Democrats Assert People Are “Too Emotional” To Vote

January 28, 2010steve vaillancourt

Every Democrat on the House Local and Regulated Revenues Committee today voted to kill a bill which would simply have allowed cities and certain towns to adopt charter provisions to allow spending caps. People are too emotional to be allowed to vote, one Democrat argued. Can you believe it? I couldn’t, and rest assured, next week there will be a floor fight and a recorded roll call vote on this bill, HB1522, sponsored by Rep Bettencourt (co-sponsored by Reps. Chandler and Packard and Senators Bradley, Bragdon, and Gallus).

This isn’t even government by referendum as one committee member suggested, claiming that we don’t want to be like California. It doesn’t allow referendums, but it would allow amemdment to city charters which are in effect the consitutions by which cities operate. Thus, in opposing this bill, Democrats are not only being undemocratic, they are spitting in the face of founding documents.

Compounding the problem was opposition to this bill by the Municipal Association, as expressed by lobbyist Cordell Johnston whose very salary is paid for by taxpayers in cities he would deny the right to go to the polls and vote on amending their city charter.

When he testified against the bill, lobbyist Johnston hid the fact that the Association was split in offering a recommendation. Only by persistent questioning did I get him to admit it was not a unanimous vote. I also got him to admit that by opposing the bill, the Municipal Association is basically saying that it wants ambiguity to remain so that cities, which support the association with tax dollars, can be sued more easily.

Along with submiting a minority report which I am copying here, I am sending this to Manchester Mayor Ted Gatsas (and mayors of all other cities in the state) recommending that the time has come for them to stop funding this Municipal Association which acts contrary to the best interests of property tax payers. When I was told that Manchester dues are approximately $28,000 a year, I assumed this was on a per capita basis and would amount to about $350,000 for the Association, low since this wouldn’t even be enough to cover the salaries of Mssr. Johnston and other lobbyists who are constantly lobbying legislators against the interests of cities and towns which pay their salaries.

Legislative research has, however, just provided me with a caluculation on the dues formula (Manchester and Nashua pay exactly the same, $28,933.79 Concord $28,384.90) for a total of $909,703.68, enough to pay the lobbyists! (Boy, would I be upset with this dues formula if I were from C0ncord or small towns!)

Why on earth would city mayors and aldermen continue to fund an association which not only opposes charter changes which many of the cities have already adopted, but which opposes the very concept of allowing people to vote?

House Bill 1522

Majority–12-6, ITL

Minority Report–Interim Study

Rep. Steve Vaillancourt for the minority of Local and Regulated Revenues: Tragic is the only the word the minority can think of to describe the majority reaction to this bill which would simply clarify the right of people in cities and towns to vote on spending cap referendums. In fact, such spending caps have already been approved in numerous cities, and this bill simply represents an attempt to forestall law suits declaring the will of the people as illegal. Tragically, rather than addressing the basic right of people to vote to amend their charter, the majority tried to bring forward smoke and mirrors, claiming how specific proposals could be flawed. Nothing about this bill would mandate any specific proposal; that would still be up to any given city or town. The same city or town would have the right to repeal a spending cap in a succeeding year, so nothing in this bill would tie the hands of future generations or even of voters two years out. Tragically again, the majority insisted that people were “too emotional” to vote on their city charter. The minority believes this is tantamount to saying people are too stupid too decide what is best for them. Too emotional to elect Barack Obama? The minority thinks not. Too emotional to elect Scott Brown? The minority thinks not. Tragically, it seems that only the minority of the committee has confidence in the intelligence of voters to make decisions. This bill would also mandate an override (by a two-thirds vote) of any spending cap, but since that might be perfect, the minority was more than willing to study the ramifications of passing this bill so that we would have a better idea of how to make it “more perfect” next time around. To simply kill it is to shovel dirt on the graves of our founding fathers and our democratic principles and to provide another big pay day for lawyers.

No CommentsComment RSS ReplyTrackback