Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
Policy, Under Review
We’re lazy. The Constitution calls for House members to be elected every two years, which is about as frequently as you can have them while maintaining a decent governing stability. Why so often? Because frequent elections allow you to review how our representatives have performed and, in turn, that to hold them accountable for their performance. But the premise is that the people are actively paying attention to the government they elected, and that they’re quick to fix errors and to promote better action.
But again, we’ve shown ourselves to be too lazy to pay attention. Be honest: Do we (collectively) review the performance of policies or politicians? You might be tempted to reply, “Of course! We have elections!” But before you do, tell me — without googling — what specific legislation your congressman has sponsored this term. And I’m not being condescending if you don’t know; I certainly didn’t. If we don’t know what they’ve actually done, we can’t really say that we can evaluate their performance. Let’s admit, we don’t elect politicians based on their specific performance on specific issues, but on broad, vague emotion, or just plain inertia. That’s why incumbents usually win, even as the country continues to be mired in recession.
And yet, in so many of the public “decisions” we’ve made over the last few decades, we’ve not only avoided review, we’ve instilled a mindset that opposes it. Obamacare is begging for a thorough review, but the politicians and media proclaim that the issue is settled (like “science”) and that nobody is eager to go through that whole debate again. And we accept that, because … we’re lazy.
You can argue that social decisions like gay marriage are too soon to review, but what about all kinds of issues about which society has plenty of evidence? No-fault divorce, for one.
We could slog through a list, but this isn’t about any specific issue … it’s that we have grown to loathe (or “educated” to loathe) the whole idea of review in the first place. For a public that proclaims its love of science, we hate to measure the results. We hate to hold ourselves accountable. Oh, we love to see a celebrity or politician get caught in a felony, but that’s hardly a scratch on the surface.
They only time they only hold congressional hearings to review performance when things go so horribly wrong that the politicians need to cover their, um … reputations. Why can’t we automatically schedule hearings on policies, not looking for blame, but asking simply whether the policy actually worked and have more than one or two committee members show up? And maybe have it covered on the evening news?
Published in Domestic Policy, Politics
I just received an update from him this weekend after writing in support of impeachment proceedings for the IRS commissioner. I know he doesn’t support it because the HFC is championing the cause and he would like to see them go over a cliff in an old bus.
He is truly impressive in how he tells me to go get jammed when he lists all of the IRS related legislation he’s supported to supposedly restrict that rogue agency. I am unimpressed.
I’ve donated to or volunteered for every one of his primary challengers including Trump’s spokes gal.
He got tired of me wearing out his web site and I have a direct phone numbers/emails to his staff. They finally got tired of my haranguing them when Speaker Boehner retired. I got into an argument with them and I heard direct from the Congressman about the speakership. Unfortunately he was correct and I ate crow on that one.
The most disappointing thing in 2016 is that we ran a great American against him in the primary and lost by a large margin.
I am not sure what else to do K.C., but I am not giving up.
Yes. Review denies progress.
I disagree. We love to measure results. Too much. A review of the facts is not the same as the review.
Lord Jim – Chapter 4:
James of England is my enabler. Whenever someone lambastes Republicans in Congress for failing yet again, I invite James or Duane to offer a kinder view. I don’t always agree with their assessments, but I am always educated.
Politicians and bureaucrats have taken on so many authorities that there’s always much to be angry about and always much to be ignorant of. Sometimes those categories overlap.
The more our government mandates, the less significant each citizen’s vote becomes because that single vote regards countless issues and priorities. Lord only knows what each vote represents.
Yes, sir. May I have another?
I actually got a liberal friend to agree with me that the Bathroom Wars are indicative of a government too intrusive in our lives. We can work this out. Leave us alone.
As it is, though, under the rule of Leviathan, I’ve long contended that we have to go with “trusted” resources. No one person can grasp the scope of the beast. That’s why I vote straight Republican, even though I consider myself very loosely attached to the party. If I weren’t living in a Republican county, I’d re-register Independent, like Mr. C.
The Republicans are the least worst party of the two most likely to hold power. If it seems cynical, what can I say? Other than, I don’t put my hope in politics.
My Rep, Frank Guinta, has sponsored legislation this term to address heroin use. I don’t actually think that Congress should be dealing with this, but hey, they are.
Zuleika Dobson – Ch 9:
We need a branch of government devoted solely to repeal of existing legislation.
Alternatively, all legislation should automatically sunset and require re-authorization every 5-10 years. Keep ’em so busy voting on keeping the existing stuff in force they can’t get into mischief with new stuff.
I admire your attitude, but these aren’t just ordinary slouches. They’re highly skilled slouches. They’ll get into mischief no matter how much we try to prevent it. After all, these guys already have a time-consuming activity to distract them (endless fundraising) and they still manage to screw things up.
I’m thinking more of public hearings because I’d want some evidence presented, with some actual numbers and arguments. Or maybe something as simple as including a clause in Obamacare that renders the legislation null if healthcare expenses (the supposed motive in the first place) go up instead of down by a specified time.
The rest of us, in the business world, have to live with deadlines and targets – why can’t they?
By the way, I didn’t have a graphic when I first posted this. The editors embedded the “Rejected” graphic.
When I first saw it, I thought it was an editorial judgment about the post itself, sort of like a Scarlet Letter … and I thought, “tough crowd, tough crowd tonight … “
The New Government – As honest, clear, and efficient as business!
Maybe I should rephrase …
Well, I don’t credit this post’s premise. Lazy is not the problem. What we have is the simple and obvious result of the complete abandonment of federalism and the separation of powers between the federal government and the states.
This is a good thought, and Mike Lee has a good start with the Article I Project.
The depth of federal involvement in every conceivable aspect of American life means that no part of that government is capable of doing properly the inappropriate matters taken on. It obviously also means that the things proper to the role of federal government will not have the needed attention as well. It also means that any diversity of choice is denied since very few things of significance are left to state and local management. State power began to be eroded by abolitionists in mid-nineteenth century and that erosion has ridden the ‘racism’ horse since and still. And most of the enabling has been provided by the Supremes and the 16th Amendment.
My thought is this will change drastically but the question remains will that change be an orderly process or disorderly collapse. What we have simply does not work.
Don’t we have an abundance of misbehavior and unlawful acts by federal actors with very little attention and remedial action? Why? If we are to continue with the present approach with all government at the federal level,maybe we need a fourth branch for law enforcement whose leadership is under the control of states.