|
THE
GOVERNMENT LIBERATES MANCINI!
by
Mark Webster (7-23-01)
No one knows better than Donna Mancini the cost of exercising her
rights. Last year she ran as
the Libertarian candidate for the United States Congress from Kentucky’
Third District. This took a
great deal of courage. It
also cost her time away from her family and out of pocket expenses. And what was her reward?
She lost the election, lost her job, and nearly lost her position
as the chair of the state Libertarian Party.
As I understand it, Mancini worked as a part-time nutritionist for
the Jefferson County Health Department.
She also worked part-time for her family business.
The County, as does every other governmental unit, has Merit Board
Rules and Regulations that restrict employees from running for office or
holding leadership positions in political parties. Unlike some states that
have one Merit Board, Kentucky has as many Merit Boards as governmental
entities.
These laws are often referred to as “Hatch Act” laws.
Hatch was a Republican Senator from New Mexico who noticed that the
Roosevelt administration was using the federal government to put Democrats
on the federal payroll and permitting those employees to campaign for
candidates. Around 1939
Congress passed the Hatch Act, which forbade government employees from
becoming involved in politics. Similar laws had been passed after the
Civil War and around the turn of the century.
Local and state governments adopted similar laws.
I originally thought these laws were passed to protect governmental
employees from being used as forced labor to support candidates they would
not otherwise support. I thought employees could still exercise their political
rights. I was therefore
shocked when Mancini was fired. I
agreed with Greg Holmes’ article in the June 22 issue of the Jefferson Review
objecting to the firing. However,
I now think the firing was neither unfair nor illegal.
Mancini’s dismissal was not unconstitutional because she was
afforded the opportunity to be heard and argue against dismissal.
The laws are not unfair because they protect the taxpayers.
Self-employed people or owners of private companies can spend their
resources as they see fit. If
they want to use money and time to support candidates, they should be able
to do so. Government entities, however, receive their funding
from the taxpayers through coerced tax collection.
These entities have no business in using public funds to support
any political candidate or private causes.
Politics corrupts both civil servants and government.
If government managers are free to hire political friends or are
permitted to “sell” jobs to employees, taxpayers suffer from a corrupt
system. Civil servants would be forced to make contributions or
kickbacks to politicians. Politicians
would use government phones, paper, faxes, copiers, and government time
for private uses. Likewise,
civil servants would lose their independence to make independent decisions
about their work.
That’s not to say that it still does not go on.
As Mr. Holmes pointed out, an alderman ran for office while working
for a governmental entity. In
addition, County Judge Jackson has issued an April 11, 2001 memorandum
which permits any current county employee to run for office in the new
Greater Louisville merged government without resigning from their current
employment while campaigning. There is absolutely no reason why that
exception has to be made. If
Mancini had chosen to run for one of these positions rather than for
Congress, she would still have her job.
We should be able to expect consistency from the government, but
Libertarians know differently.
On a practical level, a true Libertarian has no business working
for any governmental entity. In
other words, you cannot be a Libertarian and at the same time accept money
from the government, money that has ultimately been coerced from
taxpayers. It’s
contradictory for someone to argue in favor of minimum government and at
the same time earn a livelihood from the government.
I understand Mancini was the only Libertarian who had the courage
to run, but I’m surprised neither the media nor Mancini’s opponents
picked up on this.
Ultimately, Mancini’s governmental employees paid the Libertarian
Party a compliment at Mancini’s expense.
They obviously saw the Libertarian Party as a real party and
Mancini as a real candidate. In
a sense, Mancini repaid the compliment. Those who sat in judgment of her were political gypsies who
have floated in and out of various state and local government positions.
They may have earned fat salaries and pensions but have ultimately wasted
their adult lives in unproductive “work.”
Mancini does not belong in their company.
Think of it this way. The
government has liberated Mancini into the private sector.
Private schools, hospitals, nursing homes, and businesses could use
her skills. May her future be
prosperous!
Editor’s
note:
It is an interesting concept that a true libertarian should never
work for the government. Does
this mean that a true libertarian should never run for public office,
always allowing those who believe in excessive use of government force to
control the reins of government power?
Should a true libertarian not teach in a state-run university,
thereby ceding most positions of intellectual scholarship and most
opportunities to reach young minds to those who believe in excessive use
of government force? Should a
true libertarian not be a doctor, since most doctors receive payment from
government’s medicare or medicaid?
Should a true libertarian not be a lawyer, since he would be
working in the government-controlled arena of laws?
In a communist country, where all jobs are government jobs, should
a true libertarian starve to death rather than work for the government?
|
