First Principles

Las Vegas City Life columnist Steve Sebelius doesn’t think so – at least not without being a rank hypocrite!

Wait a second — you’re telling us that two Assembly Republicans totally disagree with the concept of the stimulus package, but also that they think Nevada didn’t get enough in the stimulus package? What kind of reasoning is that? It’s like a member of a criminal gang who refuses to take part on principle when the gang robs a bank, but then bitches because his cut is too low!

Actually, it’s not like that at all, unless you also concede that voting for the stimulus package is a criminal enterprise.

This is the sad result when partisanship trumps brain function.

—

The bailout is a dumb idea, I think.  But that’s what a majority of our elected officials in the US Congress chose to do, and now that the bailout is the law, there is nothing illegitimate about trying to figure out how best to navigate that law, or in urging an improvement on its implementation.

Here’s a much better simile for Mr. Sebelius.  3 city councilmen vote on funding a road project.  Two vote for it, one against.  Now the question becomes what the exact route of the road should be.

Is it illegitimate for the dissenting councilman to take part in those discussions?  Should he not fight to make sure the road serves the section of town he represents?  Should he refuse to drive on the new road once its built, and urge his constituents to join his boycott?  What if the proposal meant his part of town would be under served by the road?  Is he barred from registering a complaint about that?

No.  Unless there was a realistic chance of convincing one of his other colleagues to kill the project before the money was allocated, he better serves his people by making the best of a less than ideal situation.

Here’s another one.  3 business partners vote on an investment, with one voting against the plan.  The dissenter is still bound to the partnership, and therefore, her money is risked no less than her partners’.

If the investment is not successful, she will lose money, and her only consolation will be being able to say, “I told you so.”  So why, if she’s wrong and the investments generate a great return, shouldn’t she be allowed to share in those profits, even if she initially opposed the plan which created them?

—

This is why we bind ourselves to partnerships and political confederations, so we can pool our resources.  And when we disagree on how those shared resources are to be spent, that’s why we have a system that allows the majority to make the decisions.

It’s also why we have ongoing legislative sessions – so decisions can be revisited, reviewed, and revised if necessary.

—

What the two Assembly members, Heidi Gansert and Lynn Stewart, are upset about is that Nevada is getting a disproportionately low chunk of the stimulus money.  That’s a fair concern.  They didn’t want to spend the money in the first place, but now that it’s spent, and we’ve already put in our share of the taxes, how is it illegitimate to insist that this trillion dollar baby at least be distributed fairly?

The money hasn’t been divied up yet, but if it went to each state proportionately to their population, we’d get about $6.82 Billion.  Instead, initial projections have us getting less than $1.5 Billion.

The rules of arithmetic work differently in Harry Reid’s world, though.  His reaction:

[Reid] contended Nevada did better than any other state on a percentage basis through its receipt of nearly $500 million in additional Medicaid funds.

Reid said he served on the House-Senate conference committee that finalized the stimulus bill and that he made sure that sections in the House bill that helped Nevada on Medicaid appeared in the final version.

“I am very satisfied in what I was able to do to help Nevada,” Reid said.

Well, I’m glad he’s satisfied.  The only thing I can think of worse than spending other people’s money foolishly “for their own good” is to spend other people’s money foolishly on other people’s “own good.”

I guess I shouldn’t judge too harshly, though.  It’s not like he’s got any particular pull in the Senate.

—

There are some states that won’t take the money, because they argue that the strings attached will be more costly to their budgets and local economies than their proposed share of the stimulus would cover.  But that’s a vastly different argument than thinking those billions of dollars would benefit you, and then refusing to take them on principle.  It’s a smart calculation that I wish we’d spend a little more time  considering here.  And maybe we will – it’s not too late.

—

But back to the “logic” of Mr. Sebelius.

I have to wonder if he opposed George Bush’s tax cuts.  If he did, does he write a check back to the government every year to cover the amount he would have paid without them? Judging by his outrage at the supposed logical failings of the Assembly GOP leadership, he certainly must do just that.

Any takers on a bet he actually does?