Big Sky Cairn

As a general rule, when an elected official introduces legislation, they almost never call it something bad. If they could get away with it, I’m sure every bill would be called the “Happiness, Puppies and Children Act.” Of course, the devil is always in the thousands of pages of actionable legislation behind the frou-frou title.

Now, Democrats have gotten really good at using bill nomenclature to set up Heisman Votes. Sometimes, they even trick themselves. And here are three examples from recent history.

SCHIP.

It is important to recognize that there are usually multiple bills with the same name. Most major legislative vehicles have at least - and often more than - three different versions all with the same bill name. There’s a House version, a Senate version and a final version. Sometimes, one version is really bad while another one is really good.

This got Democrats all confused when Jim Hunt and later Jay Stevens missed the distinction between a bad House version and a more reasonable Senate version of an SCHIP bill that combined different policies under different bills with the same name. I’ve explained this distinction in great depth here and here, but the issue is still proving difficult for Jay to comprehend as he continues to suggest that Rehberg doesn’t support SCHIP.

GI Bill.

Legislation gets mixed and matched into larger bills. A bill that a politician supports may get attached to a provision that the politician opposes, forcing a difficult vote. In most cases, it is not accurate to suggest that voting against such combined bills indicates that the politician does not actually support the provisions he said he supported. It’s more likely that it was the “poison pill” that made voting for the bill unsupportable.

In the case of the GI Bill, Congressman Rehberg supported the legislation as a stand-alone measure, but when it was added to a huge tax increase, he correctly decided against voting for the bad with the good. His vote would not be accurately described as opposing the GI Bill, but as opposing the addition of the tax increase to the GI Bill.

Clean Water Act.

Clean water is good right. Governor Schweitzer sure thinks so - so much that he made the trip all the way to Washington, DC to testify in support (pdf) of the Clean Water Restoration Act. He liked it so much that he sent Congressman Rehberg a letter (pdf) asking him to co-sponsor the bill. Governor Hollywood should have read more than the fancy title of the legislation though because the bill is actually really, really bad for Montana.

Montanans started lining up against the bill. The list of opposing organizations is long enough to get the Governor’s attention: Montana Stockgrowers Association, Citizens for Balanced Use, Montana Contractors Association, Montana Farm Bureau Federation, Montanans for Multiple Use, Treasure State Alliance, Montana Wood Products Association, Montana Agricultural Business Association, Montana Grain Growers Association, United Property Owners of Montana and Families for Outdoor Recreation.

Governor Schweitzer made the same mistake that Hunt and Jay make - he judged the legislative book by its cover and ignored the reality of the legislation behind that fancy title. From the Gazette:

The new bill would remove the word “navigable” from the phrase “navigable waters of the United States” in the Clean Water Act. It would instead define “waters of the United States” as “all waters subject to the ebb and flow of the tide, the territorial seas, and all interstate and intrastate waters and their tributaries.”

A few little words and all of the sudden Governor Schweitzer finds himself supporting a bill that will really hurt Montana.

Legislation is a tricky business where a few words in a thousand page bill can make the difference between doing good and doing harm. Unfortunately, in Montana it seems that the Democrats have been unable to get past what a bill is named to understand the reality of the legislation being considered. Fortunately, Congressman Rehberg - our only Republican representation to the Federal government - is willing to oppose a bad bill with a good name even knowing that he’ll get attacked for doing so.

As a Montanan, I enjoy the clear skies as I trek off to my healthy forests.

[…] over and over again that this election should be about issues. They have have made a habit of misrepresenting Republican views these issues. So why are they so afraid of telling Montanans where they stand on […]

For me, bill ‘riders’ have always been an obvious deceit and an obscenity. I adamantly support line item vetoe. WE needed to hear this from you, and I’m sending it to friends in other states. I really like your stuff.