(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 legislatoriv
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.
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.
No comments:
Post a Comment
I know you agree, but you can leave comments anyway.