Rep. Marlin Schneider, D-Wisconsin Rapids, admitted to The Associated Press that he overstated his case when he said in a public hearing and a memo to lawmakers that he’s received hundreds of letters of complaint about an online court database.

Instead, as Scott Bauer points out in his article found on the Wisconsin Law Journal,

Turns out, he was only able to produce letters from 22 people who contacted his office since 2006 to complain that records on the database have hurt them even though their charges have been dismissed.

He had letters from 17 others who actually were convicted, but complained about the records being viewable to the public. Another 20 were commenting in general on his attempts to limit access.

Note that those are only people who thought that the sole basis of their mistreatment was the CCAP record of their own trail through our judicial system.  You wonder how many would be able to muster any kind of proof supporting their claim.  And even if all 22 could, does that mean that we need a blanket rule impacting all the people who use CCAP for legitimate, reasonable purposes?  Or does it make more sense to deal with the outlyers as just that — aberrations in an otherwise decently functioning system?

This initiative, like many others that are based on relieving just about everyone from just about everything that in any way relates to personal responsibility, is based on rhetoric, born of anecdote, and supported by the unrealistic position that just because someone didn’t pay for the last five things they bought or apartments they rented doesn’t mean they won’t pay for this one.  And, because the proponents are doing what they believe to be “right,” the ends often justify the means, and it doesn’t matter that the facts demonstrate that access to public court information (in this case, but insert whatever the issue may be — income requirements to show you can afford a loan you want, background check to determine if you’ve been convicted of a violent or sex-related crime before becoming employed by a school, etc) works for nearly everyone nearly all the time. 

Sometimes, in our rush to right each and every one of life’s unjust bumps, we forget that not every seemingly good idea needs to become a law.  All this reminds me of a line from one of my favorite movies:  “Doin’ good ain’t got no end.”  Too often, it’s also short on common sense.

Ironic that the same update of the Business Journal reports that Milwaukee County, like many other governmental entities (including the State of Wisconsin), has turned to furlough days to address budget concerns (this only avoids a tough decision for the time being, but that’s another story for another blog). 

Used under a Creative Commons License from agoode's Flickr gallery

For-profit business, which must operate efficiently to survive, can’t afford to lose much of their workforce for a couple of weeks without severely hampering productivity.  Governmental entities, apparently, have so much extra staffing that the government services can proceed uninterrupted even without a substantial portion of the workforce for a substantial period of time.

Used under a Creative Commons License from Jason Gulledge's Flickr collection

Let’s hear it for Dave Ziemer’s discussion of the ridiculously over-protective nature of our state government (although this applies with equal force to federal, municipal, and every other layer).  Most people have no idea of just how much government intertwines itself in everything we do every day, yet in the vast majority of instances, provides no discernible added value.  Have a look at what our state government protected Dave Ziemer (and all of us) from:

Wis. Admin. Code ATCP 91.03(1)(a) says all fresh fruits and vegetables shall be sold at retail only by weight, subject to a few exceptions.

Subsection (1)(b) provides exceptions for: “artichokes, avocadoes, cantaloupes, cauliflower, celery, corn on the cob, coconuts, cucumbers, eggplant, garlic, grapefruit, head lettuce, kiwanos, kiwi fruit, lemons, limes, loquats, mangoes, melons (whole), nectarines, oranges, papayas, peppers, persimmons, pineapples, pomegranates, prickly pear, pumpkins, quince, squash, star fruit, tangerines and ugli fruit.”

But bananas, as you can see, are not on the list. There are other apparently arbitrary distinctions: lettuce can be bought by the head, but not cabbage; nectarines can be sold per piece, but not apricots.

Before anyone goes and calls the cops on their local cafe, let me explain something. I spoke with a very helpful young woman at the DATCP, who told me that legislation is pending to permit the sale of bananas, and some other fruits and vegetables, by the piece as well as by the pound. She expects the legislation to be in place by the first of the year, and in the interim, the law is not being enforced with respect to the affected fruits.

Most interesting to me is the too-typical idea that, instead of removing or deleting legislation that doesn’t make sense or is unneeded, another regulation should be passed to address the issue caused by the first regulation.