Republicans unkind to Simmons

Last week, Congressman Rob Simmons (R-2nd) was denied over $37 million in proposed transportation funding.

All of the $37 million would have benefited the district, including $6 million for a project in Mansfield.

Traditionally, representatives are unlikely to receive all of the money they propose. Nonetheless, lawmakers usually get a portion of what they want. Simmons, a Republican himself, submitted his funding requests to the Republican Chairman of the Transportation Subcommittee. As the bill emerged out of committee, Simmons and eastern Connecticut received a big fat zero. The Republican leadership denied Simmons every single penny he requested.

The fact Simmons was unable to get any of his requests to the floor of the House is not the issue, however. The appalling story behind the story is the reason why the Republican leadership denied Simmons the money. The actions of Transportation Subcommittee Chairman Ernest Istook deserve to be sanctioned and Istook should be denied his chairmanship in the next Congress.

See, Simmons was denied the $37 million in funding not because his projects were wasteful or erroneous, but because Simmons dared to break with the Republican leadership on an issue. In May, Simmons showed the courage to break with the Republican stance regarding Amtrak. In doing so, Simmons signed a letter to Istook that disagreed with Istook's position on the issue.

The disagreement was over approximately an additional half million dollars that Simmons wished Amtrak to receive. Istook thought the additional money was wasteful. Because of this disagreement of position, Istook sought to send a clear message to Simmons - that dissent would not be tolerated.

Istook was wrong for what he did to Simmons. Forcing conformity on individual legislators by punishing constituents is not appropriate political policy. Furthermore, denying an entire district $37 million over a disagreement of less than $1 million on another issue does not seem like appropriate punishment.

Nonetheless, forcing conformity within the Republican Party is not just isolated to the Simmons case. In fact, Istook has abused his leadership position to punish other legislators who signed Amtrak support letters. In light of this all, Simmons recently received a letter from Istook apologizing for the punishment and promising to give Simmons' projects careful consideration in the future. Istook has not made similar promises to other legislators who were victims of his wrath.

Decisions to deny the appropriation of money should be based on merit and the worthiness of the project. It is inconceivable that all of Simmons' projects were unworthy. In fact, it is probable that if the projects were in Istook's home district, they would have all been easily included. Wasteful spending is a problem that has plagued the Congress. However, cutting spending as punishment is no way to reform a budget. Furthermore, Simmons' projects were far from wasteful.

The story is even more twisted because after punishing representatives who disagreed with him on the issue of Amtrak, Istook appropriated the single largest amount ($51 million) to his own district. Appropriating money to one's home district is not the issue, the problem is that many experts disagree whether the $51 million appropriation will have any tangible benefits.

Istook's fate as a leader in the Republican Party for the new Congress is now up to the Republican Steering Committee. On the steering committee are two members that were victims of Istook's wanton punishments. Hopefully these Republicans will fairly evaluate him on his qualities as a leader. If they do, clearly Istook should be removed as chairman of the subcommittee.

Punishing other moderate Connecticut and New England Republicans seems to have become a trend by the leadership of a party that is becoming increasingly conservative. Recently, the Congress passed a rules change that allows Tom Delay to retain his leadership position if he is indicted by a Texas grand jury. Four Republicans, including Connecticut's Chris Shays and Simmons, spoke against the move. Shays was extremely vocal against the rules change and for his opposition he may lose his second-in-command slot on the House Budget Committee.

The Republican Party should welcome dissenting voices and variety of opinion in the ranks. Such independence should be especially received on small issues that do not conflict with the broader Republican ideology. Nonetheless, even on issues central to the party platform, it is essential to realize that representatives are elected by their constituency and not by a central party of conformity.

In fact, the actions of Istook did not just punish Simmons - the malevolent actions of Istook ran the risk of punishing the entire Republican Party. Simmons is considered a highly vulnerable incumbent and by eliminating programs that Simmons can tout as accomplishments is a reckless action that jeopardizes the election of a fellow partisan.

Simmons and Republicans throughout the Northeast would stand an extremely hard time being re-elected if they preached policy like the Republican leadership does. Simmons has voted with his party on a supermajority of key votes, but he has demonstrated a great deal of courage to break with his party on a third of key votes.

Simmons has been criticized in the past for not breaking with his party enough. He has been criticized for voting with the Republican leadership on key votes that may have been unpopular in Connecticut. However, given the recent actions of Istook, perhaps criticism of Simmons' continuous siding with the Republican leadership is not his fault. Perhaps Simmons wishes to vote against his party, but he fears retribution.

If such is the case, Simmons should analyze how welcome he is in a party that is increasingly hostile to him and other moderates. He should also analyze how accurately he can represent his opinions and the opinions of his district in a party that is antagonistic to those opinions. Either a dramatic change or a profile in courage is needed. Although unlikely, a sentiment of accepting the views of the minority by the majority party is in order.

Sources:

"2nd District Denied Millions In Aid." The Hartford Courant. 25 November 2004.

"As Projects Here Idle, Oklahoma Gets The Gas." The Hartford Courant. 1 December 2004.

"Hopes For Funds Revived." The Hartford Courant. 3 December 2004.