What Counts as “Good Policy” Depends on Who’s in Power

On June 26, 1984, the United States Senate passed the Uniform Minimum Drinking Age Act.  The bill, backed by President Ronald Reagan, would withhold 5% of federal highway aid funds from states that failed to raise their drinking age to 21 after a three-year grace period.

Senator Frank R. Lautenberg (D-NJ) was the Senate sponsor of the bill.  I was his legislative assistant.

During the debate on the bill, Senator Steve Symms (R-Idaho) rose to oppose the bill.  He said he opposed the withholding of highway funds because it amounted to blackmail.

Senate Lautenberg calmly responded to Symms by asking: “Is this the same Senator Symms who introduced legislation to withhold not 5% but 100% of highway funds from states that did not allow motorcycles on High Occupancy Vehicle lanes?”

That debate was over.

Senator Symms approached Lautenberg on the floor and commented, “You see, Senator, when I do it, it is good public policy, but when you do it, it’s blackmail.”

For most of American history, the states adjusted their Congressional District lines after the 10-year census.

This year, President Donald Trump sought to change this process, saying that he was “entitled” to five more Republican seats in Texas and would try to add more in other states.  Not surprisingly, states like California and Virginia offered to counter this notion of “entitlement” by adjusting their Congressional districts.

Virginia Republicans are howling.  They did not howl when President Trump set this process in motion.  When President Trump does it, it apparently is good public policy, but when the Democrats counter his actions, there is fault to be found.

I suggest that Virginia Republicans focus their attention on the source of their distress: President Donald J. Trump.

Thomas J. Howarth
Front Royal, VA

Disclaimer: The opinions expressed in the letters published on this page are solely those of the respective authors and do not necessarily reflect the views or opinions of the Royal Examiner’s editorial team, its affiliates, or advertisers. The Royal Examiner does not endorse or take responsibility for the accuracy, completeness, or validity of any statements made by the authors. The Royal Examiner has not independently verified the statements and claims presented in the letters. Readers are encouraged to exercise their own judgment and critical thinking skills when evaluating the content. Any reliance on the information in the letters is at the reader’s own risk.

While the Royal Examiner makes every effort to publish diverse opinions, it does not guarantee the publication of all received letters. The Royal Examiner reserves the right to edit letters for clarity, length, and adherence to editorial guidelines. Moreover, the Royal Examiner does not assume any liability for any loss or damage incurred by readers due to the content of the letters or any subsequent actions based on these opinions.

In submitting a letter to the editor, authors grant the newspaper the right to publish, edit, reproduce, or distribute the content in print, online, or in any other form.

We value our readers’ engagement and encourage open, constructive discussions on a variety of topics. However, the Royal Examiner retains the right to reject any letter that contains offensive language, personal attacks, or violates any legal regulations. Thank you for being a part of our vibrant community of readers and contributors, and we look forward to receiving your diverse perspectives on matters of interest and importance.