Legislating Responsibly

MAKING GOVERNMENT RESPONSIBLE means . . . making responsible decisions about what government should do -- and what government should NOT do . . . limiting Congressional action to what is Necessary and Proper to satisfy Constitutional mandates -- and staying Congress out of matters that are none of government’s business . . . prioritizing national needs and acting only when we can afford the investment required to solve a problem . . . enacting legislation only after determining the specific, measurable and attainable objectives to be obtained.

POSITION SUMMARY:  

Congress should act only to solve real problems that are truly national in scope.

Congress should NOT act on a problem until it can identify a specific, measurable objective for its legislative enactments.

Congress should NOT define, or limit, what agencies can and cannot do to achieve a program objective.

Congress MUST consider all alternative solutions before acting and recognize that a government program is not always the best solution.

Congress MUST seek the most cost-effective solution to any problem – not the solution that is most popular or the solution that is most politically expedient.

DISCUSSION:  

The federal Government is "broken."  But "Government" is not the problem.  Congress is the problem. "Government" is only as big as Congress lets it be.  "Government" only does what Congress authorizes it to do.  "Government" only spends the money that Congress appropriates from the federal treasury--our money.

Congress does not act on "problems" because action is necessary.  Congress acts on problems because constituents and special interests want the programs.

Congress does not act on "problems" because it has to act.   Congress acts on "problems" because it can.

Congress does not require the programs it authorizes to achieve their objectives . . . because Congress is not responsible for outcomes.

Congress does not require that the cost of a program be justified by the benefit it provides . . . because it isn't their money.

Congress does not respect the Constitutional limits on its authority . . . because we let Congress ignore them.

Before acting, Congress must consider whether federal action is constitutionally proper.

Even under the broadest interpretation of the Constitution, there are limits on the powers of the federal government.   In United States v. Butler, 297 U.S. 1, 56 S.Ct. 312, 80 L.Ed. 477 (1936) the Court explained: 

“The conditions to which power is addressed are always to be considered when the exercise of power is challenged, -- extraordinary conditions may call for extraordinary remedies; but, as the Court has said [in Home Building & Loan Assn.  v. Blaisdell, 290 U.S. 398], "the argument necessarily stops short of an attempt to justify action which lies outside the sphere of constitutional authority.  Extraordinary conditions do not create or enlarge constitutional power.

The Tenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution provides that:

“The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." 
 

The last paragraph of Section 8, Article 1. of the Constitution grants to the federal government, the power:

“To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing [enumerated] Powers.” 


Before acting, Congress must determine that there is a REAL need for action.

The fact that there appears to be a problem is not enough. 

The fact that one or another interest group—no matter how powerful—thinks something should be done about a situation is not enough.


Before acting, Congress must determine EXACTLY what a program is intended to accomplish.

All too often, Congress enacts legislation to address a problem without knowing what it hopes to accomplish.

We cannot know whether or not a program is achieving its intended objectives unless we know exactly what the program was intended to accomplish.

Until Congress decides exactly what a program is intended to accomplish it cannot even begin to determine what the legislation needs to contain.

If Congress cannot determine how the success of a program will be measured, it will have no basis for any later determination of whether the program is a success or failure and whether to continue or terminate the program.


Furthermore, I believe that:


Congress must learn to prioritize and allocate scarce resources efficiently.

We cannot afford to solve all problems. 

Limited funds must be spent on only the highest priority needs.The money we spend in total  must provides the maximum aggregate benefit to the country as a whole.   


Congress MUST to learn to listen to the people.

Before a regulation becomes effective, the implementing agency is required to give notice of the proposed regulation and provide an opportunity for public comment.  However, no such period for public comment is required for legislation. 

Before enacting legislation, Congress holds hearings where it takes testimony from representatives of special interests and the Executive Branch agency that wants the program.  But it never asks the public what they want or need. 


Congress must stop limiting how problems can be solved.

In virtually every legislative enactment relating to a social program, Congress prescribes what can and cannot be done with “its” money.

Congress cannot possibly understand the unique circumstances of every community where programs must be implemented—what their particular needs are and what other resources they have available to them.

The most effective solutions to problems do not come from Washington--or even from state agency intermediaries, they come from the people who are actually working on solving problems.

"Politics” and political ideology must end with the determination that a program is justified; they should not be infused into the means of obtaining the desired results.  


Congress must seek the most cost-effective solution to any problem.

There is always more than one way to solve a problem.The most cost-effective solution to any problem is not necessarily the one that the “special interests” prefer.

A government-administered program is not necessarily the most cost-effective response to a problem.


Congress must limit the growth of the federal bureaucracy.

Almost every time Congress decides that its action is justified, it establishes a new program—even when there is already another program addressing a related problem.

Almost every new program is accompanied by the provision for new government agency—even when there is already an agency dealing with a related problem.

Whenever Congress responds to a new problem, or a new dimension of an old problem, it adds to government, but it never subtracts.  [This must have something to do with “new math.”] 




Congress must establish a single-subject rule.

Virtually every federal enactment carries a multiplicity of amendments having no relationship to the subject matter of the core enactment.
 
Nothing complicates the legislative process more than the addition of “amendments” unrelated to the core subject of the legislation.

If the subject of an amendment has sufficient merit to be enacted into law, it should be offered and enacted on its merits.

ALmost every State Constitution contains a "single subject" provision preventing legislators from adding an amendment that does not relate directly to the subject of the legislation.

_____________________________

Was this helpful? [Optional]  

No Very

 

Do you have feedback? (Optional)

 

Enter Word Verification in box below