Legislator fails to address constituent's concerns

One of our blog readers was kind enough to post a response given to her by state Rep. Chris Hurst (D-Enumclaw).  She had inquired about waste in the state budget, particularly the more than $200 million in pork and wasteful spending projects listed in WPC's Piglet Book.  His response is a good lesson in argumentative fallacies.

Elaine,  To begin with, the Washington Policy Center is not an authoritative source of information on government operations, but rather a highly partisan private organization. Second, the majority of the legislation that is introduced in Olympia are issues of policy which have little or no impact on the expenditure of state resources, but rather come at the request of Washington State citizens to improve the lives of folks living in our state. Third, I disagree that building roads for our citizens to drive on, paying firefighter to respond if your house is on fire or if you've been injured in an accident, paying police officers to solve and protect you from crime, having health department officials to protect us from epidemics that in the past have killed millions of Americans, paying workers to educate our children so they can share the prosperity of a productive democratic society, making sure that residents in Washington have electricity, clean water, and food, that these essential services of government are somehow wasteful or a rip off of the taxpayers dollars. In my opinion, this is certainly not correct. If it is the position of the so called "Washington Policy Center" that citizen neither need, nor want these, and that they should all be eliminated by the elimination of taxes, I'm afraid I'm going to have to disagree.

I spent 25 years as a commissioned police officer protecting citizens in Washington State, my salary came from tax dollars. I'm proud of the work I did, and believe that the tax payers received a valuable service. If the Washington Policy Center considered that to be wasteful, then once again, you might consider asking them if they are somehow willing to pay for all of these services, if they are advocating that government shouldn't do it.

Thanks for writing in and sharing your thoughts.

Christopher Hurst, State Representative, 31st LD

Rather than beginning with a thoughtful critique of substance, his first response is a dismissive ad hominem attack, labeling WPC "highly partisan" and insisting we're not "an authoritative source on government operations."  This is simply untrue.  First, we actually read the state budget and the performance reports and audits that are released.  How many lawmakers, staff, agency directors, or reporters can say that?  Second, we are not affiliated with a political party and we work with lawmakers of both parties to advance sound policy solutions.

But the ad hominem attack merely serves as a building block for the straw man that Rep. Hurst proceeds to construct.  Nowhere has WPC advocated cutting police, fire, emergency medical services, roads, epidemiology research, or teachers, nor have we said that these things are "wasteful or a rip off of the taxpayers dollars."  Even though we've never said any of those things, he concludes that "If it is the position of the so called 'Washington Policy Center' that citizens neither need, nor want these, and that they should all be eliminated by the elimination of taxes, I'm afraid I'm going to have to disagree."  Rather than answer his constituent's concerns, Rep. Hurst changes the subject.  This is his second fallacy---he builds a straw man and then knocks it down.

Admirably, Rep. Hurst seems concerned about improving the lives of Washington's citizens.  So are we. We have offered more than 100 specific policy solutions to improve lives in Washington state, and we are ready, willing, and able to work with Rep. Hurst on advancing these ideas.