Conway Hatch Act controversy proves DC's lack of common sense

Does it strike anyone else as asinine that a politically appointed White House staffer isn't supposed to make political comments?

Should a presidential adviser be forbidden from advocating for candidates and policies that bolster the president's ideas and initiatives?

If the recent controversy over Kellyanne Conway and the federal law known as the Hatch Act leaves you scratching your head in amazement, then congratulations. You are demonstrating a presence of common sense that is sorely lacking in the seat of American government.

Conway's official title is Counselor to the President. As such, she's often a surrogate for President Trump in public and media appearances. It defies all logic that such a high-level political appointee isn't supposed to make political statements. Yet it appears the Hatch Act does, indeed, call that a no-no.

Government employees at all levels are made to surrender a variety of constitutional rights when they go on the public payroll. Kentucky's state merit system law, KRS Chapter 18A, restricts many First Amendment rights of state workers. Yet Kentucky is wildly inconsistent in what certain public employees are allowed to do and not do. Public education employees are paid from the same pot of money as state workers, yet they have much more latitude in engaging in political activity. (But that's a subject for a future commentary.)

The federal Hatch Act was originally passed to ward of political favoritism in awarding of public works contracts back in the post-Depression days. Yet it's been expanded to ridiculous lengths. It now places federal restrictions on the ability of state and local employees to run for political office. And it muzzles politically appointed employees like Conway from speaking out on matters of politics that are intrinsically linked to the operation of their boss' office.

Conway and Trump are right to mock the recent recommendation that she be fired. It's beyond silly to think that a person in Conway's position, sent to speak on behalf of the president, should not be able to do exactly that.

There hasn't been a First Amendment challenge to the Hatch Act's restrictions on political speech or activity since 1973. And political speech was exactly what the First Amendment was enacted to guarantee and protect. Maybe Conway should file a challenge and relegate the more ridiculous provisions of the law to the scrap heap where they belong. It's good public policy to try to take politics out of projects. Telling political appointees that they can't discuss politics, not so much.

Back from a hiatus

This blog has been inactive for awhile. There's been no real reason for the silence; it just happened. But there's been no shortage of news to discuss. On the local, state, and national level, things have been going on that warrant discussion. So, I'm reviving this blog.

One thing you'll notice that was absent from the previous incarnation of this endeavor is the presence of ads. I'm trying Google AdSense to try to earn some money from my punditry. And, as always, if any of my newspaper industry friends or acquaintances want to republish my commentary, please contact me to discuss terms. In the past, I provided this column to papers in my area free of charge, but I'm going to try the paid syndication route now to see if I have any success.

In the past, there was usually only one blog entry a week, after the column that I had submitted to the newspapers had been published. You'll probably see posts much more frequently now, as events warrant.

I tried to stick to state issues in previous posts, but you will probably see more local and national discussion as things move forward.

Please feel free to share posts on your personal social media accounts as you see fit.  Commercial news outlets are expressly prohibited from sharing the content here unless they've set up a syndication agreement with me. Comments are encouraged; I may not respond to them all, but I'll read them. All I ask is that you keep your comments civil. Don't use foul language; don't engage in personal attacks on other commenters, subjects of the commentary here, or the author: and don't say anything that might be libelous. Run afoul of these guidelines, and your comment will be deleted.

Even if you don't agree with the viewpoints offered here, my hope is that they will enlighten you and encourage you to think. As you read these thoughts, keep in mind that they are offered by a person of faith, a person who believes in the power of the citizenry, and one who realizes that the government truly is of and by, and should be for, the people; one who thinks less government is better and people should be free to pursue their goals and dreams while guided by a generally accepted set of societal standards. I'm a conservative, not a libertarian, and certainly not a fiscal or social liberal. And while I may disagree with some conservative ideas or Republican officeholders on occasion, my political and social beliefs are staunchly conservative.