A congressman who justifies every vote on Facebook
facebook.com
facebook.com
"I voted no on the motion to suspend the rules and pass H R 225, National Pediatric Research Network Act of 2013, which expands the existing Pediatric Research Initiative (PRI) to include a new National Pediatric Research Network... It passed 375-27."
"I voted no on H R 325, No Budget, No Pay Act of 2013... The bill passed 285-144."
"I voted no on H R 152, Disaster Relief Appropriations Act, 2013... The bill passed 241-180."
Justin Amash represents a wing of the Republican party that has essentially decided to refuse to govern, and is content to simply object to anything Congress tries to do that is not ideologically pure, which is pretty much everything.
[EDIT: To those who commented below upset with my "refusal to govern" comment -- look, governing requires solving problems that the public wants you to solve. That solution can even be essentially less government.
For example... a lot of Republican voters don't like Obamacare, but I doubt many of them liked our pre-Obamacare healthcare system. Take an extreme, free-market/libertarian form of healthcare policy -- repeal not just Obamacare, but things like the employer tax deduction for health insurance, requiring hospitals to provide life-saving care for anyone regardless of payment capability, etc -- I would vehemently disagree with that, but I would consider crafting and trying to pass such legislation an attempt to govern. But if the bulk of your legislative activity is doing things like voting to repeal Obamacare twenty-three times, as Rep. Justin Amash did in 2011-2012, then I would argue you are just politically pandering to your constituent base -- or worse, your campaign's financial donors -- and not governing.]
On the other hand, I do appreciate his attempts to justify and explain his actions. This type of transparency is desperately needed in the Senate, where everyone uses arcane procedural rules (e.g. filibusters, "holds," and so forth), as anonymous tools of obstruction pretty much constantly.
While I doubt I'll ever agree on any of Rep. Amash's views, I hope that more of our elected representatives continue to use tools like social media not just for campaigning and voter outreach purpose, but for information and transparency in the governing process once they're actually in office..
Rep. Amash voted no, and there is no explanation of his vote on this date. He couldn't have objected to "pork and garbage," because there was none. Perhaps he objected to the $9.7 billion not being offset with cuts in other federal spending, but then I'm surprised he didn't explain that on his Facebook page.
I'm aware that most legislation has pork and other garbage attached. But if you continuously vote against any legislation with pork and garbage, without attempting to amend or propose alternative solutions without pork and garbage, and even vote against bills without pork and garbage that have historically been previously uncontroversial, (in this case, disaster relief assistance) then my opinion is that you are just refusing to govern.
I voted no on the motion to suspend the rules and pass H R 41, which temporarily authorizes the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) to borrow an additional $9.7 billion from the U.S. Treasury to carry out the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP). The bill increases FEMA's borrowing authority from $20.7 billion to a staggering $30.4 billion. NFIP needs another bailout for Hurricane Sandy claims because it still hasn't repaid taxpayers the $18 billion provided after Hurricane Katrina.
Although I oppose the federal government's involvement in the flood insurance industry, it's appropriate for current NFIP policyholders to have their claims paid for flood damage. But another bailout should be fully offset with spending cuts elsewhere or at least coupled with significant reforms to this poorly designed and managed program. Under this bill, NFIP will owe U.S. taxpayers $30 billion, with little prospect of ever paying it back. The bill passed 354-67.
So he feared taxpayers would be on the hook for $10B program with a proven track record of mismanagement. Sounds like he made the hard decision and said no, the right call in my opinion.
I don't see this as a "hard decision." He cast a symbolic vote to remain ideologically pure. Had our Congress consisted of at least 217 Justin Amashes, their votes would have had the practical effect of denying thousands of people devastated by Hurricane Sandy from having their flood insurance claims paid. That's all the additional funding was for -- flood insurance claims. You can argue about the mismanagement of FEMA in general, but this $9.7 billion had nothing to with that. Voting down this bill would have basically forced FEMA to tell a bunch of people hit by Hurricane Sandy, "Hey, that flood insurance you paid into that you're depending on to rebuild your home? Yeah, you're not going to get any money from those claims until we figure out how much we need to jack up the age of Social Security, sorry."
This is not governing. Look, you can argue that the federal government should not be providing flood insurance (especially insurance that is heavily subsidized) as it encourages people to live in high-risk areas for natural disasters. And you can argue that the current process of allocation disaster assistance from the federal budget should have a better process than "ask for a bunch of money for flood insurance whenever FEMA runs out." I consider these are very valid points.
Yet anyone attempting to govern would make these arguments when they wouldn't interfere with thousands of people experiencing a hardship from receiving assistance that was heretofore uncontroversial, and they would actually then proceed to turn those arguments into legislation and then pass it.
This is what I mean. "Refusal to govern" means doing little else besides casting symbolic votes, which a wing of the Republican party like Rep. Amash is mostly content to do. Rep. Amash is not actually making any "hard decisions" or "right calls." He doesn't have to bear any responsibility for denying people hit by Hurricane Sandy their flood insurance claims, yet he doesn't care to actually solve the macro-level problems behind his opposition to the bill to begin with.
Afforess and anyone else -- I love discussing public policy, so if you want to continue this discussion in a more efficient manner than exchanging HN comments, just e-mail me (see my profile for the address).
"Be careful when you fight the monsters, lest you become one" -Nietzsche
Create a section in a government agency to deal with some known problem, hire people directly into the government for that. Same effect, but you can't hide behind the false veneer of creating private sector jobs. It also becomes much more obvious that if you want to sustain those jobs in the long term you have to perpetually fund those salaries.
Which makes it all the funnier when "anti-gov't" politicians load up their bills with private-sector giveaways.
Until we get more true conservatives in office there is little else he can do except "refuse to govern".
My understanding of Rep. Amash is that he is unpopular with House Republican leadership -- for example, John Boehner, the Speaker of the House, kicked him off the House Budget Committee.
Interestingly enough, Rep. Amash actually used his Facebook page to vent about this: https://www.facebook.com/repjustinamash/posts/47481308922476....
Do you just blindly vote Yes on every ballot initiative?
I appreciate his reasoning for a lot of his votes, and in isolation, his arguments sound very valid to me. But you can take a principled principled stand and make the best compromise you can to move things towards your principles, or you can just try and prevent anything from happening that doesn't align 100% with your principles to begin with. If you're just going to vote against everything except the occasional symbolic vote to on bills that ensure ovums have the right to carry assault weapons, then this doesn't strike me as actually governing.
And I'm not just saying platitudes. I live in Kent County, MI and voted straight democrat in 2012, except for Amash.
I admire his way of doing his job, even if I absolutely despise his political views.
I'll never understand the hypocrisy of the group of voters that freaks out over a possible 1 degree shift in the average temperature of the planet over the next 50 years (that we may or may not have any control of whatsoever) -- yet doesn't want to take any action to slow down the runaway spending that will certainly destroy more lives in a much bigger way.
That being said, next time he comes up for election he'll probably get slaughtered in the primaries when a more extreme candidate portrays any pragmatism in the political process as an impurity that needs to be purged.
We really don't like seeing how the political sausage is made.
That having been said, I admire how he offers his rationale and using Facebook for good.
"I believe in the sanctity of traditional marriage, and I oppose government efforts to redefine this private, religious institution."
This seems like a safe way of him saying that the government should not have any say in what constitutes a marriage, but that he is personally against it. There's nothing wrong with disliking something, but not wanting to force your will onto others.
The government already does not interfere with the private, religious aspects of marriage. The Catholic Church can define marriage however it wants, and the state has no say in it, which is why you can't get a same-sex marriage in a Catholic church.
What's being debated is who should be recognized as married for official purposes (5th amendment rights, tax filing, survivor benefits, inheritance in the absence of a will, etc.). On that question, Amash supports the Defense Of Marriage Act, which says that the government should recognize only opposite-sex marriages, and not recognize same-sex marriages. If he opposed DOMA, and instead introduced legislation to abolish all government recognition of marriage, I'd give him kudos for that!
It shouldn't make a difference whether or not someone is married... you know, equal protection under the law. The solution to things like survivor benefits and the others you mentioned (and you're right, Amash doesn't mention this solution) is to simply have private contracts that people decide upon themselves.
"If he opposed DOMA, and instead introduced legislation to abolish all government recognition of marriage, I'd give him kudos for that!"
Agreed.
You'll note my comment implies that I like actual libertarianism and just not the crap that the Tea Partiers go around calling libertarianism.
Do you really like actual libertarianism? You know, judging people in categorized groups instead of as individuals isn't very libertarian of you.
Because reading it is enough to know that he doesn't fit the bill of a libertarian?
>Do you really like actual libertarianism?
Yes?
>judging people in categorized groups instead of as individuals isn't very libertarian of you.
Haha, what is your point? Make one instead of just trying to find something to argue about. Find me a Tea Party candidate that fits the actual definition of a libertarian and then we can talk.
I think you're conflating Randian philosophy with greater Libertarianism.
The latter was always the plan, the former was as much lip service as offered by every other Republican politician.
Only 1 or 2 republicans are talking about civil liberties but they are being disproportionately effective. Transforming an existing party is the only realistic direction, given the control the 2 parties have over the process. The activist dems are probably silenced by the success of the mainstream dems.
Then again, between gerrymandering and demographic shifts individual districts can become more OR less defensible to incumbents.
Like I said, I admire the guy, especially if his libertarian-ism extends to areas that dovetail with the GOP and Tea Party on social issues like gay marriage or marijuana legalization. Coming out against SOPA was good but you never know if it was authentic or if he just saw which way the political winds were blowing.
How legislation is constructed matters far more. I haven't seen the type of focus on the influence that committee members have on bills and senators have on homestate appointments. A chairman can personally rewrite a bill and only send it to the floor when he is satisfied that it will be supported by the leadership. It is a tremendous position of power that isn't recognized.
If Rep. Amash continues his political career in the same vein, can we count on him to continue to disclose what goes on in subcommittees?
Will he be politically neutered because he cannot be counted on to keep the details of backroom deals secret? Will he make enemies by bringing the DC unmentionables to light?
Interested to see how it plays out...
Source: http://www.mlive.com/news/grand-rapids/index.ssf/2013/01/rep...
Since then he has been removed from the house budget committee and several Republican panels.
Source: http://www.mlive.com/news/grand-rapids/index.ssf/2012/12/jus...
Plus he has this whole "anti-establishment" thing going on that is working pretty well to define him as an independent thinker.
I also hope that this level of sharing grows. It's a pretty small thing for a member of a representative government to do, yet so obviously important. "I represent you. I voted X on issue Y, because Z."
Before her shooting in 2011, Rep. Giffords did blog regularly, Although she didn't give vote-by-vote explanations herself.
100-200 words of justification that you don't agree with/ doubt is still preferable to silence or some 5 minute interview on Meet the Press rife with passive-agressive rhetoric and demagogical nonsense.
Yeah, because those people are completely outside of a bubble and worth trusting. Really? You give a rat's ass about what the average "inside the Beltway" person has to say? They're the cause of most of our government problems, why would you trust anyone in DC who isn't swimming in the opposite direction?
I just read through a few pages of the explanations for his votes and I have read large portions of the discussed bills. Amash is being very thoughtful and responsible with the duties of his office in a way that very few in DC care to emulate.
this guy is off his rocker
You've offered no reason to believe that.
But given the tracking information Facebook sifts via their extensive federation throughout the Internet today, I don't feel any inclination to make it easier for them by registering for their marketing programmes.
>But given the tracking information Facebook sifts via their extensive federation throughout the Internet today
Log out and clear your cookies. If you're not clearing them regularly anyhow you're already being tracked by many sources.
I get not wanting a profile with all your information on Facebook but like I said that isn't required to access this and saves him spending resources to build a system to go in its place.
I'm just trying to think of things that are still left closed. In 10 years will it just be weird that people aren't sharing things?
It appears to be a place for constituents to "check up" on their representative in a way that is convenient and open. And I think that it's a bold cultural statement for a Congressman to make.
I used to think that open and honest people didn't stand a chance in Washington, but that may be changing.