The devastation of Hurricane Katrina brought many issues to the forefront that have recently been relatively absent from the minds of Americans, namely racial issues, the competence of the federal government, and nepotism. Some lawmakers across the country rushed to draft legislation aiming to rebuild New Orleans, while others decided the task would prove too expensive and instead opted to bulldoze the area.
When it comes to the hurricane fallout, the most salient issue in the Wisconsin State Legislature recently has been how to curb gas prices.
State Rep. Steve Nass attempted earlier this month to force the legislature to hold a special session in hopes of creating a gas tax holiday. The proposal involved a temporary one-month suspension of the state's gas tax, which runs at roughly 30 cents a gallon.
Such a proposal, however, would only result in minimal short-term relief at the pump. As soon as the holiday ends, gas prices would return to normal once again. While the temporary elimination of the tax would save the average Wisconsin motorist several dollars over a few weeks, the state would undoubtedly lose an unacceptable amount of revenue. And, in case you haven't heard, the state is already in the midst of a budget crunch that has already proved immensely detrimental to the University of Wisconsin system.
While Rep. Nass was simply trying to appease his constituents, bills such as these bring into question how the legislature should truly serve its citizens. Lawmakers can be responsive and do what appears to be politically popular, or they can be responsible and act in the best interest of their constituency as a whole, even if they have to burn a few bridges in the process. Unfortunately, Rep. Nass and far too many elected officials tend to lean toward the former.
The founding fathers purposely insulated the legislative branch so it would not be subject to popular waves of public opinion; the United States Senate was originally elected by state legislatures, and only one-third of the body is up for reelection every cycle.
If every member of the legislature decided to completely capitulate and vote solely on what the public wanted, we would have high spending coupled with low taxes, thus creating a looming deficit (let's ignore how our country is being run in exactly this way). If we lived in a true democracy, slavery would not have ended in 1865, we would not have integrated southern public schools during the civil rights movement and homosexuality would have been classified as a curable disease many years ago. Heck, if we really only listened to the will of the people, we could retroactively defeat President Bush, who according to a new ABC/Washington Post poll now enjoys a 42 percent approval rating — the lowest of his presidency.
It is easy, however, to see why many politicians choose not to go against the wishes of their constituents. If a representative consistently ignores public opinion, odds are he will be looking for a new job come November. And the decision to vote against public sentiment becomes increasingly difficult during a high profile vote.
Fortunately, there has recently been a resurgence of sorts in the notion that the government should act in the public's best interest, regardless of the potential consequences. To begin with, Rep. Nass only managed to convince 12 legislators, thus far, that the gas tax holiday was a reasonable response to soaring gas prices. Also, in a move that angered many Americans, Congress voted to close down many military bases across the country — not because they hold personal grudges with the military, but because they found the bases inefficient and unproductive.
U.S. Rep. Jim Sensenbrenner also went against public opinion and became one of only 11 representatives who voted against an additional $51.8 billion in aid to Katrina victims. He did this not out of spite nor because he cared little for those affected by the hurricane, but because he found the bill lacked accountability and was not convinced the money would reach the right people.
U.S. Senator Russ Feingold made a name for himself nearly four years ago when he became the lone Senator to vote against the Patriot Act. In the days following Sept. 11, 2001, Americans were ready to give President Bush all the power he wanted, civil liberties be damned. Yet, Senator Feingold decided to do what he thought would be best for the country.
Hopefully, politicians across the nation will follow Wisconsin's lead and stop groveling at the public's feet by starting to vote in the nation's best interests. Until that happens, the public will be inundated with pork and attempts to save us 30 cents.
Robert S. Hunger ([email protected]) is a senior majoring in political science and journalism.
