Paul Curtman
  • Blog
    • On Freedom
    • Ten Principles of a Free Society

WHY DO THEY VOTE YES ON BAD BILLS?

10/31/2011

1 Comment

 
Decisions
NEWS FLASH:Bad policy can come from BOTH sides of the isle.  It isn’t a PARTY issue; it’s a PRINCIPLE issue.
_
What makes someone vote YES on a bill they don’t like?
After seeing so many good people vote in favor of horrendous bills (both Democrats and Republicans in state and federal government) I decided to start asking why they were voting for them. Recently I approached some politicians on an economic development bill that, in my mind, was very unfair to small businesses and would have implemented a terrible tax policy geared toward incentivizing big business over small businesses and competitors, all at the expense of the taxpayer. I was also concerned by the new bureaucracy that would have been created and been given the ability to acquire new debt backed by the taxpayers. The bill was being pushed as a “jobs” bill, which by itself is a bribe only because no one wants to vote against “jobs.”

I asked some of the office holders what they thought about the bill and after they told me they were in favor of it I asked them why. The answers I received from many of them were disappointingly shallow: “Well, something HAS to be done.” Or, “Well, I’m against some of these unfair economic policies and debt but I have to vote for it.” Even after I tried to inform some “conservatives” that the bill would drastically grow the size of government at an expense that we cannot fully predict, I still heard things like, “There is a whole lot I don’t like about this bill but there are a couple good things so I’m going to vote for it.”

A couple years ago I spoke with a US Congressman who voted in favor a defense-spending bill. The problem with this particular bill is that the so-called “hate-crime” amendment was attached to it. I don’t believe that any crime is more or less heinous based on what motivates it, a crime is a crime period, otherwise there is no equality under the law. Murder and rape should not be worse because the victim fit a certain demographic. If we say it is more evil to murder a black or white person than it would be murder a Latino or Asian person then there is no equality under the law and what we are really doing is dehumanizing certain groups of people. I asked the Congressman why he voted for the bill if it promoted such inequality of the law and the answer was that he didn’t want to vote for it but he had to in order to fund the troops. What sense does it make to fund our troops who fight for our freedoms and at the same time erase the equal protection of those freedoms? He basically told me he understands my point and would have voted NO on that principle except a NO vote would have looked bad. T
he troops would have been funded even if this bill had failed because of this amendment; the funding bill would have just been reintroduced. 

These experiences have caused me to wonder, where does a person draw the line on how they vote? At what point does the cost of a bill outweigh any benefit that it might have? How much liberty are we willing to foreclose on for the sake of what might seem to be a more noble cause? When we are told that a bill has a lot of good but a lot of bad in it, do we vote for it so we can claim the good only? I don’t believe it works that way. If we vote for a bill that has some poison in it only because we want to claim ownership of the good part, we must also accept that we are responsible for the poison too.

For example, if you are hungry, you may go to a restaurant and order a hamburger that comes with french-fries. Although you may not want the fries, the waitress tells you that they are included in the price of the meal, you reluctantly nod your head and accept the fries but
only because you want the hamburger. This is a good description of an acceptable compromise. Although you would rather had some other side, you accepted the fries since they came with your hamburger. You would much rather have had some other side dish to satisfy your hunger but the fries will still do that if you choose to eat them but it really comes down to preference in this particular case. This illustrates how it looks when someone might vote for a bill that has a “side” that we may not prefer but really can’t be called bad. If it doesn’t violate the proper role of government or the Constitution but still satisfies a particular statutory need, you may vote for the larger bill that it is attached to although you would prefer a different “side.”  For example, if you ask a legislator why he voted for such a bill you might hear him say, “I don’t necessarily like lowering the speed limit on certain dangerous state highways, but it is in our jurisdiction to do so and it is a smaller part of a bill we need to pass in order to rebuild some damaged bridges across the Missouri River so I will vote for it.”

Now lets say that you order a hamburger off the menu and you are told that it comes with a little e-coli. Do you still order it? Do you use the argument that so many in government use to vote in favor of bad bills and just say,
“Well, I don’t like e-coli but it is only a little and I need to eat lunch so OK, I’ll take it.” I seriously doubt you would and I think it is safe to say that if anyone used that explanation to feed your child a hamburger with any amount of e-coli, you would sue them for negligence in the care of your child. Why then do we use that explanation to destroy our liberty? Isn’t this what we are hearing when a politician says, “Well, I know that this bill will send us deeper into debt,  grow the size of government or infringe on our freedoms but we need to do something.”

A lesson I learned as an infantry squad leader in the Marine Corps, is that it can be fine to compromise, if you must, in order to accomplish the mission but if your compromise in any way defeats the purpose your mission, then you are the enemy's new best friend. The proper role of government is to protect people’s liberty. If we vote for compromises that in turn destroy liberty and further enslave us to more debt then it is safe to say that we have become our own enemy. Bottom line: when you compromise the principle, you are NOT compromising, you are surrendering.


1 Comment
Paul Laforest
11/1/2011 01:15:30 pm

A perfectly simple outline of the continuous compromise that has jeopardized the entire original premise of republican government, Mr. Curtman. It is the dilution and reconstruction of those original principles that continues to drive us further into tyranny.

Indeed,
"But what is liberty without wisdom, and without virtue? It is the greatest of all possible evils; for it is folly, vice, and madness, without tuition or restraint." -Edmund Burke

Reply

Your comment will be posted after it is approved.


Leave a Reply.

    Picture

    RSS Feed

    Podcast


    Categories

    All
    2012 Budget
    2012 Session
    2nd Amendment
    Abortion
    Aerotropolis
    Agriculture
    Akin
    American Laws For American Courts
    Budget
    Capitol Report
    Concealed Carry
    Congressional Districts
    Constitution
    Courts
    Credit Downgrade
    Declaration Of Independence
    Dulin Creek Road
    Economic Development
    Economic Development Special Session
    Economic Freedom
    Economy
    Education
    Emergency Services
    Emerson
    Family
    Family Business Growth Act
    Foreign Aid
    Foreign Law
    Foreign Policy
    Freedom
    Gasden Flag
    Guns
    Hate Crimes
    Hb 170
    Hb 523
    Hb 685
    Hb 708
    Hb 845
    Healthcare
    Hwy 30
    Inflation
    Insane
    Interim
    Israel
    Jobs
    Joplin
    Letter To The Editor
    Libertarian
    Liberty
    Libyan Revolution
    Livestock
    Luetkemeyer
    Marriage
    Memorial Day
    Methamphetamine
    Military
    Missouri Says Audit The Fed
    Mo House
    Money Bomb
    My Legislation
    Natural Law
    Obama
    Obamacare
    Our Lady Queen Of Peace
    Paul Curtman
    Personal Freedom
    Photos
    Principles
    Privacy
    Property Rights
    Public Service
    Redistricting
    Red Tape
    Rights
    Roads
    Ronald Reagan
    Ron Paul
    Ryan Silvey
    Self Ownership
    Sharia
    Small Business
    Smoking Ban
    Sound Off Broadcast
    Speech
    Stanley Cox
    Tax Credits
    Taxes
    Tea Party
    The China Hub
    Tim Jones
    Tom Loehner
    Town Hall
    Transparency
    Veteran
    Veterans
    Video
    Vote
    War
    Workers Compensation


    Archives

    November 2013
    October 2013
    September 2013
    July 2013
    June 2013
    May 2013
    January 2013
    September 2012
    August 2012
    June 2012
    May 2012
    January 2012
    December 2011
    November 2011
    October 2011
    August 2011
    July 2011
    June 2011
    May 2011
    April 2011
    March 2011

Powered by Create your own unique website with customizable templates.
Photo used under Creative Commons from MoNewsHorizon