I was disappointed that Taylor Quinn’s column, “Hypocrites decide behind a spoon full of caviar” suggested such a one-sided perspective on crafting legislation.

The base of Quinn’s criticism is that economically-privileged politicians are enacting legislation that will affect lower socioeconomic segments of the population. This observation may be true, but it ignores several other equally valid perspectives that balance this.

At face value, would it be any more right for politicians from lower socioeconomic circumstances to enact legislation that would affect wealthy Americans? I suspect the theme would be fairly predictable here:  higher wage earners should pay more taxes. They would be doing this without the benefit of having owned a business, without (for instance) having managed a complex financial portfolio and without having to navigate the myriad of tax laws that many higher wage earners deal with. 

We already have a tiered tax system in which higher wage earners pay a higher percentage of their income than lower wage earners. Imagine: people get punished for being financially successful by paying more of their money (per dollar) in taxes! If we’re going to talk about fairness, let’s make sure we’re looking at the full picture.

It is normal and customary for T&E (alternatively referred to as “Travel and Expenses” or “Travel and Entertainment Expenses”) to be paid for business trips. This may surprise some students reading this, but I can think of no company I’ve worked for over the past 20 years that wouldn’t expect to pay these expenses. When one considers that a business trip cuts into the traveler’s personal and family time, it’s understandable that certain “perks” would be afforded. 

After almost two decades of business travel, I can say with confidence that the novelty of business travel has long since faded, and I’d far prefer to dine with my family (and pay for it myself) than have a business trip paid for by an employer/client. I suspect many of our politicians feel the same way. But when I’m traveling and away from my family, I won’t feel the least bit of compunction about enjoying some fine dining.

And for what it’s worth, I have walked in their shoes. I, too, was a starving student when I started my college career some 20 years ago. I struggled through minimum-wage jobs and sometimes had to choose between buying food and paying an overdue bill. At one point I was even on social assistance (thankfully, for only a brief period of time). I don’t say any of this without compassion for the poor, but I also don’t wish to penalize or demonize people who have achieved socioeconomic success, which is what this column seemed to be doing.

Our system of representative government is such that a small group of people will effect legislation for the masses. In a country of more than 310 million people, decision by consensus simply isn’t possible. Whether the decision by our republican legislature was the correct one or not would take far more information to contextualize, but it stands to reason that in our highly polarized two-party system, both sides will take points (such as the one about meal per diems) out of context to make (and exaggerate) their point of view, as this article illustrates. 

Jackie Speier is just as prone to this; as a Democratic representative from California (a state that is perilously close to fiscal ruin), it’s perhaps not surprising that she would espouse policies that may not be fiscally sound.

We can’t rely on politicians to present a fair and balanced perspective, but I would hope that journalism can, and I offer these thoughts in that open-minded and collaborative spirit.