Give and Take
Legislative process is the best problem-solving mechanism I have ever experienced. The design of our government is to push difficult issues to the legislature -- so that a forum exists for them to be deliberated peacefully rather than be resolved violently. I reminded my colleagues of that fact today, when a motion was made to punt the bank/credit union resolution back to the Rules Committee.
The comment had been made that we were receiving lots of e-mails on the issue; it must be controversial; therefore, we should stop deliberating the issue. I pointed out that controversy is why the legislature exists. I expressed my hope that we would not develop a theme this session that the House would run for the fire exits anytime we received a barrage of e-mails. Without expressing an opinion on my preference, I asked my colleagues to act -- to kill the resolution or to pass it -- so that we might move on to the meatier issues facing the State.
After being amended, HJR 1 (Joint Resolution Related to Financial Institutions) did end up passing the House.
To me, the volume of the rhetoric on this issue has far exceeded its importance. The question is simply how to ensure a level playing field on competitors in the financial arena, so that the overall economy of the State can flourish -- nothing more, nothing less. As the sponsor, Jeff Alexander pointed out, we spent tons of time dealing with maneuvers to avoid debate on the issue and very little time actually debating the merits of the resolution.
That one side or the other would promise sure political death over a vote on this one issue doesn't cause me to lose any sleep. It just disgusts me that special interests could believe (maybe rightly) that they have such power over the political process.
One reader put it nicely in an e-mail yesterday:
You keep promoting the idea of everyone getting involved in issues, like in your reference to Phil Windley's page. It may backfire. I figure that if more people could figure out what was going on, in terms they could understand, it's going to ruin the 'ol boys club. It could get ugly. Could be problematic. Might result in the people ruling. Not sure that was what was intended in the Constitution.
In any event, here is the vote count. Use it as a litmus -- as the special interests would have you -- or as one vote out of several hundred. It's your democracy.
A meaningful contrast in the level of respect for governance is presented by another issue the legislature faces. In the automotive industry, dealers and manufacturers have natural tensions. Those tensions often are brought to the legislature -- so that the balance between the two camps can be adjusted to fit current market conditions and practices. In those legislative battles, the stakes are high (much higher than those in a resolution merely asking Congress to take a look at an issue (e.g., HJR 1)).
The automotive issue is important to Utahns; lots of us rely on our cars, and, depending on the year, auto sales are the top generator of sales tax in the State. To deal with the balance of power between dealers and manufacturers, I am running HB 47 (New Automobile Franchise Act Amendments.
Both sides in the automotive battle could afford advertising campaigns. Both sides could generate incredible e-mail campaigns. Both sides could hire dozens of lobbyists. But, in this battle, neither side did. Instead, they took a novel approach. They sat down and engaged in the legislative process. After months of discussions and two intense days of negotiations, the sides figured out a solution to the issue. I thanked them, drafted an amendment, and unanimously passed the bill out of the Business and Labor Committee this afternoon.
The economy is vibrant. Change is necessary for survival. In regulated environments, laws will need to be changed to keep up with changing business practices. I hope Utahns will never buy the argument that the legislature (and, by extension, the public it represents) should be precluded from re-examining issues in light of changing business practices. Because you know which side of an issue will be arguing that such examination is inappropriate -- the side currently benefiting from the outdated law.
The comment had been made that we were receiving lots of e-mails on the issue; it must be controversial; therefore, we should stop deliberating the issue. I pointed out that controversy is why the legislature exists. I expressed my hope that we would not develop a theme this session that the House would run for the fire exits anytime we received a barrage of e-mails. Without expressing an opinion on my preference, I asked my colleagues to act -- to kill the resolution or to pass it -- so that we might move on to the meatier issues facing the State.
After being amended, HJR 1 (Joint Resolution Related to Financial Institutions) did end up passing the House.
To me, the volume of the rhetoric on this issue has far exceeded its importance. The question is simply how to ensure a level playing field on competitors in the financial arena, so that the overall economy of the State can flourish -- nothing more, nothing less. As the sponsor, Jeff Alexander pointed out, we spent tons of time dealing with maneuvers to avoid debate on the issue and very little time actually debating the merits of the resolution.
That one side or the other would promise sure political death over a vote on this one issue doesn't cause me to lose any sleep. It just disgusts me that special interests could believe (maybe rightly) that they have such power over the political process.
One reader put it nicely in an e-mail yesterday:
You keep promoting the idea of everyone getting involved in issues, like in your reference to Phil Windley's page. It may backfire. I figure that if more people could figure out what was going on, in terms they could understand, it's going to ruin the 'ol boys club. It could get ugly. Could be problematic. Might result in the people ruling. Not sure that was what was intended in the Constitution.
In any event, here is the vote count. Use it as a litmus -- as the special interests would have you -- or as one vote out of several hundred. It's your democracy.
A meaningful contrast in the level of respect for governance is presented by another issue the legislature faces. In the automotive industry, dealers and manufacturers have natural tensions. Those tensions often are brought to the legislature -- so that the balance between the two camps can be adjusted to fit current market conditions and practices. In those legislative battles, the stakes are high (much higher than those in a resolution merely asking Congress to take a look at an issue (e.g., HJR 1)).
The automotive issue is important to Utahns; lots of us rely on our cars, and, depending on the year, auto sales are the top generator of sales tax in the State. To deal with the balance of power between dealers and manufacturers, I am running HB 47 (New Automobile Franchise Act Amendments.
Both sides in the automotive battle could afford advertising campaigns. Both sides could generate incredible e-mail campaigns. Both sides could hire dozens of lobbyists. But, in this battle, neither side did. Instead, they took a novel approach. They sat down and engaged in the legislative process. After months of discussions and two intense days of negotiations, the sides figured out a solution to the issue. I thanked them, drafted an amendment, and unanimously passed the bill out of the Business and Labor Committee this afternoon.
The economy is vibrant. Change is necessary for survival. In regulated environments, laws will need to be changed to keep up with changing business practices. I hope Utahns will never buy the argument that the legislature (and, by extension, the public it represents) should be precluded from re-examining issues in light of changing business practices. Because you know which side of an issue will be arguing that such examination is inappropriate -- the side currently benefiting from the outdated law.
posted by steve u. at 1/25/2005
Subscribe
1 Comments:
Steve,
As always, I enjoy your blog everyday. Your ending statement am sure was implying that the Credit Union Tax law is outdated. I think Rep. Harper may be on to an interesting topic. Eliminating Corporate Income Tax all together. Well, I will leave that to the legislature to debate.
With regards to HB 47: maybe we are evolving as a people and learning to deal with things in new ways. The Bank/CU issue is old and I think we are handling it all wrong. I like your example, thanks for your insights as always.
BenJoe
<< Home