Sticking its nose into places it doesn't belong

Why does our government insist on getting inside the tent?

I was sort of reminded of the first part of my post the other day at work.

You see, I work next to an active railroad track which is basically a long siding for the chicken plant on the outskirts of town. Once upon a time it was the railroad connection to Ocean City, winding its way through Walston, Parsonsburg, Pittsville, Willards, and points east but it’s been decades since the last 20-25 miles of track were torn out and now it terminates at the chicken plant.

Delmarva history aside, later this month the government-regulated cooling-off period for an ongoing labor dispute between railroads and their unions will expire. Although eight of the twelve unions affected by the prospective pact were able to ratify it, the four holdouts are dictating the Congressional action. On Wednesday the House passed legislation to ratify the labor contract on behalf of the railroad employees then further passed a bill to add six additional sick days to the contract - this was the sticking point in negotiations. (The Senate followed suit Thursday, but did not pass the extra sick day provision.)

Now I get that the railroad industry is extremely important to our economy, but so are the trucking industry, the auto industry, the energy industry, and many others where Congress leaves labor disputes to the affected parties. So why should this be different?

Back in 1946, President Truman faced a similar situation where the railroads had already gone on strike. With the nation in crisis, Truman demanded that striking railroad workers be replaced by the Army - as he was giving his speech, the workers capitulated as Truman’s decree, which would certainly have been passed by Congress, undermined their bargaining position.

I’ll grant there was a President in Ronaldus Maximus who ran this a different way, playing hardball with the air traffic controllers’ union, but those circumstances were different because their strike both violated a court order and the terms of their employment as they were government employees who agreed not to strike. These railroad workers are employed by private corporations, so why not let the dispute play out? Instead, by the time you read this we will have had Uncle Sam step in once again and place his thumb on the scale - never mind the effect on the industry.

Unfortunately, this is an ailment that seems to affect both political parties - while the Democrats drove the railroad settlement through Congress with scattered GOP support, there’s another proposal out there from the Republicans that got my criticism when I found out about it.

While we complain about the federal impact on schools today, it all began with two laws passed in pre-Constitution days. The Land Ordinance of 1785 decreed that one section of each township - initially Section 16, which was just northeast of the township’s center - be set aside for public education. (This made logical sense as most townships doubled as the school districts for the one-room schoolhouses of the day. I graduated from a school whose district was the result of 1960s consolidation of five of those township districts.)

The second law was the Northwest Ordinance, initially passed in 1787 and the law which established the Northwest Territory that eventually became Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, Michigan, Wisconsin, and a piece of Minnesota. In it, Congress decreed, "Religion, morality and knowledge being necessary to good government and the happiness of mankind, schools and the means of education shall forever be encouraged."

Unfortunately, the government of 2022 doesn’t seem to want any of religion, morality, and knowledge in the schools. But a segment of our republican and federalist government believes it can make sure those are there, and back in 2021 the Parents Bill of Rights Act was introduced with 115 Republican sponsors, including my erstwhile Representative Andy Harris of Maryland, who brought this up on his social media Wednesday. In response I told him the following:

Sorry Andy, have to disagree with this one. We are trying to get the feds OUT of education, not give them a role with a so-called "bill of rights."

This is more appropriate at a state level.

And when I was told that all Andy Harris knew how to do was destroy things, I replied:

If Andy REALLY knew how to "destroy things" we would all be better off, since my interpretation of your phrase would be that of rightsizing government to its Constitutional limits.

This is why I'm disappointed he's jumping on this bandwagon because the federal government should have almost zero role in our education. They took the inch given in the Northwest Ordinance of saying "Religion, morality and knowledge being necessary to good government and the happiness of mankind, schools and the means of education shall forever be encouraged," and made it about 33 miles.

I will definitely concede one point made by opponents who say that not every parent cares about what their children are taught, and agree that’s a shame. Those uncaring parents who are neglecting their job of parenting in order to be buddy-buddy with their kids need to pick up a Bible and read Proverbs 22:6. (That’s a good start, although as a history buff I like the Book of Acts myself.)

And while I like Harris and would trade my representative LBR for him straight up, this is a case where Republicans who read the tea leaves of Glenn Youngkin’s election in Virginia last year (this legislation was introduced in the wake of his surprise victory) have forgotten they’re supposed to be the limited government party. That’s what bothers me about this populist strain of the GOP, as they’re barely different from the worst socialists when it comes to overstating the federal government’s role in our lives.

When we don’t discourage the camel from sticking his nose under the tent, pretty soon we have to find room for it. I’d rather the camel know its place outside.