Counter-Revolution
 |
Posted on Thursday, July 16, 2009 by J. Robert Gough 
E-mail This Story
by Flynn
Okay, I got this one wrong. When I saw that Rep. Mark Kirk (R-Clueless) was one of just seven GOP members to vote for the Waxman-Markey cap-and-tax bill, I thought, okay, I guess Rep. Kirk isn't going to run for US Senate after all. You could make a reasonable case-I suppose-that a vote in support of the ineffective, high-cost, feel-good legislation would be popular in Kirk's wealthy Chicago North Shore district. But, I didn't think there was any way a GOP candidate, who needed to rack up a huge number of votes in downstate Illinois (read, Coal Country) to prevail statewide, would vote for this clunker of a bill.
But now, Kirk has announced his intention to run for US Senate. To make it worse, I came across this gem on YouTube. In it, Rep. Kirk claims that he is reading the entire Waxman-Markey bill (all 1,000+ pages and, presumably, the 300+ page "amendment" released at 3am the night before the vote), before deciding how to vote.
Whoever is giving Kirk political advice is guilty of malpractice. Fortunately, next November, they'll be able to find a new line of work.
There are a few problems with the Kirk video:
1) He's lying. Or, I should say, he is most likely lying. Having worked around politics for over 15 years, I have found politicians to be among the most over-scheduled human beings on the planet. There is almost no way that Rep. Kirk had a few solitary hours to devote to reading the legislation. (That's why they have staff.)
2) Reading bills is less than it seems. If you've ever looked at a piece of legislation, it is not a straightforward narrative. While the legislation does create new statutory language, much will be amending existing law. For example, an excerpt from the Kirk-approved Waxman-Markey bill:
(d) Enforcement- Subsection (f) of section 304 of the Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. 7604(f)) is amended as follows:
(1) By striking `; or' at the end of paragraph (3) thereof and inserting a comma.
(2) By striking the period at the end of paragraph (4) thereof and inserting `, or'.
(3) By adding the following after paragraph (4) thereof:
`(5) any requirement of title VII or VIII.'.
What does that mean? I have no idea. And no one simply "reading" the bill would know either.
3) Even if we allow that Rep. Kirk actually read the bill and he fully digested and understood its meaning, since he voted for it, he now "owns" every provision in this bill. This is his chief problem.
When I was briefly a philosophy major, I was saved from insanity by the British philosopher G. E. Moore. So, I'll apply my own application of Moore to Kirk's position: What does it mean to believe that Kirk read and digested the whole proposal and still voted for it:
He would know that the bill, for all its costs to the economy, would reduce temperatures by a mere nine-hundreths of one degree Fahrenheit. That's damn close to a rounding error.
He would know that the bill threatens to run afoul of WTO agreements and spark a new wave of protectionism and a possible trade war. (During a recession...brilliant!)
He would be fully aware of all the other silliness that will come to light over the following weeks. Like this, for example.
Kirk asks too much of us. And my guess is, his campaign for the Senate-which once seemed promising-will underwhelm. In the most recent fundraising quarter, Kirk raised just $580,000, which is decent for a House race, but far behind what he'll need for a Senate run.
There's a vote on another 1,000+ page bill on the horizon, a $1 trillion plan to inject the feds even further into health care. Let's hope Kirk doesn't have time to read it.
Del.icou.us
Digg
Facebook
Newsvine
My WebClick Here to create your account.
Already have an account? Click Here to Login.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posts: 1
Reply #1 on : Fri July 17, 2009, 08:08:23