

A congressman who justifies every vote on Facebook - rtpg
http://www.facebook.com/repjustinamash

======
nhashem
"I voted no on the motion to suspend the rules and pass H R 297, Children's
Hospital GME Support Reauthorization Act of 2013, which reauthorizes federal
payments to children's hospitals for operating graduate medical training
programs... The bill passed 352-50."

"I voted no on the motion to suspend the rules and pass H R 225, National
Pediatric Research Network Act of 2013, which expands the existing Pediatric
Research Initiative (PRI) to include a new National Pediatric Research
Network... It passed 375-27."

"I voted no on H R 325, No Budget, No Pay Act of 2013... The bill passed
285-144."

"I voted no on H R 152, Disaster Relief Appropriations Act, 2013... The bill
passed 241-180."

Justin Amash represents a wing of the Republican party that has essentially
decided to refuse to _govern,_ and is content to simply object to anything
Congress tries to do that is not ideologically pure, which is pretty much
everything.

[EDIT: To those who commented below upset with my "refusal to govern" comment
-- look, governing requires solving problems that the public wants you to
solve. That solution can even be essentially _less government._

For example... a lot of Republican voters don't like Obamacare, but I doubt
many of them liked our pre-Obamacare healthcare system. Take an extreme, free-
market/libertarian form of healthcare policy -- repeal not just Obamacare, but
things like the employer tax deduction for health insurance, requiring
hospitals to provide life-saving care for anyone regardless of payment
capability, etc -- I would vehemently disagree with that, but I would consider
crafting and trying to pass such legislation an _attempt to govern._ But if
the bulk of your legislative activity is doing things like voting to repeal
Obamacare _twenty-three_ times, as Rep. Justin Amash did in 2011-2012, then I
would argue you are just politically pandering to your constituent base -- or
worse, your campaign's financial donors -- and not governing.]

On the other hand, I do appreciate his attempts to justify and explain his
actions. This type of transparency is desperately needed in the Senate, where
everyone uses arcane procedural rules (e.g. filibusters, "holds," and so
forth), as anonymous tools of obstruction pretty much constantly.

While I doubt I'll ever agree on any of Rep. Amash's views, I hope that more
of our elected representatives continue to use tools like social media not
just for campaigning and voter outreach purpose, but for information and
transparency in the governing process once they're actually in office..

~~~
Afforess
Read the legislation. It's eye-opening how much stuff has a pretty sounding
name, with lofty intentions, that have pork and other garbage attached. I'm
afraid you just fell for the "think of the children" style reasoning.

~~~
nhashem
Scroll down to January 4th on Rep. Amash's Facebook page. This was the day
that the House voted on $9.7 billion in Sandy aid, which was pretty much just
to replenish FEMA's flood insurance fund. The _entire bill is one page._
(<http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/113/hr41/text>)

Rep. Amash voted no, and there is no explanation of his vote on this date. He
couldn't have objected to "pork and garbage," because there was none. Perhaps
he objected to the $9.7 billion not being offset with cuts in other federal
spending, but then I'm surprised he didn't explain that on his Facebook page.

I'm aware that most legislation has pork and other garbage attached. But if
you continuously vote against any legislation with pork and garbage, without
attempting to amend or propose alternative solutions without pork and garbage,
_and even vote against bills without pork and garbage that have historically
been previously uncontroversial,_ (in this case, disaster relief assistance)
then my opinion is that you are just refusing to govern.

~~~
Afforess
You didn't look very hard, I only used control-f "H R 41" on Facebook and
found it. Here is his full explanation on H R 41.

 _I voted no on the motion to suspend the rules and pass H R 41, which
temporarily authorizes the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) to
borrow an additional $9.7 billion from the U.S. Treasury to carry out the
National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP). The bill increases FEMA's borrowing
authority from $20.7 billion to a staggering $30.4 billion. NFIP needs another
bailout for Hurricane Sandy claims because it still hasn't repaid taxpayers
the $18 billion provided after Hurricane Katrina.

Although I oppose the federal government's involvement in the flood insurance
industry, it's appropriate for current NFIP policyholders to have their claims
paid for flood damage. But another bailout should be fully offset with
spending cuts elsewhere or at least coupled with significant reforms to this
poorly designed and managed program. Under this bill, NFIP will owe U.S.
taxpayers $30 billion, with little prospect of ever paying it back. The bill
passed 354-67._

So he feared taxpayers would be on the hook for $10B program with a proven
track record of mismanagement. Sounds like he made the hard decision and said
no, the right call in my opinion.

~~~
nhashem
Thank you for finding his explanation. I blame Facebook's infinite scroll.

I don't see this as a "hard decision." He cast a symbolic vote to remain
ideologically pure. Had our Congress consisted of at least 217 Justin Amashes,
their votes would have had the practical effect of denying thousands of people
devastated by Hurricane Sandy from having their flood insurance claims paid.
That's all the additional funding was for -- flood insurance claims. You can
argue about the mismanagement of FEMA in general, but this $9.7 billion had
nothing to with that. Voting down this bill would have basically forced FEMA
to tell a bunch of people hit by Hurricane Sandy, "Hey, that flood insurance
you paid into that you're depending on to rebuild your home? Yeah, you're not
going to get any money from those claims until we figure out how much we need
to jack up the age of Social Security, sorry."

This is not governing. Look, you can argue that the federal government should
not be providing flood insurance (especially insurance that is heavily
subsidized) as it encourages people to live in high-risk areas for natural
disasters. And you can argue that the current process of allocation disaster
assistance from the federal budget should have a better process than "ask for
a bunch of money for flood insurance whenever FEMA runs out." I consider these
are very valid points.

Yet anyone attempting to govern would make these arguments when they wouldn't
interfere with thousands of people experiencing a hardship from receiving
assistance that was heretofore uncontroversial, and they would actually then
proceed to turn those arguments into legislation and then pass it.

This is what I mean. "Refusal to govern" means doing little else besides
casting symbolic votes, which a wing of the Republican party like Rep. Amash
is mostly content to do. Rep. Amash is not actually making any "hard
decisions" or "right calls." He doesn't have to bear any responsibility for
denying people hit by Hurricane Sandy their flood insurance claims, yet he
doesn't care to actually solve the macro-level problems behind his opposition
to the bill to begin with.

Afforess and anyone else -- I love discussing public policy, so if you want to
continue this discussion in a more efficient manner than exchanging HN
comments, just e-mail me (see my profile for the address).

~~~
TimSchumann
Today I learned government is about compromising your ideals.

------
stephencanon
I disagree with Justin politically w.r.t. nearly everything, but I definitely
admire his approach. He's also a genuinely thoughtful and nice guy, and very
adept at explaining why he holds the positions he does.

~~~
rtpg
Same here. I find he is able to defend himself on things I would never accept
personally, and in a pretty sensible way. Granted, most of his votes are "more
spending not offset by cuts"-type votes, but he also votes sensibly on some
bills, with good justifications ("this bill creates redundant regulation....
congress doesn't need to do this, this agency already does it").

I admire his way of doing his job, even if I absolutely despise his political
views.

~~~
crusso
How can you despise the political view of acting responsibly with taxpayer
money? How can you look at the US Debt Clock (<http://www.usdebtclock.org/>)
and not realize that we're committing the equivalent of child abuse by
inflicting enormous debt on children who haven't even yet been born?

I'll never understand the hypocrisy of the group of voters that freaks out
over a possible 1 degree shift in the average temperature of the planet over
the next 50 years (that we may or may not have any control of whatsoever) --
yet doesn't want to take any action to slow down the runaway spending that
will certainly destroy more lives in a much bigger way.

------
jbigelow76
I commend Rep Amash for his transparency, it's a refreshing change from
politicians that do nothing besides talk in double speak and view being tied
down to an actual point of view as a political liability.

That being said, next time he comes up for election he'll probably get
slaughtered in the primaries when a more extreme candidate portrays any
pragmatism in the political process as an impurity that needs to be purged.

We really don't like seeing how the political sausage is made.

~~~
newbie12
Rep. Amash is a Tea Party libertarian up for re-election every two years, had
no primary challenger in 2012 and it is unlikely he'll be primary challenged
next cycle either.

~~~
aranjedeath
He'll have no challengers as long as his benefactors like what he's doing.

~~~
jbigelow76
Maybe not in the primaries, but a viable challenger could come from the
Democrats. Michigan still went blue in the electoral college for the
Presidential vote.

Then again, between gerrymandering and demographic shifts individual districts
can become more OR less defensible to incumbents.

~~~
stephencanon
Michigan as a whole can go either way, but Justin's district is about as
solidly republican as they come. Short of radical redistricting, that's not
going to change (edit: I see that the 3rd district _did_ become more balanced
in the most recent redistricting, but it's still a pretty solid republican
seat).

------
mfenniak
Huh. I'm not a giant fan of his votes... but I really like reading why he is
voting on each issue. I hope he is truly transparent and honest; the cynic in
me believes he'll probably only share politically polite reasoning for his
votes.

I also hope that this level of sharing grows. It's a pretty small thing for a
member of a representative government to do, yet so obviously important. "I
represent you. I voted X on issue Y, because Z."

------
fizx
I'd donate $10k in a heartbeat to a bi-partisan PAC (or equivalent) whose goal
was to fund the campaigns of people who do this. Someone should get working on
this.

~~~
neurotech1
Maybe consider donating to Mark Kelly & Gabrielle Giffords' PAC. I've heard
that that Mark is actually a moderate republican, even thought he is married
to a now-retired democratic congresswoman. The PAC is somewhat bipartisan
<http://americansforresponsiblesolutions.org/>

Before her shooting in 2011, Rep. Giffords did blog regularly, Although she
didn't give vote-by-vote explanations herself.

~~~
harshreality
fizx asked for a PAC to encourage candidates to publicly comment on their
votes, and you recommend a PAC that is focused on gun control?

------
fatkid
unfortunately this guy is crazy...and on the far right fringe of things. in
recent years, as more and more people have become involved in the political
process we've developed this notion that there's a correlation between
transparency and competency that simply does not exist. And the perceived
transparency, such as some 100-200 word facebook post summarizing hundred page
bills, is merely an illusion buffered by overly simplistic and misleading
explanations.

~~~
nhangen
Sounds like a case of 'I don't agree with him, therefore he must be crazy.'

~~~
fatkid
yea, no. i'm pretty down the middle and appreciate opinions on all sides...
but read more about this guy.

------
salgernon
Clicking "read more" requires me to log in to Facebook. I don't have a
Facebook account (nor do I want one). I've noticed this pattern with other
groups and businesses. Facebook is not free and open if you choose not to let
them sell your information.

~~~
sanswork
Then don't provide any information for them to sell except for an email
address and what pages you look at.

~~~
salgernon
If this representative is intending to make his rationales public, he should
choose a public venue.

But given the tracking information Facebook sifts via their extensive
federation throughout the Internet today, I don't feel any inclination to make
it easier for them by registering for their marketing programmes.

~~~
chaz
Hard to fault him for publishing where his constituency goes to every day.
Almost no one would go to his website.

------
irollboozers
Open communication -> open journalism -> open education -> open science ->
open politics -> open ?

I'm just trying to think of things that are still left closed. In 10 years
will it just be weird that people aren't sharing things?

~~~
contingencies
Law. Finance.

------
rwc
I really like the concept, but there are better venues for this kind of
material. With just 1.5% of "People Talking About This" I suspect it's rare
his 42,000+ Likes are seeing these posts in their News Feeds.

~~~
BrainScraps
I highly doubt that the intent is to have each post seen in people's
timelines.

It appears to be a place for constituents to "check up" on their
representative in a way that is convenient and open. And I think that it's a
bold cultural statement for a Congressman to make.

I used to think that open and honest people didn't stand a chance in
Washington, but that may be changing.

------
TWAndrews
Definitely don't agree with his politics, but I appreciate the transparency.

------
joewallin
I like it.

