Editorial 5.4, May 2003, by Deirdre Helfferich Surreality Promise Them the Moon No taxes, they said. No touching of the dividend, they said. There aren’t any problems with the government in Alaska that throwing Tony Knowles and the Dems out and electing us won’t solve, they said. And the voters bought it. They elected Republicans all over. But the Democrats told us the truth. They said, this is gonna hurt, folks. We’ve got to cut programs, we might have to reduce the Permanent Fund Dividend, we might have to levy taxes. Did the voters want to hear that? No way. So the Republicans, who told us what we wanted to hear, were elected. They’d mostly been in control of the Legislature anyway, so they should know, right? So Alaskans elected them in droves. There is now a lone Democrat from the Interior, and the Republicans have a solid lock on both state houses. Now that the Republicans have recanted and decided to tax us, they are choosing the regressive way: a sales tax, which hits poor and wealthy as though they have equal income. (And it is not something you can write off on your IRS return, unlike a state income tax, proposed by the Democrats.) Oh yes, and there are a few fees, too, like the studded tire fee (NOT a tax, no, no!). Next time the voters complain about unfulfilled campaign promises, or dishonest politicians, they should think about what kind of behavior is rewarded: lies or outrageously optimistic pie-in-the-sky promises, not straight talk. We bought it hook, line, and sinker. Guess who’s to blame, folks? How They Do It in Texas So do we live in a democracy or what? I am beginning to think that in Texas, at least, they live in a circus, or maybe a fascist state. The Republicans, who have a sufficient majority to push through an outrageously gerrymandered electoral redistricting plan, don’t quite have a sufficient majority to make a quorum when it comes to voting on it. The Democrats in the Texas legislature decided that the only way to deal effectively with the situation (bipartisanship being unworkable) was to refuse to appear in the state house, and thereby prevent a vote. The Republicans, thinking creatively, sent the Texas Rangers after the fifty-eight escapee legislators to drag them back to the Capitol. So the Democrats sought refuge in an Oklahoma hotel, where they were menaced by a tornado. The Oklahoma legislature has passed a measure commending these Texans, and proposed making them honorary Okies (that one failed). The refugees have asked the Texas Republicans to please stop sending the Rangers to follow their family members around, since the GOP already knows at which hotel the Democratic legislators are staying. Everybody’s laughing at the political windstorm, but it seems to me that it’s funny business when legislators feel they have to flee in order to prevent an injustice. Bonnie the Patriot I always suspected that Bonnie Williams and I had different politics, but I didn’t pay much attention until the recent borough assembly meeting wherein a resolution I was rooting for concerning the USA PATRIOT Act was voted down. She joined with people whose politics I knew I didn’t like (Solie and Hutchison) in voting against the resolution. Hank Bartos also voted against it, but neither he nor the other three members voting against pulled the trick that Williams did: she called for an immediate reconsideration of the question. Naturally, the vote was exactly the same. Given that two members of the assembly were not present to participate in the reconsideration, and one and possibly both of them might have voted in favor of the resolution, it appeared to have been a purely political move expressly designed to prevent the majority from prevailing. Why do I say this? Because by using this parliamentary procedure, the issue cannot come before the assembly again for another year—something I didn’t find out until after I left the meeting. At the time it looked sneaky to me, but it wasn’t, really. Bonnie is a smart cookie, and she knows her Robert’s Rules of Order. Of course, the two absent members really should have been there if they thought it was important—unless they were thinking like Texans. Ah, well. Such are the joys of Robert’s rules and representative government. The question that arises is, why did Ms. Williams go to such lengths to prevent potential passage of the resolution? In her comments, she compared the necessity of restrictions on the right to bear arms (on airplanes, say) with the potential necessity of restrictions on other rights in the fight against terrorism. (Bonnie’s big on gun ownership rights, so this was quite a statement.) She figured that if there was a problem, it would get challenged in the courts and eventually overturned. Fine, except that if a law is obviously bad, why allow it to stand? Why wait until some poor schmoe has to have a suit filed on his behalf and take the time to go through the courts? (He may not have a lawyer, much less be charged with anything, much less be allowed to talk to anybody other than his jailers—and it may be very difficult to get information about him, and the lawyer could be charged or held in the same manner simply for trying to defend him—See "Snooping," page 1.) Why not pass a resolution requesting that the federal government respect our civil liberties in their pursuit of terrorists? What’s so bad about that? Is she perhaps even more uncomfortable about agreeing with Don Young than were those of us who testified? Nah. I think she just has ultimate faith in our system of government and the good intentions of those who fill government posts. I suppose this sentiment is sort of sweet, if a little surreal coming from the likes of Bonnie Williams. We all know where good intentions can lead us. This country is a great place—and I want it to stay great. I just don’t think we should blindly trust those who would be our masters, even if they claim it’s for our own good. | ||
 | | |
