Let My People Go

I suggested, yesterday, that many of our government functions should be outsourced, but I didn't say much about which ones. I cannot leave the topic, however, without mentioning one role we could well do without, and whose absence could provide a series of benefits. Let me elaborate.

To be specific, it would be of great benefit to us all if we followed the British example from the late eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries. During that period they sent close to 175,00 convicts to Australia. Wouldn't it be nice if we could export the prison populations of both our Federal and State facilities. I'm confident that there is some country with a lot of extra land that could build facilities to house them, in a location not conducive to attempts to escape. And I suspect that our convicts could be accommodated for far less overseas than locally, even after factoring in travel costs. And how it would improve the atmosphere if there were no correctional facilities nearby. The entire NIMBY problem would be solved – at least as it applies to this particular assemblage of bad guys (and gals).

Additionally, we could pay a bounty to those prisoners who agree to stay away from our shores after release. Ideally, we'll let our people go and hope they don't come back. We might have to pay the recipient country as well, but since most criminals commit many crimes, their absence from our country would probably lower the crime rate and cut the cost of law-enforcement. There would probably be fiscal benefits far in excess of the money we'd have to offer the criminals and their new home countries. In addition, our streets would be safer and our law-abiding citizens would be more comfortable walking home at night. And other times, too.

There will certainly be cries of racism, since the prison population is not reflective of our population as a whole. And there may be the commission of new crimes by those who would like to go elsewhere and be paid to remain. Indeed there may be a swarm of illegal immigrants – especially from the countries that house our convicts – with the intent of having a bankroll to use on their release in their own country. These are questions with which we'll have to deal, but accusations of racism and illegal immigration are problems which we've faced for a long time.

It is also inevitable that the families of those who are incarcerated will protest that visiting is difficult or impossible. Perhaps we should export the entire family. With his family nearby, the criminal is more likely to accept the offer to remain where he is when his term is completed. Since anti-social behavior often affects later generations (whether due to Nature or nurture) there is a good possibility that future criminal activities may be avoided as well. That will lower future costs, an added benefit to current savings.

It will be a wonderful addition to the aggregation of tools to cut the National Debt. Now all we need is a way to export the debt itself.

[Happy Shushan Purim]

America – Land Of Enchantment

                                                                                                                       

(Another in the series of essays on balancing the budget.)

I recently had a problem with an appliance, so I did what the manual said and called the number for service. It was an “800” number so it didn't cost me anything except my time. Unfortunately the technician on the other end,ⁱ although he spoke English, had a thick accent and communication was a real problem. The tech was in Indiaⁱⁱ and the appliance company had farmed out its service. Outsourcing was far less expensive for them than hiring Americans to do the job. In fact, that procedure is quite common and saves a whole lot of money. And, as you know, in free enterprise, entrepreneurs are always looking for ways to save a buck.ⁱⁱⁱ

If outsourcing makes sense, though, isn't it time the government tried it? I don't mean in any kind of limited way, like printing our postage stamps. I have in mind outsourcing the majority of the US government. Before you dismiss this idea out of hand and make it a source of ridicule, hear me out.

One of the greatest expenses in any business or industry involves the salaried staff who perform the work. Not just their salaries, but their health care, pensions, vacations, sick time, and other fringe benefits. And they need a place to work. Usually it's an office building in an area where many of them live. That's generally an urban center with high rental scales. So that's another part of the cost of the bureaucracy – one we take on each time we establish a new set of regulations and a new bureaucracy to administer them. And, unfortunately, we do that all the time.

The buildings in which they work require maintenance staffs which adds to the expense. As do uniforms, laundry, maintenance materials, guards, and the like. Of course the employees will need conference rooms, cafeterias, toilets, and facilities to park their cars, and these will add to the rental costs.

Some learned economist will suggest that it would save money if the government built and owned the work facilities, however in addition to all of the expenses of renting, apart from the rent itself, the government would take on the cost of land and the various costs of building, including the construction crews and their expenses. And, of course, that includes fringe benefits, as well as what various groups – legitimate and otherwise – manage to skim off the top.

And the land and buildings will have to be removed from the tax roles – another of the costs of hiring people to run the government. But you have to spend money to save money. Of course you don't always save money. The government doesn't really know how to do that. That's a negative perspective though, and it's better to be positive. The government really knows how to spend money. I'm positive of that.

However our concern is saving money. And one way to do that is to outsource much of our government. There's no reason why most of our bureaucracy's charge couldn't be handled by men and women outside of our boundaries – in India, perhaps. For a single price – and with many departments we'd probably get a discount – a large amount of our work could be done without overtime costs or fringe benefits. They may not be perfect for the job – they may not know how to botch our government as well as local bureaucrats – but they'll learn. And we won't need service workers to help those employees, or buildings to house their efforts.

Certain functions would have to be retained, of course,^iv but those will primarily be those that are demanded by the Constitution, like defense^v and taxation. They're not our favorites, but our Founding Fathers gave us the responsibility for handling them.^vi They even wanted us to have governmental officials, like Representatives and Senators, however they had higher hopes for them than we do. In any case, no other country would want them, so we're stuck. I'll have more to say on that issue next week and after that I'll discuss a few other ways to save money and to enhance revenues.^vii

With the government lowering its employment roles there would be a temporary rise in the unemployment roles, but fairly soon wages would go down and private enterprise could afford to hire more workers. With lower wages, people would have to remain in their jobs longer before retiring, increasing American productivity and lowering Social Security payouts. The birth rate would also probably decrease making the cost of health care less.

And with a larger available work force we won't need to outsource as much, which will mean that more Americans will have jobs, pay taxes, and buy consumer goods. We're on our way to a healthier economy already.

[Happy Purim]

Next episode: “Go Tell It On The Mountain” – The rule of law.

i      He said his name was “Roger” but I suspect that that's not the name to which he answers when among friends. I'd guess that it's his nom de phone, imposed on him by the appliance manufacturer in the hope of convincing consumers that the service was local.

ii     Although it's not the focus of the movie, “The Best Exotic Marigold Hotel” gives a glimpse at outsourcing.

iii    That's about 55 rupees.

iv     Delivering the mail in Keokuk would be difficult (but not necessarily impossible – see future postings) by a mail carrier in Mumbai.

v      We have the responsibility for our own defense so the military should be retained. We have, however, used mercenaries before and that possibility shouldn't be off the table.

vi     Many of our other activities were taken on by Congress or the courts because they thought it “right” (or politically expedient). The courts sometimes make up the law to suit their beliefs, even if there is no Constitutional basis for their position. Examples include Lochner v New York and Roe v Wade. Legal scholars question whether either has any basis in the Constitution, irrespective of the decision.

vii    Not just raising taxes, though that's a good start.

Three Little Words

                                                                                          

I'm old-fashioned. My teen age years were during the 1950s. (I hear the wheels clicking in your head as you do the calculations. – No. It's the calculator app on your tablet or telephone that I hear.) I grew up with “Father Knows Best” and with the belief that the nuclear family was the norm. Husband and wife slept in separate bedsⁱ and the possibilities of premarital and extramarital sex were unmentionable.ⁱⁱ There was, of course, no such thing as homosexuality, so same-sex marriage wasn't part of the conversation. People and their language were polite and proper. It was a real, eufunctional,ⁱⁱⁱ family.

I was a teen-ager, so my own world was a little racier than what was depicted on television. Certainly the language I heard was, and so were the stories about sex. But it wasn't all that much racier. I went to one of those “special” high schools.^iv There was an emphasis on math and science, and I guess that for most of the students the concerns were more intellectual and less social. There was much more of the “social” behavior in college, but even there people knew that what they were doing and what they were discussing were outside of societal norms. That provided a lot of the attraction. But there were still subjects and language which were taboo in “mixed company.” That was then …^v

In 1972 George Carlin introduced his monologue, "Seven Words You Can Never Say on Television," and everything was out in the open. For a long time the monologue was delivered only on recordings or in nightclubs, because censorship and the FCC couldn't control the content of the acts presented, and Carlin's words^vi brought in the crowds and the money, so there was no one in the business who wanted to limit him. There were some who were scandalized by his act, but they were powerless to do anything about it. At best they could only earn temporary limitations on him, but, ultimately, his words were deemed by the Supreme Court to be protected by the First Amendment of the Constitution.

But that was then, and times have changed. This is not meant to suggest that people acted any differently then as compared to now, only that people didn't want to hear about it. Human behavior hasn't changed, but our openness to demonstration and discussion have. At least to a degree. Now, on network programs, some of the words, and a variety of suggestions of sexual activity, are the daily fare, along with plots and characters never appearing during my youth. It's unusual, for example, to see a few shows without experiencing some crime for which the criminal doesn't pay, or intimations or admissions that an important character is gay. In fact, that is often imortant to the plot, although such a situation was never acknowledged in the “old” days.

Those, however, are among the less blatant examples of the changes that have occurred. Because pay television – cable, satellite, and the like – are not regulated by the FCC, no limitations are placed on them. The theory is that a paying customer unhappy with the content will simply stop paying for it, but that option, they aver, is not open to someone who doesn't pay – someone who relies on the good taste of sponsors. I don't approve of much of what is shown either on pay or on “free” television, but I find the FCC's distinction to be disingenuous. Someone who dislikes a program for any reason – including sexual content – is free to turn to another channel and to let the advertiser know why he is doing so.

Nonetheless, the content of pay TV often, to use the current jargon, pushes the envelope even further. What we used to call pornography is the norm, and Carlin's seven words appear with regularity. If all expletives were “bleeped,” there would be little remaining in the scripts of some shows. The audio would be an almost continuous bleep. And if scenes depicting sex, or those featuring partially or completely unclothed characters, were absent, there would be a marked reduction in the video content as well.

But, to paraphrase the Bard, the plot's the thing, and what plot could be more appealing than one featuring “America's favorite serial killer.” That's “Dexter,” one of Showtime's most popular characters. Admittedly he's a father, but in this case father doesn't know best. Pornography, graphic language, a serial killer^vii – as you guessed, it's largely a comedy. And the title character, whatever his faults, is lovable.

But the real problem isn't Dexter. It's us.^viii We not only tolerate this kind of programing, we love it. And with society's “progress,” only those of us who are old enough recognize the cultural downturn. Others see it as a reflection of real life, as they experience and see it in the media every day.^ix Schadenfreude, however, just isn't my thing. I'd rather live life with father.^x He knows best.

Next episode: “America – Land of Enchantment” – Back to budget reduction.

i      And nudity was absolutely inconceivable.

ii     “The Moon is Blue,” which appeared on the screen in 1953, was condemned by the Motion Picture Production Association. The film, which contained the words “virgin,” “mistress,” and “pregnant,” was considered obscene.

iii     The idea of a dysfunctional family hadn't yet been born. At least not on television. And the word is spelled correctly. I know because I just made it up.

iv     At that time, back in the age of dinosaurs, “special” suggested “above average” rather than having the current connotation of physically or intellectually disadvantaged. (Pardon the attempt, however successful, of political correctness. I disdain it under ordinary circumstances but “calling it like it is” [an equally regrettable term] isn't acceptable at present.)

v     There's no such thing as “mixed company” anymore. We're all equally amoral or immoral.

vi     And his WORDS.

vii   What's not to like?

viii  We?

ix    It's certainly more realistic than the “reality shows” that pollute television daily.

x     Actually Dexter lives with his dead father supervising and advising.

“ ... and for other purposes ”

(another in the series of essays purporting to illustrate governmental changes

that would help us in our battle against our National Debt.)

                                                                           

The quotation above cites the frequently used code words marking the end of the title of a congressional bill, indicating that it contains a lot more than anyone wants to advertise. I first saw it as a part of the title of the “Paperwork Control Act of 1995” which, as I noted last week, doesn't lessenⁱ governmental paperwork but sounds good to the public. Legislative titles, and the bills they represent, remind me of carriers for viruses that trick our bodies into believing that they want something that turns out to be harmful to them. (They're Trojan Horses.) But very few people know that, since the titles are so appealing and the laws, themselves, are so hard to read. And our representatives vote for them even if they've spotted the pork, “set-asides,” exceptions, redundancy, and the creation of featherbedding and unnecessary regulations the proposals contain. After all, their own bills will have the same “other purposes” and the favorable vote they cast today will be reciprocated. Somewhere along the line their constituents will be benefitedⁱⁱ with the ultimate cost dumped on the taxpayers. Greater rewards, however, will come to those who have made campaign fund contributions or have otherwise warmed the hearts of the legislators.

But the rest of us really lose out: even assuming the putative purpose of the legislation is worthy, the cost of its regulations and its implementation simply increase our debt. And all too often the new law doesn't accomplish what the advertisements say (see text above, end-note number 1, and last week's essay), or it results in unanticipated consequences which are similarly costly and require additional legislation, regulations, and “other purposes.” But that's the way the game is played and that's the way the bills are paid. But don't worry. The taxpayerⁱⁱⁱ can afford it.

Still, I'd like to offer some suggestions about lowering costs and increasing the ability of citizens to understand what's happening. While the Constitution informs us of the powers that each branch of government has, it doesn't bar us from formulating processes that simplify, and possibly improve their performance. And Congress, with its legislative outpourings, seems a good place to start. If there are limits placed on the laws they can promote, it's likely that our representatives will become more representative. As the saying goes, “When you grab them by the bills, their hearts and minds will follow.”

To begin, it would be useful to limit all proposals to 10,000 words. Any legislator^iv who cannot, or doesn't want to, spell out the purpose of a law in a document that length either doesn't understand what he wants, or he's hiding something. The proposal should be preceded by an”executive summary” containing, in short bulleted statements, the specific intent of the bill. Any provision that does not conform to the bill's stated objectives should be removed and dealt with in separate legislation. And the document submitted for consideration should list, on a separate page, the names of all organizations, businesses, and individuals who will benefit from it.^v Any omitted beneficiaries, when identified by an outside review committee (see below) should be publicized in the district(s) of the bill's sponsor(s). All bills should be voted on by named voters – not by acclamation or other anonymous vote. A copy of every bill, with the executive summary and a listing of how each Senator and Representative voted on it, should be available on the internet at all times. Similarly upcoming bills should be listed as well as tools to assist the voter in stating his views to his representatives.

It is recognized that many pieces of legislation, in order to achieve a majority, may require compromises. Fine. But it's not always possible, and the most direct solution is to link proposals of the two parties that wouldn't get bipartisan support otherwise. They should be stated in two separate short bills, both following the principles described. The two resulting bills, could be linked for the congressional vote and the voter would cast a ballot separately on each of the two parts (for the sake of showing his “true” views to his constituents) along with a vote on the package, which will be the one that counts.

There should be a media team possibly selected and/or paid by Congress which will read the bills to determine and report on whether they meet criteria. That determination, along with a fact check, and an indication of the fiscal repercussions of the act, should be reported to the public.

These guidelines should make the writing of our laws less time-consuming, require less paper, and be less expensive; they should make the reading and understanding of each bill's purposes easier; and they should discourage the incorporation of pork. Legislative review should take less time and, in addition, it would be easier afterward to evaluate the success or failure of understood goals.^vi That may not be what the politicians want, but it will save the rest of us a lot of money.

As I've mentioned before, however, bills are often followed by regulations. These should also be limited in length and complexity. They should be written in clear language and the author of each individual rule should be identified.^vii Congress should vote on the regulations and their votes recorded on this issue as well. And these regulations should be reviewed by the same kind of checkers as the original bills. Individual news teams, newspapers, other media, will probably have teams reviewing as well, but the ones set up by Congress should report to all the media, and available on the internet, so everyone has the reports simultaneously and we'll all be kept aware of the bills, the regulations, and the pork.

Of course Congress will find a way around the new guidelines, but it will take a little time and in the meantime we'll save some money, especially by decreasing the benefits that accrue to the few, and we'll use a lot less paper. And although the taxpayer is of little concern to our representatives, there'll be a better chance to understand and react intelligently to Congress's shenanigans. It may not be their goal, but it's a good start in dealing with the mess our representatives have created.

Next episode: “Three Little Words” – The times, they are a-changin'.

i      Actually it increases it. See last week's essay.

ii     And that benefit will be loudly trumpeted and milked for every vote possible.

iii    Or his grandchildren.

iv    Preferably it will be written by an aide – one who is not a lawyer – and it will be written in understandable language.

v     It is likely that the author will argue that the main beneficiary is the public. That's a given, even if it may not be true. But every other organization or individual who gains from the legislation should be spelled out so we can decide if that's where we want our tax money to go.

vi     And that's something that should be done and publicized.

vii    Perhaps this will discourage self-important “cowboys” from including provisions not intended by Congress but important to the bureaucrat.

Paper And People

                                                                           

Many people, and that includes me, believe that the government is too big, but they fear that the solution to the problem that many in Congress will suggest will be another department, charged with the responsibility of making it smaller. And of course that will make it bigger. For example, the full title of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (the PRA of 1980 apparently didn't do the trick) was “A bill to further the goals of the Paperwork Reduction Act to have Federal agencies become more responsible and publicly accountable for reducing the burden of Federal paperwork on the public, and for other purposes.” Even the title is too long. But the real test is whether the act did its job, to which the answer is an unequivocal “Yes and No.”

Q. Doesn't the PRA cause more paperwork, not less?

A. For government employees, yes. The objective of the law is to reduce the paperwork burden on the public. The process of trying to do that adds to government paperwork.ⁱ

So, the real goal, notwithstanding the professed aim of all the politicians, is not to decrease the amount of paperwork, but only what the public sees. (That used to be called “secrecy” and was decried. Now it's an important goal of government to “help” everyone. Congress has gone out of its way to find a method by which it is unnecessary for the public to read so much of what will affect them. Perhaps the title “Paperwork Reduction Act” is misleading, but it all sounds very noble.) How can the public not respond positively in the next election to anyone who voted for an act with that name.ⁱ It's the usual disconnect between what Congress wants us all to believe, and what is reality.ⁱⁱ

An example of the results of the Paperwork Reduction Act is the universal health care initiative passed during the previous Congress, which, nominally, is aimed at lessening our health care costs and providing care for all. The act was passed long after legislation to reduce paperwork – at a time when the government should have honed its skills at succinctness – but it is quite long and consumes a large amount of paper. After extensive time, money, personnel, and paper were utilized to draft legislation, Congress passed the “Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act” and the “Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010.” In bill form they amounted to between 2,000 and 3,000 pages (I don't know the actual number) but by reformatting, the bulk was reduced to 961 pages in the printed statutes. That's 425,116 words.ⁱ

But that's only the basic framework. Implementation of the statutes requires that the specifics be spelled out with regulations since the bills only indicate the goals, and the regulations bring wonder to all who see them. They amount to over 2,800,000 words.^v To bring that into perspective, “War and Peace” is about 560,000 words long – far fewer than “Remembrance of Things Past” (1.2 million words. But the statutes and associated regulations and more than five and three quarter times the length of “War and Peace.” ^vi) It's hard to believe that all those who voted for them even read the original bills, let alone the regulations that followed. It is likely that the costs involved in writing and administering this legislation will increase paperwork, the number of bureaucrats needed to manage it, and the National Debt, while there are many questions about the ultimate effect on health care and its costs.

That long but necessary introduction aside, however, legislation like this – and while these statutes are not typical in size, they are far from unique in form – illustrates the extent of Congress's adherence to the spirit of the Paperwork Reduction Act. It demonstrates that the problem is far larger than we might have imagined.

With all of that as background then, it seems obvious that Congress is incapable of simplifying or unwilling to undertake it voluntarily, but legislators can only make things more complex and more costly. Even assuming that all of our legislation were necessary and honest – which it isn't – it can only lead to enlarging government costs. Inevitably the debt will continue to rise, as will the burden on those who follow us.

That's the way our government works. We increase costs while we need the to reduce them; we enlarge it while claiming to make the bureaucracy smaller. Increased revenues are certainly worth seeking, but until we lower the bills we're paying,^vii we won't be able to start on the long path to balance the budget no matter how much we raise.

I'll start talking about that next week.

Next episode: “And For Other Purposes” – Too big to read and too important to fail.

i      U. S. Department of Health and Human Services. Human Services. An interesting choice for the responsibility to lessen paperwork and, presumably, the size of the beaurocracy charged with producing it.

See: http://www.hhs.gov/ocio/policy/collection/infocollectfaq.html

ii      Not surprisingly, it passed unanimously in both houses of Congress.

iii    More on that subject when I discuss some aspects of legislation. For the moment, note the “ ... and for other purposes” in the full title of the act.

iv     It's about ninety-two times the length of the Constitution.

v     Blaise Pascal wrote: “I apologize that this letter is so long. I did not have the time to make it short.” (The quotation has been, from time to time, attributed to others but it is generally accepted that Pascal authored it in its current form.) In the case of Congress, however, the absence of time was not the main motive, I fear, but there was an intentional desire to make the legislation unreadable, especially since some of its contents might be viewed negatively by other legislators. I suspect, as well, that Congress has neither the will nor the ability to do so.

vi    Indeed, the United States Constitution, on which our entire system of government is based, is under 4600 words in length. Of course that doesn't include the signatures of the Founders or the text of subsequent amendments. And the Declaration of Independence, by which we became a nation, is under 1400 words.

vii    In part by shortening the bills we're passing.