TheAgitator.com
Did someone write a check for $87 Billion?
Tuesday, November 4th, 2003Our government just spent $87.5 Billion to help secure Iraq.
For the moment, I’m going to suspend my opinion on our foreign policy with regard to Iraq. Whether I think we should be there or not is irrelevant now, since were are indeed there. We elect people to debate this for us and let us know what they think… or at least I thought we did.
No, my real problem is that the Senate authorized this package and spent $87,500,000,000 of our money by Voice Vote. I don’t know about everyone else, but I want to know who is spending my money.
“I don’t know about everyone else, but I want to know who is spending my money.”
Me too, but don’t you vote by secret ballot?
http://www.no-treason.com/images/uploads/doitvote.gif
John-
I’m of the opinion that Brian was referring to knowing how each of our duly elected representatives voted on this particular issue, which, had it not been by voice vote, would have been enumerated in the Congressional Record. I am going out on a limb here, but Brian seems to be calling bullshit on the disingenuous and cowardly way they handled such a hot-button vote… it’s almost as if they wish to deny their position if need be back home…
I get it Joe, but then isn’t the secret ballot equally disingenuous and cowardly?
“As all voting is secret (by secret ballot), and as all secret governments are necessarily only secret bands of robbers, tyrants, and murderers, the general fact that our government is practically carried on by means of such voting, only proves that there is among us a secret band of robbers, tyrants, and murderers, whose purpose is to rob, enslave, and, so far as necessary to accomplish their purposes, murder, the rest of the people.” - No Treason, Lysander Spooner
http://www.no-treason.com/resources/Spooner_No_Treason_VI.html
Are you kidding, JTK? When I vote at my polling place I’m only responsible to myself–secret ballots just make sense and prevent individual voters from being intimidated into voting one way or another. It also means that representatives represent all of their constituents, no matter who they voted for. It’s neither disingenuous nor cowardly.
But as elected representatives, Senators can and should be held accountable for their decisions by the voters that elected them.
“Are you kidding, JTK?”
Not a bit.
“When I vote at my polling place I’m only responsible to myself…”
You mean when you’re voting on who gets to spend my money and how much?
“–secret ballots just make sense and prevent individual voters from being intimidated into voting one way or another.”
That’s all your representatives want.
“It also means that representatives represent all of their constituents, no matter who they voted for.”
It means no such thing.
“It’s neither disingenuous nor cowardly.”
To vote in secret on the disposition of me and mine? I beg to differ.
“But as elected representatives, Senators can and should be held accountable for their decisions by the voters that elected them.”
Why shouldn’t voters be held publicly accountable and responsible for their exercise of political power?
JTK, while your use of contradiction is compelling, I’d wonder why you need to know exactly how your neighbors are voting. If I vote to put a socialist in office, what is it to you? I get one vote to use as I wish. If I want to throw it away, or not even use it, that is my right as a citizen of this country. Right?
“JTK, while your use of contradiction is compelling, I’d wonder why you need to know exactly how your neighbors are voting. If I vote to put a socialist in office, what is it to you?”
I agree with Kieffer: ‘I don’t know about everyone else, but I want to know who is spending my money.’
“I get one vote to use as I wish. If I want to throw it away, or not even use it, that is my right as a citizen of this country. Right?”
In fact you have no moral right to wield political power to arrange my life.
“In fact you have no moral right to wield political power to arrange my life.”
But my political power does not allow me to arrange your life. It allows me to elect people to represent me in our government. What happens after that is limited by the Constitution and perpetrated by the representatives.
Morally, I have a right to wield political power on an equal level with the other citizens of this country. You seem to advocate taking away the one aspect that lets voting happen on an equal plane: namely the anonymity necessary to vote with your conscience.
What are the Senate rules as regards to roll call votes? Can’t any Senator request a roll call vote? If that is the case, how come nobody did?
As for the secret ballot, I’m quite willing to disclose how I voted
“What are the Senate rules as regards to roll call votes? Can’t any Senator request a roll call vote? If that is the case, how come nobody did?”
A secret vote prevents Senators form being intimidated into voting one way or the other.
Yes, good point JTK. The last thing we want is consituents “intimidating” their representatives into representing them with the power of the vote. Let’s not have elections at all.
Sheesh.
Senate Approves $87.5 Billion 4-1
I agree with Brian Kiefer on this:No, my real problem is that the Senate authorized this package and spent $87,500,000,000 of our money by Voice Vote. I don’t know about everyone else, but I want to know who is spending my money.I don’t like voice vote…
It’s what they want. They don’t want to be held accountable for their exercise of power any more than you think voters should be held responsible.
See how representatives use an effectively secret vote to evade responsibility for their actions? Why would you think it’s any different when voters exercise what is really the same political power?
I’m interested to hear exactly how you would hold voters responsible for their votes.
When I cast my vote, I am trying to elect someone to represent me in a way that is close to how I would represent myself. To do this I look at the candidate’s platform, which is essentially a promise. A record of his votes in congress must be available to me so that I may verify that he is keeping his word. He is accountable to me for his voting record because he has created an expectation, and in return, I have given him my vote. If he does not meet that expectation, I can choose not to vote for him again.
As a citizen I have offered no promise to anyone that I will vote in a certain way, hence I am not accountable to anyone for the way that I cast my vote.
So again, I ask. How would you hold me accountable for the way I cast my vote?
“I’m interested to hear exactly how you would hold voters responsible for their votes.”
I’d judge them by their actions and by the explanation they offer for those actions.
“As a citizen I have offered no promise to anyone that I will vote in a certain way, hence I am not accountable to anyone for the way that I cast my vote.”
You are not accountable to to someone if you vote, for instance, to raise his taxes either directly or by proxy? Nice deal. Who is responsible for sending me those bills for stuff I don’t want from government if not voters?
And if Senators will cast votes in secret that they would not cast publicly, don’t you think voters do too?
“So again, I ask. How would you hold me accountable for the way I cast my vote?”
Well, for instance, if you voted for an increase in my property taxes explaining you thought we needed better public schools I’d observe that you were a thief conspiring with a gang of thieves and I’d modify my dealings with you to take that into account.
“Let’s not have elections at all.”
Now you’re talking sense.
John, so you’d rather have no government at all?
So would I. And it would work if everyone would agree to live and let live; to have the rights to life, liberty, and property strictly on the honor system. That would be great.
However, it is not necessarily in the nature of men to live and let live. There are those who would advance their own interest even at the expense of others. The rights to life, liberty, and property must be secured by government, and that government should represent the people, and be limited to regulatory power over the commons.
In order for people to elect their government without intimidation, either explicit or implicit, they must be able to keep their vote secret. Additionally, that citizens may make sure that their elected officials are carrying out their duty, the voting record of representatives must be open to the public.
Clearly, you feel that the problem is that voters have empowered the government beyond patrolling the commons. I would agree. However, the solution is neither making representative’s votes secret, nor making citizen’s votes public. That would allow yet more corruption and only serve to worsen the problem.
Our system of government is not perfect, but it is the best we have.
I’m not willing to even entertain an argument in favor of an anarchist society as a solution. This isn’t fantasy land.
Testify, Borther!!!
John Kennedy: In fact you have no moral right to wield political power to arrange my life.
Is this ALWAYS true? What if you are a murderer, a thief, a rapist, or a child molester? Are you claiming that my neighbors and I have no right to wield political power to âarrange your lifeâ?
Perhaps in an âanarchist paradiseâ we would all just barge into your house in the middle of the night and publicly lynch you without the benefit of a trial?
John Kennedy: See how representatives use an effectively secret vote to evade responsibility for their actions?
On this point I actually agree with you Mr. Kennedy; however, âtaking responsibility for actionsâ is not at all inconsistent with my worldview.
Brian Kieffer: â¦So you’d rather have no government at all? So would I. And it would work if everyone would agree to live and let live; to have the rights to life, liberty, and property strictly on the honor system. That would be great.
However, it is not necessarily in the nature of men to live and let live. There are those who would advance their own interest even at the expense of others. The rights to life, liberty, and property must be secured by government, and that government should represent the people, and be limited to regulatory power over the commons.
Ahhh Mr. Kieffer, it almost sounds as if you are asserting the existence of âGoodâ and âEvilâ. And here I thought all Atheists found such notions quaint and naïve?
Brian Kieffer: In order for people to elect their government without intimidation, either explicit or implicit, they must be able to keep their vote secret. Additionally, that citizens may make sure that their elected officials are carrying out their duty, the voting record of representatives must be open to the public.
Clearly, you feel that the problem is that voters have empowered the government beyond patrolling the commons. I would agree. However, the solution is neither making representative’s votes secret, nor making citizen’s votes public. That would allow yet more corruption and only serve to worsen the problem.
Iâd swear I smell a logical contradiction in that statement, but I would have to think about it a bit. Your previous post on this issue makes some good points.
Brian Kieffer: Our system of government is not perfect, but it is the best we have.
I’m not willing to even entertain an argument in favor of an anarchist society as a solution. This isn’t fantasy land.
Well, Iâd say that one should ALWAYS be willing to entertain an argument, no matter how âfar fetchedâ it initially sounds. Once upon a time a âround Earthâ seemed like a âfar fetchedâ argument. Although to be honest, I am inclined to agree with you on this point. I see little difference between the âanarchist paradiseâ and the form of âgovernmentâ which wild animals live under, and so far no anarchist has ever been able to articulate why it would be otherwise.
Never-the-less, you have re-earned a lot of my respect with this post.
Brian,
I didn’t say it was the solution to any problem. Making all votes explicit in the Senate won’t fix the Senate either.
I pointed out that Senators wanted the same unaccountability voters have.
Again, you wrote: “I don’t know about everyone else, but I want to know who is spending my money.”
Aren’t voters spending your money? Aren’t they responsible for doing so? If representatives are responsible to carry out the will of voters, who is responsible for that will?
With both Senators and voters we’re talking about an exercise of power that is illegitimate in principle. Doing it in secret facilitates bad behavior, as you recognize in the former case.
“There are those who would advance their own interest even at the expense of others.”
And with your blessing they routinely vote in secret to do so.
No one has elected me to be a voter; therefore I am not accountable to anyone else for the way I vote.
Senators were elected by their constituents and therefore are accountable to their constituentcy. Voting by secret ballot is not part of the job, regardless of whether or not Senators “want” it to be.
I want to take two hour lunch breaks, but it isn’t within the parameters of my voluntary employment. If I want to take two hour lunch breaks, I can either quit my job, or find an employer willing to accomodate my wish. But I can’t have what I want when I want it.
(By the way, say your neighbor thinks it is the proper function of government to tax people to pay for public schools. Knowing that you voted against the tax increase and the subsequent illiteracy that follows when all the public schools close down, your neighbor would observe that you are depriving his children of what he perceives to be their right and he would madify his dealings with you to take that into account, would he not?
“I want to take two hour lunch breaks, but it isn’t within the parameters of my voluntary employment.”
It’s quite apparently within the bounds of the authority asserted by your public representatives. You think voters haven’t effectively voted themselves mandatory lunch breaks in many cases?
“If I want to take two hour lunch breaks, I can either quit my job, or find an employer willing to accommodate my wish.”
Or find a politician or political party willing to accommodate your wish. Voters routinely do this.
“But I can’t have what I want when I want it.”
You can vote for what you want when you want it though, can’t you?
You can vote for candidates promising to enact laws requiring two hour lunch breaks, and you may very well achieve your wish through this exercise of power.
Who is ultimately responsible for the many non-voluntary requirements forced upon your employer if not voters?
“By the way, say your neighbor thinks it is the proper function of government to tax people to pay for public schools. Knowing that you voted against the tax increase and the subsequent illiteracy that follows when all the public schools close down, your neighbor would observe that you are depriving his children of what he perceives to be their right and he would modify his dealings with you to take that into account, would he not?”
He very well might. But have you considered the possibility that one of us might be right and the other wrong about the morality of such arrangements? How would you decide which of us was right about whether such public spending is moral? Put it up for a vote?
As a purely logistical issue, wouldn’t publishing the votes of every American voter be a huge and expensive pain in the ass?
“I don’t know about everyone else, but I want to know who is spending my money.”
It doesn’t matter how any of them voted because they’re all spending your money, in the very same way that “we” are all represented in the legislature.
The premises of democracy work in both directions: up and down.
Getting into this a little late, but I think the facts are even more strange on the Senate vote on Iraqi aid.
Basically few of the Senators wanted to have this (their vote) hanging over them, so a deal was brokered. When the voice vote was taken, there were 6, yes 6, Senators present, any one of whom could have called for a quorum, but didn’t. Everyone else was hiding out somewhere else.
The sole nay came from his exhaulted highness, Emporer of West Virginia, Robert C. Byrd (sorry, DC humor). I also know that Sen Ted Stevens (R-AK - President pro tempore) was present. Don’t know about the other 4. BUT 44 OTHER SENATORS were missing. (I did check Thomas, but couldn’t find out who made comments).
So ask your Senator how he/she would have voted IF present. If the Senate is holding hearings on transparency on Wall Street, isn’t it appropriate to ask about transparency on Capitol Hill?
I have more to say about this at No Treason:
http://www.no-treason.com/comments.php?id=506_0_1_0_C
Just an aside…
Ahhh Mr. Kieffer, it almost sounds as if you are asserting the existence of “Good” and “Evil”. And here I thought all Atheists found such notions quaint and naïve?
I can’t speak for Mr. Kieffer, but one does not need to enroll in a set of religious beliefs in order to decide if something is evil or good. (For the most obvious example, see the writings of Ayn Rand.)
“BUT 44 OTHER SENATORS were missing.”
If 6 were on the floor and 44 were missing, where were the other 50?
JTK,
While your willfull misunderstanding of the two hour lunch thing is almost as effective as your aforementioned compelling use of contradiction, your intention missing of the point only demonstrates that you have no reasonable argument against it. Substitute “two-hour lunch” with “taking a nap at my desk” or failing to comply with comapny policy in some other manner and your argument totally falls apart.
I see also that you totally failed to address the main point of my post, which was that no one elected me as a voter and therefore I’m not accountable to any constituency, whereas the same can not be said of a Senator.
Charles Hueter: I can’t speak for Mr. Kieffer, but one does not need to enroll in a set of religious beliefs in order to decide if something is evil or good. (For the most obvious example, see the writings of Ayn Rand.)
Well … leaving aside the actual point you raise for a moment, I would contend that Ayn Rand was a religious fanatic (and keep in mind I like most of what Rand has to say). If you do not believe my assertion, then please explain the logical, empirical evidence for the existence of âfree willâ?
Oops, correct to my above, the other 94 Senators were not at the vote.
Er, maybe I meant quorum, nah, my mistake, then it would have been 45:
“quorum - The number of Senators that must be present for the Senate to do business. The Constitution requires a majority of Senators (51) for a quorum. Often, fewer Senators are actually present on the floor, but the Senate presumes that a quorum is present unless the contrary is shown by a roll call vote or quorum call.” - From the Senate website glossary
Power Without Accountability
It’s been widely noted that the Senate approved the spending of $87.5 billion in Iraq by voice vote. This was done to save at least some senators from having to
Senate Approves $87.5 Billion 4-1
Read all of this Newday opinion piece:What is the same in the Guantanamo cases, and those of Hamdi and Padilla, is the president’s insistence that he alone has the authority to decide who should be locked up and when, if ever, they will be released. It…