BENSON: Pfluger Never Acknowledged Problems

LETTER TO THE EDITOR

At a recent town hall in Ballinger, I had an extended exchange with Congressman August Pfluger about how Congress handled the One Big Beautiful Bill (OBBB), and the subsequent Continuing Resolution (CR).

The conversation wasn’t about ideology or party loyalty—it was about process, accountability, and whether Congress is actually governing the way it claims to believe.

My concern was straightforward: Republicans criticized Democrats for years for using brinkmanship — “pass this bill or the government shuts down” — and for voting on massive legislation before members had time to fully read or understand it.

Yet this year, Republicans did the same thing. When I raised this, Congressman Pfluger responded in several ways.

First, he pointed out procedural differences between reconciliation bills and CRs and noted the Senate’s 60-vote requirement. While that distinction is technically correct, it sidesteps the real issue.

My critique wasn’t about vote thresholds—it was about strategy and posture. House leadership still chose to advance a take-it-or-leave-it approach that left little room for genuine bipartisan negotiation.

The mechanics don’t change the outcome: pressure replaces deliberation.

Second, Congressman Pfluger pointed to Democratic behavior under Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi, including Pelosi’s infamous “We have to pass it to find out what’s in it” comment.

On this point, I agreed with him completely. That approach was wrong then, and it undermined trust in Congress.

But agreement here actually sharpens the concern: if it was wrong then, why is it acceptable now? Calling out hypocrisy only works if it’s paired with a commitment not to repeat it.

Third, he argued that Republicans have “taken the higher ground” by attempting to pass 12 individual appropriations bills and negotiate in regular order. That goal is commendable—but intentions don’t outweigh results. Despite those efforts,

Congress still relied on a CR, still operated under extreme time pressure, and still put members in a position where problematic provisions could slip through unnoticed.

Which brings us to the most telling part of the exchange.

I raised concerns about provisions buried in recent legislation — specifically issues involving surveillance, subpoenas, and legal exposure — that many members admitted they didn’t fully understand at the time of the vote.

Congressman Pfluger responded by separating House appropriations bills from a Senate-initiated provision, noting that Republicans ultimately voted that provision down.

That response matters—but it doesn’t resolve the underlying problem.

Catching a bad provision after the fact is not the same as having a process that prevents bad provisions in the first place. Continuing Resolutions, by design, compress timelines and limit scrutiny. They virtually guarantee that lawmakers are voting under pressure, with incomplete information. That’s not a partisan failure—it’s an institutional one.

The most important question I asked remains unanswered: if Republicans govern the same way they criticize Democrats for governing, why should anyone expect bipartisan cooperation — or public trust — to improve when power shifts again?

This isn’t about scoring points, it’s about credibility. Congress cannot continue to argue that “our abuses are justified because the other side did it first.” That logic leads only to an endless cycle of escalation, secrecy, and dysfunction.

If members of Congress truly believe that laws should be read before they’re passed, debated before they’re rushed, and negotiated rather than imposed, then those principles must apply regardless of which party holds the gavel.

Americans don’t need perfect legislators. They need consistent ones.

— Sean Benson, independent conservative candidate for TX-11