Does the end justify the means?

[BILL H]

Editorial in todays Sun entitled "Hush Money (http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/opinion/editorial/bal-ed.farm25jul25,0,766059.story)".

Significant quote regarding the dilemma of local politicians concerned about the quality of the bay is:

"Along comes a proposal promising by far the largest investment ever of federal money into the bay: $400 million over five years, including $150 million specifically designated to help farmers reduce fertilizer pollution. But the money is attached to a national farm bill that would continue many wasteful and destructive policies for another five years. Chances are, you'd hold your nose when the legislation lands on the House floor tomorrow and vote for it - hoping the bad stuff comes out later in the process, but knowing the good stuff for the bay will almost certainly disappear if you cross the farm lobby."



I don't envy the position in which our elected representatives find themselves. I can't fault them for whichever way they vote. On one hand, I would love to see the Bay get this benefit. On the other hand, I think the overall farm bill is just a political pork barrel, and I also am uncomfortable with using tax dollars to pay farmers to do the right thing.

[BigJim]

I don't envy the position in which our elected representatives find themselves. I can't fault them for whichever way they vote.


You don't but I do. They have the option of making amendments to such lousy bills but they rarely use the option. They are all accountable for every bill they pass and every aspect of a bill that they pass. You let them off way to easily.

[BILL H]

BigJim,
You may think I let the off too easily. However, even our congressional delegation is a small frog in the big pond surrounding the Farm Bill. They can try anything to improve a "lousy bill", but results are certainly not assured. As a matter of fact, because of all the powerful special interests that get fat off the Farm Bill, political reality tells me that our Senators (it has passed the House) are going to be faced with voting on a bill that has a chance to help the Bay, but one that also has many flaws. I even regard the way the bill attempts to help the Bay as a flaw.

I think you are quite aware that perfect individuals and perfect bills only come about through divine intervention. I detect a shortage of divinity inside the D.C. beltway. So our Senators have to weigh the positives and negatives of an imperfect (and maybe "lousy") bill and cast their vote one way or the other. Because I could come down on either side of the vote myself (and I consider myself to be a reasonable, principled, but far from perfect, individual), that is why I wouldn't fault them on a vote in either direction.

[BILL H]

I am coming down on the side of supporting "a lousy bill" that has a chance to help the Bay. As shown in the thread that I started today about the expectations for the Bay quality to continue to decline, I think we need to get some action started now. And the current provisions in the Farm Bill that deal with the Bay will give us some help.

This is one of those times when I guess I need to hold my nose. It's nasty medicine, but we don't have time to wait for the good-tasting stuff to be developed.