Explanation of vote
Friday, October 24, 2008
AN “EXPLANATION of Vote” is something that legislators probably don’t do often enough. It is time consuming and they have very little time to explain their responses to votes they have made. There are different types of votes; a vote for a bill, a procedural vote and also a vote for an amendment offered on the Floor. Each vote has different meanings yet some special interest groups lump those votes together to determine a Representatives Grade.
The “Citizens for Higher Education” recently listed grades given to Legislators for a vote taken and many of them were procedural in nature. Many of the votes came as a response to an amendment that was offered on the floor during the debate of a budget bill. I do not fault the organization for recording every vote that pertains to their special interest. Many organizations do that, and it helps to keep their supporters informed of their special interest in the legislature. Some Legislators seem to have a very high score on a particular interest group. Just because a Representative voted against an Education bill does not indicate their lack of support for education. Legislators are briefed regularly on how much money is available to spend and on the financial demands from the various entities. Some legislators are very irresponsible with our trust and vote yes on nearly every spending request, though doing so would break the backs of Kansas’s taxpayers. Some legislators even offer “earmarks” to the budget. One of the votes listed on the “Higher Education Report Card” would have meant $100 million additional spending. Every State House Rep. who supported it got a high grade!
Rep. Peggy Mast gets an A from me for voting for responsible spending in Topeka and not selling out the taxpayer to get approval from special interest groups.
Craig Barbee
Emporia
1esustudent (anonymous) says...
Who cares about the other issues? Education is the only one that counts. We have enough highways already. We don't need more law enforcement or National Guard or that other wasteful spending. We need more money for colleges. Let's cut out other spending except for education. Thankfully, Carol Strickland would do that for us.
October 25, 2008 at 10:53 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
situveux1 (anonymous) says...
Amazing. "Education is the only one that counts." Try again.
Anyone that think law enforcement and the National Guard is 'wasteful spending' is not reasonable. Perhaps next time you're in need to some help, like an ambulance or if you're assaulted, you'll think twice about funding those that protect and help us.
esustudent indeed. Our future is very scary.
October 26, 2008 at 12:13 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )