I've been trying to avoid talking about this, but I just can't take it anymore: Collin Peterson is demonstrating exactly why people get tuned out from politics on the cap-and-trade legislation that's due for debate this year.Take Collin Peterson (D-Minn.), who chairs the House Agriculture Committee. Back in June, Peterson blocked the bill before winning a series of concessions to the agriculture industry.
This included language that blocks EPA from weighing certain land use changes when measuring the "lifecycle" greenhouse gas emissions of ethanol. He voted for the bill.
But now Peterson says that despite the concessions, he would vote "no" if the bill or something like it comes back through the House. Lemme get this straight -- Peterson voted for the bill last year, but if that exact same bill came back to the House after the Senate got through with it, he would vote no? Peterson himself won concessions in exchange for his vote then, and now that's not good enough?
If it contained MORE concessions for the private sector to continue contributing to carbon emissions at their leisure, would he vote for it then? It's pretty likely the Senate would make any bill even more "compromisey" than it already is. What about then, Congressman? "First of all, this isn't going anyplace in the Senate," Peterson told a conservative talk radio show based in North Dakota, according to the Minneapolis Star Tribune. "But if it did and we ended up with a bill that was similar to what came out of the House and that was going to become law, I would vote no." Shorter Peterson: I voted for it then, but I wouldn't now because...because."
Folks, THIS is one of the several things that's wrong with politics today. Inconsistency for the sake of what the Congressman thinks is political expediency causes voters' BS Meters to spin out of control. If you vote for a piece of legislation, that means you support it. If nothing about the legislation changes, you should still support it six months after you voted for it. Changes in the attitudes of your private sector donor base should not affect that rather simple calculus.
Decisions leaders make to save their own hides end up hurting a lot more than just the folks who pay the political bills. |
