friday, December 18, 2009
Wednesday, December 16, 2009
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 or email: cnpearl@woh.rr.com
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 or email: cnpearl@woh.rr.com
Sunday, December 13, 2009
Three reasons
There was an obituary in today’s Toledo Blade (I know, a liberal rag) that prompted me to engage in some reflective self-analysis. Twenty-five years ago this month my service as a member of the Ohio House of Representatives ended. There were a number of factors that influenced my decision to not run for reelection in 1984, but it was a choice that I have not regretted for this past quarter century. The obituary was for my opponent in 1982…my final race. The gentleman’s name was Bob Heft, recognized designer of the 50-star flag and the mayor of Napoleon, Ohio. Bob was a decent guy and a worthy adversary. His passing and the twenty-fifth anniversary of my leaving legislature have caused me to examine how my political views have shifted though the years.
When I began my legislative sojourn in 1981, I was generally conservative…reflecting my background as a farm boy who became a small business operator in a small town. After encountering the cacophony of interests that surround the statehouse in Columbus, I found that if my representation were to have any coherence and consistency, then I had better more clearly define my principles for decision making. Early on it was apparent to me that many legislative proposals either ignored potential negative side effects or overlooked possible intervening variables that could hijack the original intent of the legislation. My positions began to harden, and my willingness to vote “no” grew dramatically. I began to resent the “we must have a bill” attitude that I observed from both sides of the isle. In my view, more often than not, no bill was far superior to any bad bill. Despite my frequent “no” votes state government continued to grow larger. So did the federal government, and as the state and feds issued mandates and “revenue sharing” schemes, so too, did the local governments. I witnessed very few cost efficiencies or improvements in service delivery.
Many large corporations and business associations have lobbyists representing them at the state house. Given that the state budget has grown so large, it’s only natural that they believe it necessary to lobby in order to protect themselves from hurtful legislation. It didn’t take me very long to detect that big government and big corporations were very similar in some respects. They have no hearts, no minds and no souls. That observation led me to conclude that those were the three primary reasons for my opposition to larger government and government’s willingness to engage in “sweetheart” legislation with large corporations. One of my constituents helped me arrive at that realization. He was a gentleman in his eighties who owned a small manufacturing company that did specialty work for the automotive industry. As he was guiding me on a tour of his facility, I remarked that surely his company had the potential for phenomenal growth. He agreed but said that they had chosen not to grow larger. “Representative Earl,” he said, “ we have 180 people working here now. I know every one of them, most of their spouses, and many of their children’s names. We cannot be as efficient and productive as we are now if we become so large that the employees can’t bitch to the owner on a first name basis.” This may not be an exact quote, but its pretty close. That lesson has stayed with me for more that twenty five years.
No private corporation is too big to fail. If a company becomes so sluggish that is inefficient, or their customer service fails to address the problems of the customer, then they should be allowed to drift away. New, more aggressive and innovative competitors will fill the void. Big government has no competitors to step up when it does not fulfill its mandate. It simply grows larger by claiming it needs more resources. As we have seen, when big government and big business work hand-in-hand to prop up one another, the superstructure becomes a house of cards. The insatiable government continues to consume more of the nation’s wealth, and the mega-corporations who are connected to the governmental umbilical cord fail to improve while the more efficient competitors are placed at a competitive disadvantage.
No heart, no mind, no soul. Three reasons for my becoming a passionate believer in personal freedom. Three reasons for my fear and loathing of an overreaching, uncontrollable government.
RIP Bob Heft.
Oh, there are three more reasons that I call for a saner government. They are twelve year old Shaun, ten year old Erin, and Sully, who will soon be eight months old. My grandchildren.
Your comments are welcome or email: cnpearl@woh.rr.com
When I began my legislative sojourn in 1981, I was generally conservative…reflecting my background as a farm boy who became a small business operator in a small town. After encountering the cacophony of interests that surround the statehouse in Columbus, I found that if my representation were to have any coherence and consistency, then I had better more clearly define my principles for decision making. Early on it was apparent to me that many legislative proposals either ignored potential negative side effects or overlooked possible intervening variables that could hijack the original intent of the legislation. My positions began to harden, and my willingness to vote “no” grew dramatically. I began to resent the “we must have a bill” attitude that I observed from both sides of the isle. In my view, more often than not, no bill was far superior to any bad bill. Despite my frequent “no” votes state government continued to grow larger. So did the federal government, and as the state and feds issued mandates and “revenue sharing” schemes, so too, did the local governments. I witnessed very few cost efficiencies or improvements in service delivery.
Many large corporations and business associations have lobbyists representing them at the state house. Given that the state budget has grown so large, it’s only natural that they believe it necessary to lobby in order to protect themselves from hurtful legislation. It didn’t take me very long to detect that big government and big corporations were very similar in some respects. They have no hearts, no minds and no souls. That observation led me to conclude that those were the three primary reasons for my opposition to larger government and government’s willingness to engage in “sweetheart” legislation with large corporations. One of my constituents helped me arrive at that realization. He was a gentleman in his eighties who owned a small manufacturing company that did specialty work for the automotive industry. As he was guiding me on a tour of his facility, I remarked that surely his company had the potential for phenomenal growth. He agreed but said that they had chosen not to grow larger. “Representative Earl,” he said, “ we have 180 people working here now. I know every one of them, most of their spouses, and many of their children’s names. We cannot be as efficient and productive as we are now if we become so large that the employees can’t bitch to the owner on a first name basis.” This may not be an exact quote, but its pretty close. That lesson has stayed with me for more that twenty five years.
No private corporation is too big to fail. If a company becomes so sluggish that is inefficient, or their customer service fails to address the problems of the customer, then they should be allowed to drift away. New, more aggressive and innovative competitors will fill the void. Big government has no competitors to step up when it does not fulfill its mandate. It simply grows larger by claiming it needs more resources. As we have seen, when big government and big business work hand-in-hand to prop up one another, the superstructure becomes a house of cards. The insatiable government continues to consume more of the nation’s wealth, and the mega-corporations who are connected to the governmental umbilical cord fail to improve while the more efficient competitors are placed at a competitive disadvantage.
No heart, no mind, no soul. Three reasons for my becoming a passionate believer in personal freedom. Three reasons for my fear and loathing of an overreaching, uncontrollable government.
RIP Bob Heft.
Oh, there are three more reasons that I call for a saner government. They are twelve year old Shaun, ten year old Erin, and Sully, who will soon be eight months old. My grandchildren.
Your comments are welcome or email: cnpearl@woh.rr.com
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
