Sunday, February 10, 2013

“ ... 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 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.




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.

No comments:

Post a Comment

I know you agree, but you can leave comments anyway.