Looking for the No

Finding any excuse to kill a bill

Warning: once you see this, you will never be able to unsee it. The House is debating a bill — say, school choice — and a Democrat stands up to argue that it costs too much. Or the Senate is considering another bill, perhaps one prohibiting mask mandates, and a moderate Republican insists it doesn’t respect local control.

Strange, isn’t it? The same Democrats who have no problem increasing the budget by billions for their pet projects suddenly balk at spending $50 million on school choice. Meanwhile, moderate Republicans who routinely go along with bureaucratic mandates magically transform into small-government champions when it comes to protecting citizens’ rights.

Cartoonist Scott Adams calls this a “fake because” — an excuse that doesn’t even need to be plausible yet provides sufficient justification for a choice a person has already made. I’ve seen this happen so often this session that I had to write about it. Legislators who oppose a bill for one reason — perhaps they don’t want to cross the teachers’ union or they fear disrupting the Marxist march through our institutions — rarely admit their true motives. Instead, they search for an excuse, latching onto a conservative principle (small government, local authority) as cover.

One of the biggest tells for this tactic is the phrase: “I like this bill, but…” Watch this morning’s debate on House Bill 416, which aims to bring accountability to Department of Education funds, and count how many lawmakers scramble to justify opposing this common-sense measure:

Rep. Wendy Horman, the co-chair of the Joint Finance-Appropriations Committee, is one of the most level-headed lawmakers in Idaho. Even when I find myself disagreeing on an issue or a vote, I can always count on her to approach things in a rational manner. It was telling, therefore, to see her debate in favor of this bill, explaining not only the jurisdictional differences between the State Dept. of Education and local school districts, but also the necessity of clarifying that funds must only be spent in areas for which they were appropriated:

This is a problem we’ve been trying to get at for many, many years. When we set a budget, and we say you are legally being given money for x, then we expect you to spend it on x.

On the other hand, consider the arguments against this bill:

• Rep. Lori McCann implied it’s not fair to target public schools.

• Rep. Marco Erickson said that schools have a margin of error of up to 10% when it comes to matching spending to allocations.

• Rep. Britt Raybould said the bill was missing an enforcement clause.

• Rep. Jack Nelsen said that the Legislature shouldn’t micromanage schools, and should allow them to spend money on whatever they want.

• Rep. Monica Church said that schools don’t have the right software to properly account for their money.

Some of these, to their credit, were direct arguments against the bill. However, most sidestepped the actual purpose of the bill to find an excuse to oppose it without coming out in favor of zero accountability. Rep. Dale Hawkins, as usual, summed it up well: “No, there is no confusion: It’s very direct, it’s very short, it’s very concise, I think it’s very clear that it needs a green light.”

Rep. Kyle Harris, who sponsored this bill, closed debate by saying, “This bill is how all bills should be. It’s simple, it’s to the point, and it’s effective. We don’t need fifteen page bills, we don’t need eight page bills, we don’t need four page bills. We need accountability; this bill simply gets to the accountability.”

I’m sure if you went to a town hall this spring and asked any of the nay votes why they voted nay, they would give a plausible explanation. Keep watch, however, on those who make a habit of voting against reasonable conservative legislation, no matter what their excuses.

Bonus: Watch Matt Edwards and I react to the vote in real time on Idaho Signal this afternoon: