Sunday, December 22, 2024
34.0°F

Jore weighs in on legislative impasse

| May 10, 2007 12:00 AM

By Rep. Rick Jore

HD 12

It appears everyone has a spin on the circumstances of the last week of the session and where the fault lies regarding no budget being adopted. I will share my perspective.

I was in the Senate chambers listening to debate while waiting for the House to convene when the motion to adjourn “sine die” was made.

I was surprised at this move and could tell the Republicans in the Senate were also.

The motion passed on a party line vote with the Senate D’s voting to adjourn before the House even went into session on the last day.

I had been called into the office of the House Speaker just the day before and the message was this: “No one wins if we have a special session.

“We are better off with the Governor’s original budget (HB 2) than what the Senate has sent back to us with our original budget bills. We expect the D’s to vote party line to oppose us. Will you vote with us?”

(HB 2 was approximately a 25 percent increase in the budget from the last biennium but was some $27 million less than the Senate amendments to the budget bills. In the end, even HB 2 wasn’t enough for the Dems when they saw a chance to increase it even more. So much for taxpayers who are being taxed out of their homes.)

The House Appropriations committee was working on moving HB 2 out of the committee, with Democrat opposition, at the very time the Senate adjourned.

Once they adjourned, there was no need to bring HB 2 to the House floor since it now could not be sent to the Senate.

Partisan politics makes for double-minded politicians. The Democrats in the House and Senate had been clamoring for HB 2 from the day the House Republicans divided it into several bills. Now they wanted nothing to do with it.

(For those who are wondering, I would not have voted for HB 2. I will not support these obscene and outrageous spending increases for any reason.)

Once the Senate adjourned on the last day, it was “take it or leave it” for the House regarding the budget bills. On a 51-49 vote, the House said “leave it” with all the R’s and myself voting to adjourn “sine die” and reject the outrageously bloated budget bills from the Senate.

I was pleased that the R’s stuck together on this and did not cave to the pressure. In my view, there is nothing “obstructionist” about this. With a projected surplus of over $1 billion and most of it ongoing, taxes need to be reduced.

Keep in mind that no significant tax reduction bills had been passed by the Senate.

The plan to give $400 to certain property owners was neither a “rebate” nor a “tax cut.”

It was not based on the amount of taxes paid and it did not reduce property taxes. It was nothing more than wealth redistribution and vote buying.

I will reject any wages for the special session. The Molloy-Trewieller Law firm began garnishing what they could from my wages at the beginning of April and the garnishment order will be applicable to any special session, so please don’t think this is any great sacrifice on my part. I am simply seeking to prevent paying for legal fees that are not mine.

I will continue to resist paying for this unjust order. (This garnishment pertains to the legals fees and the Supreme Court order from the last election).

Also, in light of the many messages I received during the session requesting my support for more money for more programs and the contention that I must disregard the principles of my campaign in order to “represent all the people,” I want to convey the words of Barry Goldwater, which express my sentiments precisely:

“I have little interest in streamlining government or in making it more efficient, for I mean to reduce its size. I do not undertake to promote welfare, for I propose to extend freedom. My aim is not to pass laws, but to repeal them. It is not to inaugurate new programs, but to cancel old ones that do violence to the Constitution … or have failed their purpose … or that impose on the people an unwarranted financial burden. I will not attempt to discover whether legislation is ‘needed’ before I have first determined whether it is constitutionally permissible. And if I should be attacked for neglecting my constituents’ ‘interests,’ I shall reply that I was informed that their main interest is liberty, and in that cause I am doing the very best I can.”

Rick Jore

House District 12

644-2542

544-2389 cell

rickjore@hotmail.com