Defending liberty?
So what exactly is a “defender of liberty”?
According to the American Conservative Union, it’s a person who doesn’t want schoolchildren to enjoy a good breakfast.
It’s a person who opposes strict regulation of workplace hazards, even after a dozen workers died in construction accidents on the Strip.
It’s a person who thinks child care workers don’t need more training.
It’s a person who thinks a local redevelopment project funded by local tax dollars shouldn’t have to employ local residents.
And we’ve got five of them in the Nevada state Senate.
Remember their names: Greg Brower, Don Gustavson, Elizabeth Halseth, Michael Roberson and James Settelmeyer.
Those are the only people in the 63-member Legislature who earned perfect scores on the American Conservative Union’s state legislative ratings guide, thus being dubbed defenders of liberty. It’s the first time the longstanding conservative group — known for its ratings of Washington lawmakers — has turned its sights to state legislatures.
A handful of other lawmakers earned the title “ACU Conservatives” for their votes on the 16 bills the group singled out for examination. And just one lawmaker — Assemblywoman Peggy Pierce — voted no on every single bill in question, earning a zero score and the title “True Liberal of the Silver State.”
Why do I think Pierce is going to tear out that page of the guide and take it to Aaron Brothers for framing?
To be sure, the American Conservative Union isn’t wrong about every bill it identified.
The “castle doctrine” in Assembly Bill 321 — which defines how homeowners can use deadly force in their homes — was a good bill. (It passed.) Lifting the state’s smoking ban — which was sold under the guise of protecting kids, after all — in adult-only bars via AB 571 was a reasonable compromise. (It passed.)
The use of taxpayer dollars to invest in firms moving to or already located in Nevada (Senate Bill 75) is corporate welfare at its most basic. (It passed.) And until the 2011 Legislature, I was unaware that there was such a profession as “music therapy,” much less that it needed to be regulated by the state via SB190. (Yes, it passed.)
But to hit lawmakers for extending a package of taxes that was set to expire — which didn’t increase anybody’s tax bill and earned the support of Gov. Brian Sandoval — shows how inadequate post-legislative scorecards can be. A court ruling gutted the governor’s parsimonious executive budget and the choice then was between making even deeper cuts to schools and services, something even tax opponent Sandoval could not bring himself to do.
Six members of the Assembly, however, favored precisely that, as did six state senators. And for that, some got named “defenders of liberty.” Or “ACU Conservatives.”
But how does being prepared to cut the budgets of beleaguered schools — on top of cuts already made by lawmakers — make one a defender of liberty rather than, say, a defender of public ignorance? How does giving Nevada’s hamstrung Occupational Safety and Health Administration more teeth to enforce safety regulations defend liberty, other than the liberty of contractors to allow the same kind of hazards that have claimed far too many lives already? How does failing to require local redevelopment projects to hire local employees amount to a defense of liberty in a state with the nation’s highest unemployment rate?
Has conservatism really come to this? Honoring people who don’t care if schoolchildren go hungry and show up to underfunded schools or questionably regulated day care centers while their parents labor in unsafe workplaces, assuming they can even find work at projects taking place in their own blighted neighborhoods?
Congratulations “defenders of liberty.” That’s certainly a title of which you can be proud.
Steve Sebelius is a Review-Journal political columnist and author of the blog SlashPolitics.com. Follow him on Twitter at www.Twitter.com/SteveSebelius or at (702) 387-5276 or ssebelius@reviewjournal.com.
