I fault myself for my generosity. And for my trust in human nature. Trusting in the human nature of legislators is probably a mistake since there is the inherent assumption that they are human.i And that human nature is good. In retrospect, the evidence for both assumptions is meager at best. In addition to their quest for specific personal benefits, politicians are eager to please potential voters (and donors as wellii). And they're likely to rush into action to solve all the problems that their constituents perceive. Their intentions are good, but the road ...iii
Their intentions are good,iv but the legislation they propose is formulated by their staffs, and the specifics are delineated by regulators. And the result is a flood of incomprehensible bills which are accompanied by rules and regulations that make complex and predatory laws themselves seem like models of virtue, clarity, and simplicity. No one can understand them – not their “authors” not those who vote on them. Our servants have taken over.
But that's by design.v A few good “sound bites” that express concern for the “unfortunate,” or for the middle-class (if that's more representative of the district he represents or seeks to represent), will establish the author's good will.vi Unfortunately, he's simply “talking the talk.” Congressvii has an ax to grind, and it grinds it to a fine degree for anything but cutting expenditures. Politicians buy votes with funds that aren't their own. Along with the office goes a big payoff, so it's worth it. Especially since it's bought with taxpayer money. According to the Center for Responsive Politicsviii the median wealth of a member of the House of Representatives in 2012 was about $6,000,000, and Senators were worth twice that.ix I don't know (but I doubt it) if that includes the benefits they'll earn after they retire or are not reelected, or the amounts they'll earn as lobbyists and “consultants,” but those amounts are not inconsiderable.
Much of this is because we don't know what they're doing in our names. In a previous essayx I bewailed the fact that so many laws are beyond our comprehension, and they should be limited to 10,000 words. In retrospect, however, a lot can be hidden in a bill of that lengthxi – especially when misleading political language is used, and regulations, on which no one votes, will flesh things out. So I'll try to simplify and clarify the process. I have no doubt that our crafty politicians will find a way around new rules, but they'll have to work harder to do so.
In any event, if those we choose to serve us are asked to do so – to let us understand from their legislation and to perform their duties because it is virtuous to do so even without personal benefit – they might be helped by some guidelines, especially ones that they understand. To wit:
First of all, no bill should have more words than the average comic book.xii
Laws should be written in language understandable by the average taker of the SATs (using the mean reading comprehension score in the most recent exam) – it is understood that the SATs are an overestimate of the ability of citizens since only those who wish to attend college take it. Those without such goals, or those who are convinced that they won't get in anywhere, are less likely to do so.
Several things may result from these two guidelines, including the following:
The bills may be more understandable to members of Congress and to the public,The bills will be short enough to read before voting,
Congress may be inspired to improve the level of education – theirs and the public's, and
Congress may pressure the College (Entrance Examination) Board to make the exams easier so they can result in higher grades for those examined and the congressmen can make their bills more complex and difficult to understand.
Surely members of Congress will need well-educated aides to do some of the work for them. But that is understandable and justified. After all, Congressmen work too hard. I know that because that is what they say, and our public officials wouldn't mislead us.
But what kind of laws do we need?
The first bill should eliminate any differences between members of Congress and the people they “serve.” There should be no exemptions from the law,xiii nor special perks – especially those that last a lifetime. That should begin immediately and members should not benefit from their jobs. Perhaps this condition should be retroactive. They present themselves as, and the public believes them to be (or would like to believe them to be), interested in making our country better. They claim to be in it for us, not for themselves. Let's make it easier for them to keep this vow.
The second requirement that should be passed is one that requires a (roughly) balanced budget. The cost of the program should be listed as part of the legislation so people know what they'll have to pay. It is not being suggested that there be a specific offset given since a binary choice should not be imposed on those voting. It is being suggested, however, that the public be shown lists of proposed and existing programs and their costs, and that some mechanism be implemented that allows the voters to indicate preferences for what they get and what they're willing to give up to get it.
And one further basic guideline is that the votes for and against all legislation be recorded and published so voters know what those whom they have chosen and hired to do their bidding are actually doing.
The guidelines and basic rules I've listed, and the ability of both voters and the media to understand other proposals, will, more than likely, keep legislation understandable. The restriction on length will require that complex bills be broken down into smaller components. While there may be some concern that such a method may lead to important components of a bill being voted down while the bill, itself, passes. If, however, that component is defeated because people understand what it says, perhaps that's a good thing. (Additionally it will be much easier to spot unjustified benefits for the Congressmen and their friends and families.) And maybe we can regain the possession of our government from those who have usurped it.
Next
episode: “From
Nicéphore Niépce To The Sight Bite”
–
You know the value of a picture. (“A
.jpg is worth a thousand .txt's”i)
I I'm not referring to their biological species. Of course they're human as opposed vultures (I guess), but I mean the qualities that we define as such when, for example, we speak of someone as a real human being.
ii In scientific publications nowadays, the authors must disclose the identities of those who have contributed to the work covered, and to any benefits they may have received by anyone affected by the material. Perhaps a similar rule should apply to legislators and their works.
iii “Saul [Bellow] was suspicious of reformers, those who thought that they could perfect the human nature whose imperfections he chronicled in his writing. He would discuss the collapse of some faltering reform project like campaign financing with a sigh, "Another screw-up job by the Good Intentions Paving Company."
From “Saul Bellow's escape from time” By Eugene Cullen Kennedy, professor emeritus of psychology at Loyola University of Chicago. The article appeared in the Chicago Tribune, April 8, 2005.
iv At least that's what they want us to believe.
v Lincoln spoke of “... government of the people, by the people, and for the people ...” Sadly we've come to a point in our history where it's government instead of the people. The legislators (and other politicians) are in charge – not the people who have elected them.
vi No connection with the original bill will be made later on when the various negative effects devolve upon the voter, and the benefits accrue to those who have contributed to the legislators' campaigns.
vii Of course this refers to politicians at all levels – local as well as national. Congress itself is the most obvious object of this criticism because it receives the most attention from the media and is one of the least trusted groups in American society. (And similarly placed groups are probably the source of similar misgivings in other countries.)
viii See http://www.opensecrets.org/pfds/averages.php.
ix They're an influential part of the “one percent” whom we're expected to hate, but to whom we turn when we're dissatisfied with individual incomes.
xi Of course they may use complexity to hide selfishness – their own and that of their supporters. Many of those supporters, especially unions, are loud in proclaiming the need for economy, but view cutbacks of their own ranks or benefits as intolerable and counterproductive. They see the work they do as the backbone of American culture, which will suffer unacceptable harm if they are forced to sacrifice any of the gains they have received in the past, or if any programs in which their members are involved are trimmed.
xii I don't know offhand what that is, but I suspect that the GAO can determine it if the legislators, their aides, and other civil servants find the calculation too difficult.
xiii And repeal or revision should be difficult and extremely transparent to the voter. Incidentally, any employment of government officials (including civil servants) for the length of one senate term (or longer) to influence new legislation of other government functions should be outlawed and uncompromisingly punished. Six years should be enough time for their influence to have faded and for them to get honest jobs.
xiv That's from a t-shirt I saw on line.
No comments:
Post a Comment
I know you agree, but you can leave comments anyway.