You Say That Like It’s A Bad Thing
S.C. Sen. Brad Hutto (D-Orangeburg) has a curious rationale for opposing transparency in government … well, beyond the ludicrous presumption that the public’s interests are already being served by a system that permits Senators to keep 99% of their votes hidden from the public.
What’s Hutto’s primary objection to more recorded voting, though?
He says it might save taxpayer money.
From the Spartanburg Herald-Journal:
Some members of the Senate have pledged to never raise taxes, yet each of them has allowed laws to pass that do raise taxes. If a roll call vote is required on most bills, many will feel compelled to vote against any law that addresses an increase in a fee or tax, even if the adjustment of that fee is the best policy.
We rarely say this when a S.C. lawmaker is involved, but we couldn’t have said it better ourselves.
What an idiot.
Hutto’s ridiculous but highly-amusing editorial goes on to say that “roll call voting is a dagger aimed at the heart of compromise,” and reminds us that “laws are like sausages. It is better not to see them being made.”
Really? We’ve never heard that one before.
Anyway, for a refresher on Hutto’s so-called “ethical” standards, click here, here and here.
Comments
By Rahmbo on December 16th, 2008 at 2:15 pm
Compromise, [stab] Dead!
By NotforHire on December 16th, 2008 at 2:27 pm
World class, top shelf leadership, blazing the trail for our state into the 21st century. The best and the brightest with cutting edge ideas, inspiring us to action…
Oh wait, uh, sorry, never mind.
By Todd on December 16th, 2008 at 2:31 pm
Whatever happened with ole Brad being investigated by Jean Toal’s crowd about his undue influence with magistrate’s court DUI cases? Oh, that’s right: he’s a lawyer legislator and a Democrat. My bad.
By Fashizzle on December 16th, 2008 at 2:43 pm
Every time one of these guys trots out another excuse why representative democracy doesn’t require citizen participation just remind them that 41 states require a recorded vote on every single bill that becomes law. Funny how legislators in those states are still doing just fine.
By Carl on December 16th, 2008 at 6:08 pm
You’d think an attorney would have chosen his words more wisely. I certainly wouldn’t hire Brad Hutto to represent me (if I ever needed it).
Unfortunately, the Republican leadership has this same mentality. The rest of the General Assembly needs to wake up and choose better leadership or they will sadly be guilty by association.
By Current Issues vigilantes on December 17th, 2008 at 10:57 am
Hutto’s argument is weak and an oversimplification of a VALID argument for transparency. As Einstein said, everything should be made as simple as possible. We simply need to have 100% Transparency, no ands ifs or buts. What Rep. Hutto is doing is supporting this Anti-transparency insanity because he is a liberal demo-CRAP who doesn’t want to be accountable for pork spending sprees with our TAXPAYER dollars. The psychology behind his justification shows he is clearly biased, resulting in a psychogenetic fallacy; therefore, his argument must be wrong!
By Rager on December 17th, 2008 at 12:22 pm
Would expect that from someone who takes their teen age children to Nine Inch Nails concerts.
By Gen. Longstreet on December 17th, 2008 at 3:25 pm
Transparency is overrated. It is simply not an assurance that the right thing will be done. Hell, old Win and that damned old goggle-eyed snapping turtle Meade couldn’t have been more transparent about what they were about at Gettysburg. They were all about digging trenches and getting their men into impregnable positions on the high ground and then waiting for the Johnnies to come a-calling. But did that transparency cause Lee to do the right thing? And did we oblige the Yanks? Did we? Did we?
By Current Issues Vigilantes on December 17th, 2008 at 7:30 pm
Gen. Longstreet- we agree, however, you’ve got to start somewhere!