Legislative Dynamite!

So, this afternoon Anastasia of Liberty Belles endorsed Maddox's smackdown of the Idaho House of Representatives for passing HOUSE CONCURRENT RESOLUTION NO. 29, praising the Idaho-set movie Napoleon Dynamite and commending its directors "Jared and Jerusha Hess and the City of  Preston  for  showcasing the positive aspects of Idaho's youth, rural culture, education system, athletics, economic prosperity and diversity." 
Of course, their underlying rationales differed.  Anastasia criticized it as a waste of time.  ("Instead of considering lofty goals like how to cut agricultural subsidies on their famous potatoes, Idaho state congressmen are wondering whether to throw Jared and Jerusha a party or if a flower arrangement from 1-800-FLOWERS might do the trick.").  Maddox - rather less diplomatically - characterized it as a waste of money ("Way to put those tax dollars to use you shit dicks.").  But still, they both seem to agree that legislation of this sort is a bad thing. 
While I tend to agree with Anastasia (see, e.g., her criticism of Sarbanes-Oxley, to which I'd add only that stock prices tell us quite clearly just how dearly investors actually value all those expensive disclosure requirements - not at all), I'm find this post of hers unconvincing. 
Sure, it's always good sport to ridicule lawmakers who pass dumb laws.  Say, for example Bolinas, California (where my aunt grew up!) which voted (by 65%!) "to be a socially acknowledged nature-loving town because to like to drink the water out of the lakes to like to eat the blueberries to like the bears is not hatred to hotels and motor boats. Dakar. Temporary and way to save life, skunks and foxes (airplanes to go over the ocean) and to make it beautiful."  The repercussions of which are ambiguous, and expected to remain so.
But it seems to me we ought to encourage legislators to promote and pass laws like these.  Why?  Because we can be damn sure they're Pareto-optimal.  After all, contra Maddox, they don't cost a penny.  Idaho taxpayers commit to pay their legislators in advance.  So they don't make anyone any worse off (unlike a lot of (most?) laws!).  And they certainly make someone better off - namely the person who gets the kudos.  So why not?  Sure, the legislature could be liberalizing the state economy instead.  But I'm not holding my breath for that.  Given the choice between "effective" and "ineffective" legislators, I'll take the latter, anyday!
Of course, there's always the substantive question: do you agree that Idaho legislators "who choose to vote 'Nay' on this concurrent resolution are 'FREAKIN' IDIOTS! and run the risk of having the 'Worst Day of Their Lives!'"?  Well, I can't speak to that, not having seen the movie.  And, frankly, I've heard mixed reviews.  But hey, de gustibus non disputandum est, I always say.  And if that's as painful as legislation got, I'd be a real happy camper.