NWI and American Principles of Fairness

It is amazing to me how frequently people, especially the leadership, forgets basic American principles of political fairness.  Usually these people's logic concerning normal behavior and values goes out the window when they are trying to defend their own special position and gains (usually financial).

This occurred in recent characterization of two completely unrelated events.  The principle of denying basic fairness and the rejection of the principle of equal treatment exemplified by our Constitution and Bill of Rights was present in both.  The only other similarity is that both events involved women.

County Commissioner Fran DuPey and the 2% cap.

Last week The Times newspaper ran an editorial that asked that Commissioner DuPey recuse herself from voting on the 2% cap on property tax (actually the rejection of the 2% cap on rental property and businesses that the legislature had already passed).  The following is the actual editorial from the newspaper: Times' Dupey Editorial 

What is interesting is that Commissioner DuPey does not have any official say in what happens with this law.  But the newspaper editorial argues that since she is a landlord she cannot possibly have an objective position about the topic, only a self interested one.  As the editorial says since she is a landlord and the 2% cap may favor her personally she cannot be objective about it and should recuse herself from any consideration and discussion of the topic.  The editorial does not inform the reader what size landlord she might be.  Is she a landlord of the size of Donald Trump?  Or does she just have a couple of units?  To them, it must not matter just as long as she is a landlord.  To the best of my knowledge, Commissioner DuPey owns a four-unit building. 

The principle then that the paper is supporting is that if a law or policy has any effect on your personal situation than you must recuse yourself as a public official.  Otherwise one might think that this is a personal vendetta of the newspaper solely against Commissioner Dupey.  Why would a newspaper like The Times only pick on DuPey?  In the past the usual answer has been the McDermott clan, with Bill Wellman support, being in overwhelming control through Bill Nangle of The Times.

If one were to take The Times' principle and generalized to other public officials, then none would be able to act on most items.  All public servants would have to recuse themselves, therefore the editorial is nonsense.  Every income tax, at the federal, state or local level effects the people who vote on it.  How could any mayor be involved with the budget of his or her city since that is going to directly effect their property tax bill? 

No, the Times' editorial was either an outright hack job by the McDermott clan on Commissioner Dupey or it was a idiotic editorial written by the most moronic and uneducated editor at the newspaper.  That level of ignorant editorializing is embarrassing to the paper itself and to the people of NWI generally.

Kolintzas and East Chicago:

Frank Kolintzas' wife and daughter are suing the City of East Chicago and its School District for wrongful termination.  They are arguing that they were let go from their job based on their political affiliation and loyalty.  Most of you are well aware that I have been as critical as anyone concerning East Chicago politicians and especially Frank Kolintzas.  Neither can I say that I know the factual details of the case and can take a position.  Nonetheless, I am a firm believer in the American Constitution and its principles.

Unlike stories in the recent local media, and discussions by many citizens, spouses and children should not and are not to be found guilty for the sins (or crimes) of their relatives, in this case, a husband and a father.  This is central to the American criminal and political system: one is not guilty by relationship.

The issue of whether Mrs. Kolintzas and her daughter were fired illegally for political reasons must be decided on the merits. i.e. facts, of the case not on who their husband and father was.

That is the American way and has been since we declared independence.  It was one of the main reasons we declared independence from England, to end that kind of guilt by association.

Comments

[maprap]

I think this piece raises excellent points. I must admit, I've check the site every day for the past few days, expecting that a particular naysayer would find it important to post their contrarian views, but to my surprise, this has not happened (yet).