The Evansville Press has an editorial entitled Non-solution enacted for a non-problem chiding the U.S. House for tackling a non-issue. It seems to be a variation on the saying that, “where there is no solution, there is no problem.”
Give the House Republicans a non-issue, a bill that is going nowhere and that addresses a nonexistent problem and you’ve got a tough bunch of lawmakers on your hands.
Wasting the taxpayers’ money and their own time, the House recently voted 268-to-150 to prevent the Environmental Protection Agency from regulating farm dust. The weakness in the GOP scheme is that the EPA has no such regulations, is not proposing any such rules and has no plans to.
Apparently this did provide some rich opportunity for a lot of chest thumping and anti-EPA bloviating. Nothing like creating a strawman and burning him down. Kind of like the War on the War on Christmas.
Rep. Diana DeGette had a good comment:
“This session of Congress has felt to many of us like a trip into Alice’s Wonderland,” Rep. Diana DeGette (D-Colo.) said during closing debate. “While our nation struggles with a devastating economy, we do nothing about jobs or getting Americans back to work. Instead, we repeatedly fall down the rabbit hole of extreme legislation, and now with this [bill] … it seems that we’re even having tea with the Cheshire cat.
“To paraphrase our friend the Cheshire Cat, ‘We’re all mad here. I’m mad. You’re mad. You must be mad, or you wouldn’t have come here.’ … [The bill] is a mad solution to an imaginary problem,” she added.
Apparently the House Republicans rejected an amendment that would require a report on how many jobs were created by this legislation.
Why did this bill have 150 “no” votes? As best I can see, there are two possible answers:
(1) Dems think that the EPA should regulate farm dust; or
(2) Dems vote against the bill because the Republicans are for it.
If (1) is true, I see nothing wrong with the Republicans passing the bill. If (2) is true, then the oposition to this bill actually makes the Dems look contrarian and an article could easily be written about Dems being the “party of no.”
BTW, for a more even handed handling of this subject, I’d suggest you read here: http://thehill.com/blogs/floor-action/house/198217-farm-dust-bill-approved-in-house
Consider the possibility of: 3) Dems think Republicans are engaged in rabble rousing with a side of unintended consequences instead of doing anything useful and decline to take part.
Reminds me of the proposed legislation to forbid recognition of Sharia Law as binding authority. In terms of legal effect, it does nothing. But, for those constituents who have gotten the word that Sharia law is creeping in, the bills: a) reinforce their paranoia; b) creates the illusion that proponents are “doing something;” and c) allows the suggestion that opponents are in favor of Sharia Law.
Much like “death panels”, the farm dust regulation scare was a bit of an extrapolation of current regulations scheduled to go into effect. The dust isn’t per se regulated, particulate matter is.
This is a subject near and dear to my heart, as we in Lake County have automobile emissions testing because we have not been in compliance with, among other things, particulate matter. But in the most recent years, we have been in compliance… until the EPA lowers the limit, which is coming soon.
EPA regulations notwithstanding, we in Lake County cannot get rid of our emissions testing, even if we are currently in compliance, for 20 years after we have come into compliance. It’s a total scam.
Doug: In the black and white voting structure of the legislatuer, you have two choices: either the law is a general “good” that improves America (vote yes), or it is a general “bad” that makes America worse (vote no). If the bill has no effect, then Dems should either not vote, or vote “Yes”, as doing otherwise makes the Dems look contrarian. I note that the Dems voted “no”. If the law has no effect, that means they are arguing just to argue.
Doug: your “Sharia law example” is interesting. If both Dems and Republicans agree unanimously on passing such a law, doesn’t that fact take away most of the “benefit” the proposing side would receive? But if in your example, the Dems vote “no” on prohibiting Sharia law,haven’t they really just let Republicans frame the debate, and allow Repubs to argue that Dems want Sharia law to be binding?
Paul, your approach to legislation strikes me as a little too black and white. In the spirit of the season, lets say that someone introduced a bill that would amend the laws on trespass and breaking and entering to include an exception for Santa Claus. It doesn’t change the law in any practical way, so as I understand your formula, other legislators would be obligated to vote “yes” or not vote.
I think other legislators are justified in voting “no” as a way of saying, “let’s not waste our time.”
On Sharia, I’d argue the opposite about the framing. By voting “yes,” they’re saying to the paranoid constituent, “you were right to be concerned; Sharia Law was such a threat that the U.S. Congress felt compelled to take action.”
On Sharia, I’d argue the opposite about the framing. By voting “yes,” they’re saying to the paranoid constituent, “you were right to be concerned; Sharia Law was such a threat that the U.S. Congress felt compelled to take action.”
I wish you would take the same philosophy to all new laws. 99% of them are based on trumped up BS.
Did you see all the hubub about “human traficking” ahead of the Superbowl coming to Indy? Yeah, that is going to be well thought out laws based on reason and reflection. NOT!
Buzz: Couldn’t agree more (on both comments). It is a bit troubling that our legislature will be making permanent (or at least semi-permanent) law changes to address a one-day event that may never occur again.
More than that, it’s based on emotion, not facts. Are parents REALLY going to sell their children into prostitution during the Superbowl? REALLY?!?
It’s easier to have legislative battles against phantoms. Their lobby is typically not very strong.
I think that we need a decade or more moratorium on ANY new laws, and we need to spend the time going through the code and purging it of the nonsense.
It is frightening how many bills are put forth in the GA every year, not to mention how many new laws are signed by the governor.
Maybe we could propose legislation to that effect? Doug could write it up (since he has all the experience in that vein).