If there is one thing that is critical during a budget debate, it is to have hard numbers for associated costs and savings. I also raised concerns on the scope of the language that seems to require a costly immigration screening for something as simple as a person entering the door of a public library. It was clear to me that the amendment had not been properly researched or vetted.
The House voted to send the amendment to study which is a polite way of telling the representative filing the amendment that more work has to be done to understand the bill’s impact before it will be considered. A bill of this magnitude needs to be analyzed for implementation costs and expected savings. It needs to go through a fact-finding public hearing and legal review process. Colorado’s experience shows that the bill is seriously flawed in its current form.
I talk with people every day who are fed up with partisan bickering. I was saddened, but not surprised, when my vote to send this amendment to study was trumpeted as a pro-illegal immigrant vote with little or no consideration given to my comments on the actual content of the amendment and its cost to the taxpayers. Coming up with sound bites is easy but developing sound public policy is a much more difficult and time-consuming process.
37th Middlesex District