GOP antics took ugly turn

Just when I thought it was safe to deduce partisan politics couldn’t get any more bizarre in Ohio, another story emerges which boggles the mind.

Bill Yarbrough was an erstwhile candidate for the Libertarian Party in 2010: he sought the 3rd District State Senate seat then. For this year’s election cycle, he made the decision to re-identify himself as a Republican and challenge incumbent congressman Pat Tiberi for that party’s nomination for Ohio’s District 12 seat. At his Website he even discusses frankly the fact he “ran as a third party candidate to learn the ropes” about pursuing public office.

Since getting to know him during our respective campaign trails two years ago, I came to admire Yarbrough. Naturally, I was disappointed to learn he had chosen to make the switch in party identities. But, I will do my best to respect his choice – the freedom for him or anyone else to do so is one of the many little things which make America great.

That choice, however, led to circumstances I doubt Yarbrough (or anyone else, for that matter) could have anticipated.

When I spoke with him during the recent Libertarian Party of Ohio state convention, he told me when he began his run for Congress he contacted each of the Republican Party chairs in each county the 12th District touches. His main goal in doing so was to seek potential endorsements from the county parties.

What he got, instead, from Delaware County’s Executive Committee chair Bob Mann was a complaint filed with the Ohio Elections Commission alleging Yarbrough had committed federal election fraud.



And the heinous crime about which Mann felt so strongly that he sought federal felony charges to be brought against him?

Yarbrough identified himself as “Republican” on his candidate petitions.

That’s right: for engaging in the sinister act of realigning himself with the Grand Ol’ Party, it was not enough in Chairman Mann’s eyes to petition the OEC to have Yarbrough removed from the Republican Primary ballot – Mann was fully ready to have him prosecuted and incarcerated.

So, instead of being able to run an effective primary campaign, Yarbrough had to begin pouring money into his legal defense, spend time publicly clearing his name in the weeks leading-up to the March 6 primary, and watch the inevitable stress on his wife and children mount.

Needless to say, Tiberi coasted to his party’s nomination by a wide margin.

This is where my blood begins to boil over this situation. I don’t give a damn what your party affiliation may be, no one can deny that Mann was perfectly willing to risk destroying the life of an innocent man, a good man, a family man with young children. And, he was willing to do so for the narrow, repugnant purpose of preserving the status quo.

To all of you who identify as Republicans, there is no middle ground on this item. Anything less than an unequivocal repudiation of Mann’s actions constitutes complicity and approval. Sympathy for Yarbrough is cheap. You need to show a backbone and fully denounce what Mann did.

Furthermore, it is easy to see Chairman Mann clearly wanted to set a precedent that was intended to have a chilling effect on anyone further down the road who might dare challenge any Republican incumbent within the party – especially if they’re running as a liberty candidate or constitutional conservative.

So, Tea Partiers, take heed of Bill Yarbrough’s ordeal. To those of you who insist the path to restoring America must be accomplished by reforming The Republican party from within, does your beloved political party really want that reform?

In his run for State Senate two years ago, Yarbrough successfully earned the endorsement of local Tea Party groups and identifies heavily with the Tea Party movement.

Now, we know what the Republican Party was willing to do to him.

What will they be willing to do to you?

Cheney story illuminates wider ballot access issues

Don's note: if you're not fully familiar with the developments surrounding the would-be independent candidacy of Brian Cheney for Allen County Commissioner, read the initial story at The Lima News and the recent follow-up article.

First and foremost, this press release is not authored with the intent to comment on any of the particulars surrounding the Allen County Board of Elections’ decision to reject Brian Cheney’s candidate petitions for county commissioner, his ties with other local public figures, or even Cheney himself.

The one hidden story in the recent events that warrants greater exploration is the fact Cheney – in order to run as an independent candidate – had to gather almost seven times as many signatures as any of the major party candidates and more than 13 times as many as a minor party candidate.

State election laws require independent candidates for an office to gather signatures equivalent to one percent of the votes cast in the previous election for the given electoral jurisdiction. In the case of Allen County Commissioner in 2012, a prospective independent had to get 330 valid signatures – compared to 50 for someone vying for a major party nomination and 25 for those of us affiliated with a minor party.

It should not be difficult to conclude the wide disparity in requirements is nonsensical.

As a current and past candidate for elected office, have I benefited from such variations? Yes, of course. Do I agree with this setup? That answer is, “Absolutely not.”

The only possible legitimate argument for placing such a high threshold for independent candidates is the fact any registered voter may sign one of their petitions regardless of how the Ohio Secretary of State’s office lists their party affiliation (which is another issue in and of itself regarding violation of voters’ privacy rights – but as usual, I digress) – thus an independent candidate has a potential “unfair” advantage by having any-and-all would-be petition signers available to them.

In truth, it is an underhanded means of deterring anyone who would demonstrate the audacity to engage in the electoral process outside of the party system.

For my personal perspective, it is my hope the situation involving Brian Cheney proves to be nothing more than an honest mistake. It would seem obvious to me the inevitable “mad dash” for signatures – created by the State of Ohio’s disparate candidate requirements – is sure to increase the likelihood of mistakes being made. Also, as evidenced by my body of essays and posts in social media, I simply am not a fan of aggressive prosecution for non-violent offenses.

As all this relates to Ohio election laws, my hope is now that the potential consequences of these provisions have hit close-to-home for someone in leadership in the state’s prevailing majority party (meaning, Allen County Republican Party Chair Keith Cheney), we may finally see some long-overdue reform of those laws that actually fits such a description.

Are my eyes going bad or are we seeing a bait-and-switch?

Here's a brainteaser for you:

What's the difference between an Ohio Republican and an Illinois Democrat?

Well, once congressional redistricting is done, the honest answer will be, "Not a heck of a lot!"

As we get a sneak-peak at the proposed new districts for Ohio's U.S. representatives, we see a map displaying odd shapes and districts growing tendrils -- reminiscent typically of Illinois' Blue State tradition of shameless gerrymandering. It's drawn in a manner that would make Salvador Dali whistle in appreciation.

It looks downright ridiculous. For those who agree, let us remember which party holds four out of the five seats on the state's 2011 apportionment board. Curiously enough, it's the same party which pledged last year a departure from business as usual.

What should be especially alarming to Allen County voters is that our two General Assemblymen, Rep. Matt Huffman and Sen. Keith Faber, were major players in the process. Announcing his promise to fast-track the new map to a vote on the Ohio House floor is Speaker William Batchelder.

I'll go out on a limb and surmise these three gentleman were not very good at Geometry in high school.

Some of you are probably lamenting this is no joking matter. You are most likely staunch Democrats.

Some of you have taken offense to my observations. You are most likely staunch Republicans.

For the rest of you, there are 14 months left to decide how best to alert the two major parties you have had enough of the games.

You have 14 months to ponder how best to do the right thing on Election Day. I am more than happy to help.

Federal judge rules in favor of LPO in ballot access fight

Below is a press release authored by Libertarian Party of Ohio Deputy Communication Director Kalin Stipe.

In addition to the comments offered by Michael Johnston, LPO Vice Chair and director of the party's Political Division, I would like to state that this development — first and foremost — is welcome news and speaks volumes of the Libertarian Party's comprehension of the Constitution of the United States. As I have been telling our members and supporters locally, how can we expect the public to believe we are prepared to fight for their constitutional rights if we are unable or unwilling to fight for our own?

Given the LPO's track record of successful litigation when this issue arose both in 2006 and 2008, the likelihood of prevailing in court never was in doubt. Unfortunately, Ohio lawmakers were fully aware of this but moved forward with the contested components contained in the bill despite knowing it would incur legal expenses on the taxpayers' dime.

With the Ohio Republican Party in control of the Governor's Mansion as well as enjoying substantial majorities in both chambers of the General Assembly, this was undeniably a partisan attempt to perpetuate the ongoing disenfranchisement of Ohio's registered voters — who have grown increasingly weary of the failed manner in which government at all levels has operated over the years.

Furthermore, that our state legislators would bury the key clauses designed to deny ballot access for minor political parties within a routine housekeeping bill (the update to Ohio's election laws) demonstrates a clear intent by the ORP to obstruct competition within the political system. As LPO Chair Kevin Knedler rightly pointed-out during a statewide party function in June, if what Ohio Republicans attempted with ballot access laws was perpetrated in private industry those companies would face federal investigation for violating U.S. antitrust laws.

While this plays-out in court, we in the Allen County Libertarian Party look forward to providing area voters with fresh options in the political arena as well as the opportunity to pursue a government that respects the individual and is less intrusive in our economic and personal concerns.

Together in Liberty,

Don Kissick
Allen County Libertarian Party Chair

********

Read the text of Judge Marbley's injunction.

********

Federal judge rules in favor of LPO in ballot access fight

COLUMBUS — A U.S. District Court judge ruled Wednesday against the state of Ohio in a lawsuit brought by the Libertarian Party of Ohio to preserve its right to be on the ballot.

Judge Algenon Marbley granted the Libertarian Party of Ohio’s request for a preliminary injunction that protects ballot access for the party through 2012, including for Libertarian candidates already on the November 2011 ballot in Akron and Troy.

The ruling is part of ongoing litigation, LPO v. Husted, which the LPO filed in response to the passage of HB 194 by the General Assembly earlier this year, a measure that made several changes to Ohio’s voting system.

“This ruling is not just a victory for the Libertarian Party of Ohio, but for the majority of Ohioans, including Republicans and Democrats, who are looking for a viable alternative to our current, dysfunctional two-party system,” said Michael Johnston, LPO vice chair. “With this ruling, Judge Marbley has guaranteed that our soldiers returning home from Iraq and Afghanistan will be able to participate in an open electoral process, not unlike the one they laid their lives down to create in the Middle East. We look forward to engaging all political opponents in a vibrant debate in the upcoming Presidential election cycle.”

Marbley noted that the General Assembly had “failed to respond” to previous federal court rulings in favor of the LPO’s ballot access rights in 2006 and 2008. Marbley’s decision recaps LPO v. Brunner, noting that the court found that the requirements set forth by then-Secretary of State Jennifer Brunner were a “severe, unconstitutional burden.” The decision also agreed with the LPO that the new requirements contained in HB 194 limit the ability of the LPO to participate in the democratic process, a fundamental requirement for a group such as the Libertarian Party that seeks to govern.

“Women fought for the right to vote 100 years ago, minorities fought the same fight 50 years ago, and here we are in the 21st century doing the same thing,” said LPO Chair Kevin Knedler. “At a time when the United States is trying to spread freedom and liberty around the world, it is unfortunate that we have to fight in courtrooms, right here in Ohio, for a basic freedom: the right to have more than just one or two choices on a ballot and the right to privately express ourselves when voting. The fight for our freedoms is not over, but after three federal court wins in five years, we are much closer.”

Several recent public opinion polls have demonstrated growing interest in political alternatives to the two major parties that routinely drive our nation and state to the brink of disaster. The Libertarian Party is that alternative, supporting balanced budgets, common sense laws, and promoting candidates who recognize that the United States Constitution is our nation’s primary source of law.

The Libertarian Party is the third largest political party in Ohio. Founded in 1971, the LP supports fiscal responsibility and social acceptance. LPO candidates espousing common-sense, middle class values in 2010 collectively earned enough voter trust to garner more than 1,000,000 votes statewide and earned an average of more than five percent for their respective races. The LPO was the only minor party to run a full statewide executive slate in 2010 — the first minor party to do so since 1934 — and had the only gubernatorial candidate bold and honest enough to release a budget plan for Ohio before the General Election.

Mr. Jordan, if one door closes, another will open

Here’s what ought to be a fairly simple, straightforward question: does principle matter anymore in America?

There has been much discussion in recent weeks regarding the report by the Columbus Dispatch in which “two Republican sources deeply involved in configuring new Ohio congressional districts” asserted 4th District Representative Jim Jordan may find his territory unfavorably redrawn for next year’s election.

This, according to every media report covering the situation, would be in retribution for Jordan’s “open defiance of” House Speaker John Boehner during the process of negotiating a deal revolving around raising the national debt ceiling.

Mind you, General Assembly members Matt Huffman and Keith Faber – who represent Allen County in the House and Senate respectively and serve on the redistricting subcommittees – have gone on record saying they oppose such a move. They are joined by Ohio House Speaker William Batchelder in publicly expressing such sentiment.

Even Boehner has spoken words designed to create some amount of separation between himself and the story.

However, in light of the assertion that the sentiments expressed above were offered by two Republicans “deeply involved” with reapportionment process, one must wonder how many others in the party share that perspective.

A key barometer indication would be what has Ohio Republican Party Chair Kevin DeWine been saying on the subject?

All this builds-up to a return to the question posed above. Does principle matter anymore?

When it would have been easy to go with the flow and join his fellow Republicans in their verve for compromise Jordan held fast to a decidedly libertarian stance that raising the debt ceiling is only going to push the long-term prospects for U.S. fiscal stability that much closer to impossible.

The only caveat where he was willing to compromise and vote in favor of a debt ceiling increase was if it was accompanied by spending cuts and budgetary constraints which went beyond those proposed by Rep. Paul Ryan (R-WI) and common sense dictates would never be supported by his mainstream GOP counterparts, who lack the backbone to embrace such measures.

And, kudos are warranted for Jordan that an aide for the Republican Studies Committee (which Jordan chairs) felt comfortable enough to send “emails to conservative groups urging them to push undecided Republicans to vote against Boehner’s plan.”

One of my key talking points during last year’s election was that it is not enough to simply maintain one’s voting record but have the courage of conviction to openly oppose even fellow party members who are clearly wrong on policy and legislative initiatives.

Admittedly, the two anonymous Republicans cited by the Dispatch raise a somewhat (at best) valid point regarding Jordan’s comfort in representing a district where he is able to rely on such an enormous voting base. In 2008 he won reelection with 65 percent of the vote and last year took home 72 percent of the 4th District vote (and that was in a three-way race!).

And, sure, based on that it is easy for Jordan to spurn many of the typical trappings of politics and rely on an adherence to principles. He’s highly unlikely to be without an elected seat of some kind under any circumstances other than his own choosing.

Then again, perhaps the ORP ought to stop and consider the reason he is so popular within his present district is because of his consistently conservative record.

But, we need to stop and consider what I believe is the most likely explanation for all this manufactured controversy. This has been pure subterfuge.

While it would appear easy for Ohio’s Republican establishment to single-out Jordan who is going to be tremendously popular no matter where he runs for office, the real agenda was to send the message to all other registered ORP members: “We have no qualms going after someone like Jordan – your seat us much less secure.”

On the odd chance, however remote, that the Republican Party here in the Buckeye State actually intends to target Jordan in that manner I would like to conclude with an open letter.

Representative Jordan, should the ORP manage to succeed in squeezing you out of your seat and spurn you in future election endeavors, I will make it my mission in life to make room for you in the Libertarian Party of Ohio.

While I disagree with your perspectives regarding use of legislation to control personal behavior and limit individuals’ choices in life (not to mention the fact $700 billion in defense spending clearly is unsustainable), you deserve recognition for consistently championing for generally smaller government.

If the ORP won’t have you anymore, I will see to it the LPO will.

You have my word on that.

Unintended consequences revisited: when two laws create combined misery

As the Buckeye State’s Republican-controlled General Assembly and governor's mansion try to move forward in making Ohio a voter ID state, I am reminded of a previous hassle I recently endured with another state law.

Lawmakers bound to the Ohio Republican Party are pushing forward with HB159, which if enacted would be dubbed the “Ohio Fair and Secured Elections Act.”

This General Assembly house bill, which draws a harsh analysis from Examiner.com’s John Michael Spinelli, would require voters to furnish a state photo ID or other form of identification from a short list of options before being able to cast their votes in a primary or general election in Ohio.

In my opinion, this plan has the potential to hit a key snag given the newly-created potential difficulties of obtaining a new license or ID after you move into a new residence.

My prediction is misery will abound when these two measures collide at the expense of many Ohio residents.

I sent an e-mail to state lawmakers from the west-central region explaining the pitfalls of last year’s new ID law. Earlier this week, I received a postal-mail response from House Majority Floor Leader Matt Huffman.

Instead of transcribing portions of Representative Huffman’s letter I simply am attaching my e-mail response below – which includes references to his correspondence with me.

Toward the end, I make my case for how these two measures – one already on the books and one making its way through chambers – will likely combine to disenfranchise voters across Ohio.

*****

Representative Huffman,

I received your letter and I appreciate your reply.

Expanding the list to include the signed lease for acceptable proof of new residence was a basic matter of common sense. I find it surprising it wasn't in the original language of the bill which has become this portion of the Ohio Revised Code's language.

Three suggestions (as you requested) when it comes to aiding the economically displaced residents who are being affected by this law would be to allow them to present a notarized letter signed by the individual(s) needing a new license and the person(s) with whom they now reside, allow mail which has the yellow forwarding sticker affixed by the USPS, as well as doing more to inform the public of this new law. In most circumstances, public notary services are free of charge so this also would be a common-sense update.

In the information you included in your letter, it is not clear at all whether forwarded mail is acceptable.

With my initial e-mail, I stressed the fact that my wife is disabled and just getting to the BMV is a significant undertaking. Going in and waiting in line means draining what little energy she is able to muster for such an evolution. These new proof of residency stipulations have the potential to adversely impact not only the disabled but also the elderly.

When my wife, Marcy, and I went to update our licenses we were completely caught unaware that day. In light of the fact she spent most of May (and much of June) in the hospital receiving treatment for leukemia she still needs to obtain a new license from the local BMV office.

My concerns here are not based on any misguided notion of Social Justice but out of concern for those who are placed in a situation of great difficulty just to be in compliance with state law. From my own experience, the manner in which the new law inhibited my ability to get a new license resulted in me having to pay a $20 late fee. My birthday was May 4 and this year I was due to renew my license anyhow. I was not able to procure an acceptable proof of residency until after the seven-day grace period.

Had I been forced to go longer without a renewed license and were I to have needed to interact with law enforcement during a traffic stop, this law could very well have resulted in me being cited for driving with an expired license – which I would have fought in court in light of the circumstances. In this hypothetical situation, should I have won such a court ruling, you and your fellow legislators may well have been looking at this law being tossed-out and needing to start from scratch in order to put something similar to it on the books.

The more I contemplate this law, the more obvious it is to me that when it was being crafted, proper thought had not been given to the fact that in this electronic age, more and more billing, payments, banking, and other such business are being handled online to reduce paper correspondence. Such as with the documentation I procured for getting my license renewed, I had to go to Spherion and get a pay stub in person with my new address on it. With everything that has transpired personally recently I was unable to attempt this sooner.

Adding to the comedy of the overall situation is the fact my bank requires its customers to furnish a new ID with their new address before it will update it on their accounts. Obviously, this policy by the bank is intended to reduce its customers' risk for fraud or identity theft.

In fairness, I understand completely why these hoops were put in place: to prevent the degree of voter fraud which took place in the 2008 general election and created significant embarrassment for Ohio; and to a lesser degree ensure the growing number of illegal immigrants in our state are unable to fraudulently obtain Ohio drivers' licenses and other false identification.

Speaking of the issue of voting, I am aware there is an effort as of late to add the requirement for presentation of identification at polling places on days of election. When you couple all the difficulties described above (and in previous correspondence) in simply obtaining a new Ohio license with this election fraud initiative, now we are approaching the risk of significant – if not widespread – voter disenfranchisement. The litigation from such a development alone would result in tremendous legal expenses for the state and further add to the embarrassment of Ohio.

I would hope at this point it is obvious that the (both potential and very real) unnecessary obstacles to Ohio residents begin mounting rapidly once this situation is given proper thought. The new law carries with it considerable unintended consequences for Ohioans. We should not have to jump through so many hurdles to – again – simply be in compliance with state laws.

Thank you for your time,

Don Kissick
Lima

Majority Whip's stance on lawmaker pay cuts perplexing

Wednesday afternoon it was reported by Ohio News Network's Jim Heath that 78th District Rep. John Adams, Republican House Majority Whip, expressed his opposition to a proposed 5% reduction in pay for members of the state's General Assembly. The language for the cut in pay reportedly is part of an amendment introduced for the Senate's budget proposal and would amount to a little more than a $3000 decrease in salary beginning with the 129th General Assembly.

What is curious about Rep. Adams' stance is the basis for his argument against this cut. According to Heath, the Sidney-based legislator opposes it on the grounds "county officials, teachers, firefighters make more."

Considering how much of a staunch proponent Adams has been of SB 5, this comment invites the proverbial raised eyebrow.

And considering Ohio's budget deficit presently is in the billions, we must acknowledge that this situation is much like the fight to reduce the federal deficit: to get this done there can be no sacred cows in spending.

In light of our state's enormous budget gap in addition to the fact Mr. Adams so actively championed SB 5, I cannot help but find his supporting argument for his stance (shall we say) lacking.

Now, the manner in which SB 5 rolls-back collective bargaining power will not lead to base pay cuts or reductions in insurance coverage for public employees as union representatives have asserted. But, public employees will necessarily have to make very real contract concessions on future pay increases, insurance contributions, and pension pay-ins -- all of which are perfectly reasonable.

What does not seem reasonable is the idea -- in light of the enormous deficit Ohio is facing -- that anyone involved in drafting the above legislative measures would be unwilling to make their own corresponding concessions.

Rep. Adams' position on this particular item is reflective of a growing, broader nationwide concern with our elected officials: that they would deem it appropriate to pass one set of laws for themselves and another set for everyone else.

Union busting or self-preservation?

Like so many of my blogs and other essays, this one was inspired by my two-cents-worth I added as part of a larger discussion of the topic of public education (thanks for the inspiration, Jennifer and Josh!). I've added a little more here than where this was originally posted and cleaned-up any typing or grammatical errors that were there, of course.

The legislative battles over collective bargaining for public employees have sparked multiple firestorm debates and discussions. We're seeing this take shape both here in Ohio and in Wisconsin.

What bother me are the notions being spread that public employees are being denied the right to collectively bargain and they will face abusive working conditions.

First of all, no law can deny anyone – whether they are publicly employed or not – the right to affiliate with any labor organization. This is guaranteed by the Freedom of Assembly clause in the U.S. Constitution’s First Amendment.

So, that argument is laid to rest pretty quickly.

The key point being deliberately ignored by many people in the broader conversation is to whom the politicians, their appointed and hired administrators, and the publicly employed laborers are supposed to be answerable. We are their bosses, not the governor, state senators, state reps, county commissioners, township trustees, or municipal office-holders. We, the voters and taxpayers are their rightful bosses. And, for decades, we have been steadily pushed right out of the loop on collective-bargaining contract negotiations.

No one is saying workers of any stripe have no right to collective bargaining. But, it is time we returned the service portion to the key old phrase "public service." These jobs were never intended to become tenured, lifelong positions requiring a near-act-of-God in order to terminate an ineffective employee: especially when it comes to education.

Among the new terms Wisconsin's legislators are looking put into law are calling for increases on behalf of all public employees with their own contributions to their retirement plans and health insurance coverage. They are all in an uproar in Madison: but the punch line there is the potential new contribution levels are still well below (in some instances half that of) what the average private sector worker pays into their respective plans out of each paycheck.

But, we're supposed to believe these proposed working conditions constitute abuse of the public sector. Give me a break.

Also, the vast majority of states are facing monstrous unfunded liabilities. According to a study released a year ago by the Pew Center on the States, when you combine the retirement obligations for public employees of all 50 states, they face a grand total $1 trillion shortfall in their ability to meet $3.35 trillion in total liabilities.

Illinois is in the most extreme situation. That state is projected to have $131 billion in such liabilities by the end of the current fiscal year and only $46 billion in available assets (roughly 35%) to cover them.

The majority of states are facing such legacy-cost obligations at varying degrees of severity.

I would contend that if the unions are so adamant they have the support of the people, then they ought to agree to my idea of putting all negotiated contract proposals at the state and local levels up for a public referendum vote. That would require all the terms of each contract to be made available for public scrutiny and evaluation well in advance of the day of the election. If they have that all-important public support they claim, then they should have no problem embracing that "pure democracy" for which they regularly clamor.


A focused discussion on public education

Perhaps the single-greatest point of contention when it comes to America's public sector workforce is education.

While most of the problems with public education in America are the combined result of federal policy (Department of Education) and teachers unions, at the state and local levels dealing with issues of collective bargaining is the area where these governments can have the most significant influence.

Where the unions have had the most intense impact is they have gone beyond merely engaging in collective bargaining for "fair" salaries and other compensation for their vocation. These unions have sought to create work environments where their members enjoy job protection to such a degree (especially once they've "earned" tenure) they cannot be dismissed except under the most extreme circumstances – and even then it depends on where you're examining this condition.

A tenured teacher enjoys a work setting which allows for little to no regard for the basic principle of job performance – half of that is the result of the deliberate dilution of what constitutes job performance while the other component is the set of legal hurdles (enormously expensive ones at that) in place inhibiting the process of getting a defective teacher terminated. The most extreme examples of that are the "Rubber Rooms" in New York's school district.

Human nature being what it is, this opens-up room for a growing number of people in this profession to become perilously comfortable with their station in the workplace – at the expense of our children. It's a problem that has grown pervasive to the point of becoming institutional in nature.

And all that is before you even factor-in the influence within the vocation by its vocal and active members who make up its left-leaning political culture – a culture whose size within the education profession is often debated but whose impact is undeniable.

Getting back to my original point, in this situation there gradually becomes little room for dissenting views among peers. This is why we rarely – if ever – hear of internal reforms coming about in any of the local chapters of whichever union represents a given school district. What usually has to happen is what we're seeing taking shape here in Ohio and in Wisconsin: so-called union-busting proposed legislation.

Until something gives in this process, the good teachers will continue to be overshadowed and even swallowed-up by the education system and the work environment that has evolved within it.

Finally, a moment to reflect

Before I do anything else, I must extend an enormous offering of gratitude to all who assisted my congressional campaign, offered much appreciated support, and (most importantly) voted for me.

My reaction to the final vote count is a mixed bag. When you consider I spent less than $1,000 on my campaign with only $120 of it coming from cash contributions, to garner 7,499 votes in a region that votes solidly for one major party is – in itself – a notable accomplishment. But, I genuinely believed my percentage of the vote was going to reach well into double digits, as opposed to 3.74%.

In recent Gallup and Rasmussen polling roughly a week before the election, almost two-thirds of Americans believe our country’s two-party political system is failing us and harbor a strong desire to see a third party emerge that is dedicated to smaller government across the board. Which minor party might fit that description?

But as I do so frequently, I digress…

When weighing my decision to throw my hat into the political ring for the 4th congressional district, among the factors I took into consideration were two key sentiments that appeared to be trending among likely voters: the rapidly growing anti-incumbent sentiment and the already rampant anti-Democrat sentiment.

Well, I was right about the anti-Democrat perspective. Doug Litt drew less than 25% of the vote in the district. Based on past election results in addition to gauging the current mood, I was predicting he would garner below 30%.

The anti-incumbent wave, however, turned out to be little more than a pond ripple. Over the course of the year, I was bolstered by feedback from people who were steadfastly determined to support the notion of a “congressional reboot” on Capitol Hill. As one supporter put it, he was greatly appreciative of my candidacy because with me on the ballot voting anti-incumbent meant not having to vote Democrat.

I had every reason to believe many more felt the same way.

But, I cannot help but scratch my bald head at the results in other races in Ohio. In the 3rd State Senate district for the General Assembly, Libertarian challenger Bill Yarbrough was at one point polling ahead of the Democratic Party’s candidate, Mark Pfeifer, in that race. Yarbrough received 4.1% to Pfeifer’s 44.35%. What happened between August and November?

In Ohio’s 12th U.S. House district, retained by incumbent RINO Pat Tiberi, Libertarian challenger Travis Irvine had been polling as high as 10% depending on whose polling you read. Irvine received 3.23% on election day and he had run one of the most creative congressional campaigns I’d ever seen.

Both Yarbrough and Irvine were able to eventually do radio and/or television advertising.

Undoubtedly, the biggest hurdle for all of us to overcome was the fact this was the first general election in decades where Libertarian candidates could actually have a primary and appear on the November ballot with our actual party affiliation next to our names. Jeff Blevins, our second-best-performing congressional candidate with 6.63% in the 16th district, received a significant bolster from having his debate with Democratic incumbent John Boccieri aired on CSPAN. Jim Renacci, the Republican challenger who won that election, refused to participate in any debates that included Blevins.

Not being able to do any advertising myself, I had to rely on the handful of supporters lending me an occasional hand and a lot of time pounding the pavement in as many towns as I could in all 11 counties.

I wasn’t able to hit all of them, unfortunately. There were a lot of towns I wanted to and should have canvassed such as Elida, Cairo, Carey, Belle Center, Forest, Beaverdam, Harrod, and East Liberty. Should I opt to run for this office again, and of course depending on how the 4th district is reapportioned by a board that will see four out of five members from the Republican Party, I’ll have to make a point of correcting those oversights!

Still, every time I made my way through each town, I was encouraged by the feedback I received along the way. There were a couple of naysayers in face-to-face encounters, but there was an impressive lack of vitriol and venom on those rare occasions.

The most uplifting moment, though, happened ironically enough at the end of the Republican Party rally in downtown Lima that I crashed the week before the election. A fellow member of the Allen County Ohio Patriots grabbed my arm as we all were making our way to the exits and took a moment to greet me. She made a point of letting me know she was going to vote for me and concluded her comments by saying, “Because I believe in you.”

I was having one of those days when self-doubt was creeping in and left me wondering if my efforts were worth it all. I paused for a brief moment and told her, “That is the most important thing one could hear at a time like this.”

She immediately began to get choked-up and gave me a big hug. While on our way to our cars, I told my friend and campaign supporter who attended the rally with me about the exchange – and I began choking-up as well.

Between then and the election, I made a point of hitting five more towns to disburse my campaign literature.

I know there is quite a bit of discussion going around as to where the party needs to go from here. I don’t know what the future holds – either for the Libertarian Party of Ohio or my place within it. But, what I can assure to everyone is the fight for true liberty in America is just heating-up.

How much I will miss LeBron James

So, it appears King James is on his way to Miami, Florida, this year.

Pardon me for a moment while I let out an exuberant yawn.

This story has not interested me beyond the morbid curiosity of how much more ego self-stroking was going to take place. What it has done, though, is reaffirm the steady de-emphasis of sports in my life over the past year. Anyone who has known me for a significant length of time knows what a sports junkie I have been for almost all of my years. But between all that has transpired in our life over the last couple of years personally and the developments affecting America over the same period, something had to give in terms of time and focus. Sports turned out to be the most logical casualty.

Now, let’s face it: LeBron James needed an hour of primetime national television in order to make his announcement (or rather, he felt he deserved it). There is one thing from Thursday night’s broadcast (gleaned from the intensive coverage of it since then) that stands out enough to compel me to devote time to some type of rant.

“LeBron James is taking his talents to South Beach…”

He is referring to himself in the third person? Are you serious?!

And with that display of unsurpassed self-absorption and sense of privilege, what little enthusiasm I still held for basketball has been snuffed. Congratulations, Mr. James, you have rendered the sport of basketball thoroughly unwatchable for me.

The closest I will come to viewing organized basketball for the foreseeable future will be watching our DVD of “Semi-Pro” with my wife (although, if an intriguing enough local high school match-up presents itself I could make an exception for that).

Upon reflection, even though I’ve never been a Cleveland Cavaliers fan I have never disliked or held any discontent for the franchise. I have long held varying soft spots in my heart for teams and their fans of Midwestern and Rust Belt towns such as Cleveland, Cincinnati, Indianapolis, Pittsburgh, Milwaukee, Kansas City, St. Louis, and Minneapolis – the result of growing up in a depressed area like Detroit.

While the personalities and antics of athletes such as Sidney Crosby, Ron Artest, Chris Pronger, and others have squelched that sentiment from time to time, none of those examples ever left me feeling complete disdain for an entire sport as an institution.

Beyond that, my general enthusiasm for sports overall has been dropped a notch or two. I know to most who read this it would seem I am surrendering entirely too much power to one so-called celebrity. I don’t see myself as having surrendered anything, to tell the truth: his behavior actually has served to help reinforce a sentiment that has been growing with me for a while, now.

Another sentiment LeBron’s egomaniacal display solidified is my list of favorite athletes in my lifetime shall be a short one, consisting of Steve Yzerman, Chris Zorich, Alan Trammell and Lou Whitaker, Joe Dumars, Chris Spielman, and Denny Hamlin.

So adieu, LeBron. Hopefully you’ll find the ocean-front home of your dreams in one of Miami’s more posh suburbs – and sometime around the beginning of the exhibition season you’ll come home from a preseason game to find it all covered in tar balls from the BP spill.

“LeBron James is taking his talents to South Beach…”

And from now on Don Kissick will be taking his hard-earned cash to the NHL, Notre Dame, and NASCAR.

Yep, just as I suspected, it doesn’t read any less asinine when I do it.

Ohio's rail project likely will be boondoggle-in-progress

Today, I was reading what at first appeared to be a relatively nondescript Associated Press article that featured comments by Ohio Transportation Director Jolene Molitoris. On Wednesday, Molitoris met with Ohio Senate President Bill Harris (R-Ashland) to discuss the state’s plan to restore passenger train service through the Cleveland-Columbus-Dayton-Cincinnati corridor.

This project, according to Molitoris, will be successfully completed within the currently projected $400 million budget, which is being financed entirely through federal stimulus funds (the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act).

The AP reports her saying the rail system will go through a thorough review along the same lines as any highway project would. Molitoris’ other assertion is the state’s early estimates suggest roughly 478,000 passengers will use the train during its first year of operation, adding she expects that number to grow as stations are added.

My first problem is of the “apples-and-oranges” nature. Considering the state’s highways are in place for use mainly by individual commuters in their privately-owned vehicles and passenger trains are entirely of a mass-transit nature, to compare the two functions makes no sense. The logistics for construction, maintenance, safety issues, and access by the public are completely different between highways and commuter rails.

Also, there is a component of shared responsibility for all those concerns with the system of highways between the state, local jurisdictions, and the federal government depending on that highway’s designation. As I understand this initiative thus far, Ohio is to assume ownership for the ongoing costs for the rails.

Even if, for the sake of discussion, we accept the argument being presented by Governor Ted Strickland’s administration that construction and all other components associated with the rail’s implementation can be accomplished, there’s one more nagging question to be asked. Then what?

By Molitoris’ own description, more passengers will use the trains each year so long as new stations are added along its path. How much will those additional train stations cost? Will they be covered by that initial $400 million stimulus earmark? What is the projected cost-to-revenue ratio for each potential new stop that is erected?

And then begins the real fun part of that last issue. Who is going to decide which communities will and will not get their direct link to the railway as time goes on? Who will set the criteria for those decisions? How will those criteria be set? Will communities get a train stop even if they may not want one?

Returning to the matter of continuing costs, if these trains fail to at least break even how much money will Ohio have to lose before Washington steps in to assume control?

The queries will only get more probing and ardent especially if the rail system begins bleeding money the same way Amtrak did after the U.S. Department of Transportation began subsidizing it roughly 40 years ago. Especially: what guarantees can we realistically expect that the trains over the years will be a cost-effective endeavor?

Resolve in the face of turmoil

This morning I was reading a discussion thread at the Libertarian Party of Ohio group’s Wall on Facebook. One member expressed adamant concern over comments by another about their reason for supporting the Libertarian Party. The first person interpreted several statements to mean they saw our party as vehicle to drive the Republican Party to reform itself.

Such concerns are valid – it would be irresponsible to dismiss them. But, there is the undeniable fact what has drawn a number of former Republicans to the Libertarian Party has been the manner in which that party failed to live up to its rhetoric.

We all should bear in mind the Libertarian Party will need to draw (former) members of the two major parties in order to grow in size. While those who view themselves as Independents always are vital to any political movement, we will not be able to bring all of them into our camp. Many independents still view government as serving as a source of solutions to the issues America faces – as opposed to individuals achieving these results.

Ultimately, there are three key points that have led people who used to identify themselves with another party to gravitate our direction.

Simply put, you cannot have fiscal responsibility while simultaneously introducing or supporting Big Government legislation. The two philosophies are mutually exclusive of each other. The Republican Party is proven themselves to be a glaring fraud on that front.

What makes the Libertarian Party great is that at the same time as demanding government at all levels tighten its belt, we also stand behind the principle of defending civil liberties by means of ending government intrusion into individuals’ lives.

That used to be the supposed domain of the Democratic Party. However, they also have demonstrated themselves to be equally fraudulent in that arena by virtue of introducing various laws designed to make the very thoughts in our heads criminally punishable.

Obviously, both of those parties have promoted and engaged in diminishing the sovereignty of the several states.

Those who reserve concerns about the Libertarian Party becoming a reincarnation of one of the two major parties are absolutely right to harbor those sentiments.

My counter argument to statements about leaving our party centers on a Revolutionary era concept. If at anytime you believe Libertarianism is being co-opted by those who once identified themselves with either major party, instead of walking away from the Libertarian Party march to the front of it and demand that those who would attempt to steer us away from our core principles answer for themselves! Demand of those individuals that they explain and defend their efforts to shift the party’s platform toward ideas and efforts that stand in contradiction of what true Libertarianism has always been.

We are about returning America to our Constitutional principles and ideals. Whenever any one of us strays from this mission, do not turn your back on them and begin drifting away. Stand face-to-face and eye-to-eye with that individual without hesitation and air your grievances with them!

Trusting in One Nation Under God,

Don Kissick, Libertarian candidate for Ohio's 4th Congressional District

Judge injects first dose of common sense into smoking ban

This may not be the most pressing issue our society faces but the smoking ban here in Ohio is a microcosm of the overall battles to preserve individual liberties and eliminate wasteful, inefficient legislation.

A decision rendered February 19 by Franklin County Common Pleas Judge David E. Cain has helped to take the teeth out of Ohio progressives’ efforts to legislate personal behavior while giving them to libertarians.

The case involved a bar in suburban Columbus that was challenging the $30,000 in fines that it has racked-up. Needless to say, attorneys for the state have announced they will file an appeal.

According to the Columbus Dispatch, as part of Cain’s ruling he declared the state’s smoking ban enforcers unfairly target bar owners while ignoring individual smokers themselves, who in all reality serve as the sources of non-compliance.

Cain wrote in his ruling, “Would the (Ohio) Department of Health require property owners to pat down visitors for cigarettes before they are allowed to enter? Would it have property owners remove people via force from the premises at risk of personal injury?”

His message, rooted in common sense, is as true as it is simple: government cannot punish someone for the offenses of someone else.

Here’s the other rub on this story. Since the ban went into effect May 2007 after a statewide vote the preceding year, the State of Ohio has issued approximately $1.2 million in fines for smoking ban violations in open-to-the-public establishments and other workplaces. In that process the state health department has spent approximately $2 million to enforce it.

To state the obvious (as I do so well), in an effort to save us all money progressives have added roughly $800,000 to the cost of Ohio’s existence during a time when money is tight for government, businesses, and taxpayers everywhere.

The Dispatch also reports the ban stipulates a $100 fine for any individual who smokes in a bar, restaurant, or other such locale. However, according to a state Health Department spokeswoman enforcers have not issued citations to non-compliant patrons because they must observe a person both smoking and disobeying a bartender (or other staff person) who tells them to either put out their cigarette or leave. “The way the law was set up makes it difficult to cite individuals,” said Sara Mormon of the Health Department.

I would be willing to wager that under the current political climate, the State of Ohio will continue its reluctance to pursue individual smokers – especially with this being an election year for both Governor Ted Strickland and the majority of the state’s legislators.

The fact that public employees have been focusing on businesses while de-emphasizing enforcement among individuals is very telling. If the agenda driving this ban truly is about protecting Ohioans from “the negative health effects of smoking and secondhand smoke,” then there would be no disparity with issuance of fines over these last three years.

Enforcing the state’s laws falls squarely on Ohio’s executive branch. In essence, the buck stops with Strickland.

Our glorious collection of state politicians has put themselves in an entertaining pickle. Proponents of the smoking ban touted in 2006 that revenue generated would be one of the key ways Ohio could offset all the public costs caused by smoking. Logic would dictate expanding enforcement efforts as described above would go far to bridge that $800,000 gap – and then some possibly.

Ohioans also are supposed to be enjoying a reduction in health insurance premiums as a result of the ban – in a manner similar to how seat belt laws are purported to keep down the cost of auto insurance in states which enact them. An effective assessment of this so-called benefit to the public smoking ban has yet to surface.

Finally, as has been pointed out time-and-again on the issue of the state’s tobacco taxes, middle and lower class income earners get the biggest bites taken out of their wallets from each tax hike on a pack of cigarettes.

So, who’s willing to put their election hopes on the line to gouge smokers across Ohio, one at a time, for another $100-a-pop?