The Lack of Transparency is The Dangerous Parasite to Liberty
Rep Ken Pendergraft
March 22, 2024
I hear and read a lot about the lack of
civility in the Wyoming Legislature. For example, in a recent Op-Ed for WyoFile,
Amy Edmonds writes, “Our
legislators should be emulating statesmanship through good governance
practices, continual civility and substantive debate that focuses on issues and
not personalities.”
Note the last
(inaccurate) assertion therein, namely, suggesting that at the heart of the
issue are personality differences. This is a misdiagnosis, it’s the proverbial
straw man argument.
The two
factions being manifest in the Republican party, not only statewide, but in
much of the heartland of America, are actually divided over the proper role of
government. What exactly is “good governance” as both Edmonds and
Representative Cyrus Western call for in recent op-eds?
Basic tenets of
the Republican Party include smaller government, less spending, and minimal
intrusion into our lives. Recent trends, even here in Wyoming, are for
ever-larger, more expensive and intrusive government. A cradle-to-grave,
provisional government that creates ever-increasing dependence, eventually
proving to be a parasite upon liberty that cannot be eradicated.
The basic
purpose for government is to protect individual liberty, specifically the
liberty of those unable to defend themselves. When we cede personal
responsibility (whether it be to provide for ourselves or those around us), and
rely upon the collective to provide, we sacrifice liberty. It is all too easy
for those charged with protection to become tyrannical.
The friction
in the house is not about personalities, it’s about these fundamental
principles;
it’s about what constitutes good governance.
Those labeled the Freedom Caucus (whether or
not they are actually members), hold a historically conservative view and fight
against this ever-growing, more expensive, and ultimately more dangerous
parasite on liberty. Meanwhile, those labeled the Wyoming Caucus, or calling
themselves “Traditional Conservatives” tend to see a government solution for
virtually any societal ill. They vote continually for more spending and more
programs. From this vantage point they claim that Wyoming (here they mean state
government and her agencies) “can’t afford” to give anything back to the
people.
Wyoming’s state
government has become like a wealthy dictator, ignoring the complaints of his
peasants, responding that “you people should be grateful for all I’ve done for
you! You are lucky you don’t pay for everything you take.” This dictator
collects hundreds of millions more than he needs but is unwilling to give back
to the people unless he can dictate exactly how “his” money shall be
spent.
On the other
side of the issue, the Freedom Caucus and those in agreement with them hold 42%
of the seats in the House of Representatives, but none of the Committee
Chairmanships. We have no representation on the Appropriations Committee. When
Speaker Sommers appointed Joint Conference Committees, they were virtually
always one-sided.
At the
beginning of the session, we (the disenfranchised and outnumbered right) fought
back with whatever we had available, according to the rules. We called for the
Ayes and Nays to add transparency for the voters, not to “weaponize the system”
as some claim.
We happen to
think it’s important for you all to know how we vote, and we are proud of our
votes. We voted against many committee bills, not because we had no respect for
the traditions of the House, but because they were bad bills that we had no
real voice in forming. When we did so, the other side simply resurrected those
bills as budget amendments, thereby legislating from the budget. We sought to
shine light on that whenever we could. We killed the Capital Construction bill
so that each item within could be voted on for its merit in the spirit of
Wyoming law. Most of it was reinstalled in the final budget.
No, it’s not
about personalities, it’s about principle.
