The Sorrry State of Our Union
Congressmen no longer read the bills they vote on and thus do not require them to make sense. (The latest example is the passage of a bill by the House of Representatives making “price gouging� illegal while leaving it undefined.) They leave it to the President and the Supreme Court to sort things out.
Unfortunately, the present President sometimes gives the impression of being unable to read.
And, since 1937, the Supreme Court has refused to read. It has refused to read the one thing it should be reading above all: the Constitution of the United States. Instead, its members now look for inspiration to the decisions of foreign courts.
The Sarbanes Oxley Act of 2002 requires corporate executives not merely to read but to certify the accuracy of their companies' financial reports. Why are Congressmen (i.e., both Representatives and Senators) held to a lesser standard? Why are they not required under penalty of perjury to certify that they have read and carefully studied each bill that they vote for? Don't the American people have the right to demand that their legislators know what they are doing?
After all, the stakes are far higher in cases of Congressional nonfeasance or malfeasance than in cases of business nonfeasance or malfeasance. In the latter, the most that one can lose is an investment. In the former, what can be lost is human life, and on a massive scale. And it is much easier to avoid the financial losses inflicted by wayward businessmen than it is to avoid the losses inflicted by wayward Congressmen. To avoid the first, it is only necessary to avoid making a bad investment. There is no such simple way to avoid the harm that can be wreaked by the second.
Yes, let us agree that there is simply no way for a Congressman to read and understand the torrent of legislation that is proposed in every session of Congress. It is simply too vast. And this is even more true of the absolute enormity of legislation that is enacted by the dozens of government regulatory agencies every year, under the authority that has been delegated to them by Congress. Indeed, the enormity of the job was the main reason for creating the regulatory agencies in the first place and delegating the authority to legislate to them.
But still, one leading and downright terrifying fact stands out. And that is that the people's elected representatives do not know what the government is doing. The government is supposed to be of, by, and for the people. The people's elected representatives are supposed to be in control of that government in the name of the people they represent. That is their job.
The situation we are in, and have been in for several generations, is one in which intelligent, representative government is increasingly impossible, simply because of the sheer size and scope of government. If we want a government that is controlled by our representatives, we need a government that is sufficiently limited in size and scope for it to be humanly possible for our representatives to know and understand what it is doing and what is being suggested that it do.
For the people's representatives to regain control of the government, its size and scope must be radically reduced.
A first step should be the refusal to enact any new legislation that the members of Congress are unwilling to swear or affirm under oath that they have read and carefully studied. And along with this, as another preliminary step, the promulgation of any new rule by any regulatory agency should be prohibited except upon that rule having been read, studied and voted into effect by a majority of the House and Senate Committees having jurisdiction over that regulatory agency. Thus, for example, before the SEC or EPA could enact any new rule, a majority of the members of the House and Senate Committees having jurisdiction over them would have to approve the new rule. This measure would effectively place members of Congress in charge of the various regulatory agencies.
Yes, the effect of these proposals would be a radical reduction in the enactment of new laws and new rules and regulations. Exactly that is what is needed if there is to be any hope of the people and their representatives regaining control of their government. As things stand, the government is comparable to a high-speed freight train hurtling down the tracks with no one in the cab of the locomotive and thus with no one to see what lies in front of the train and where it is going. That is our government today: a train wreck, a thousand train wrecks, just waiting to happen.
Comparisons to train wrecks hardly do justice to what's at stake. It's the wreckage of our country that is waiting to happen, and has been happening. And it's been happening and will continue to happen for the very simple reason that the government of the United States is out of control in the most literal sense. It is out of the control of the American people and their elected representatives. That control must be reestablished.
This article is copyright © 2006, by George Reisman. Permission is hereby granted to reproduce and distribute it electronically and in print, other than as part of a book and provided that mention of the author’s web site www.capitalism.net is included. (Email notification is requested.) All other rights reserved. George Reisman is the author of Capitalism: A Treatise on Economics (Ottawa, Illinois: Jameson Books, 1996) and is Pepperdine University Professor Emeritus of Economics.
Comments (17)
That's silly. First of all people never were in control of the government. Simply because governments never govern by consent. Calling for retaking the control of the government is like calling for the Sun to never set.
The idea to hold the elected "representatives" responsible is even sillier - who, exactly, is going to police them? A vision of a stern schoolmaster waving a cane over the lazy congressmen who neglect to do their homework is quite ludicrous, isn't it?
The whole system of law "making" by polling somebody's opinions is idiotic. The truth does not depend on someone's opinions, only on the facts and the logic. And we already know that the laws can be logically derived from the firmly established facts. The natural law does not depend on anyone's opinion, so there's no need for any
lawmaking.
And one of the corollaries of the natural law is that any State is criminal. Thus the only way to deal with it is not to "reestablish control" but to abolish it.
The simple intellectual honesty demands it.
Published: June 2, 2006 5:35 PM
As I have said before, the main reason behind the insanity of a democratic State, as opposed to a State without any pretense of freedom, is the idea of partisanship.
Obedience to an (R) or (D) has become a hysterical pagan religion of sorts. It leads from the very promise of 'choice' that democracy offers, and the State, championing itself as the heart of the democratic process, offers.
People think that they are entitled to 'choosing' the political matters which will effect everyone in the 'homeland.' Supporting any certain cause must come 'democratically', meaning it must be a political issue, meaning a government issue, whose power and jurisdiction over all interests grows as it combines itself with the idea of democracy and citizenship.
This means all issues affect the people, whether any of those decisions are agreed upon by the majority or not. And, of course, 'the government is us'.
Not only political parties, but all 'interest groups' compose the power-seeking minorities enforcing their own personal wishes by force over the majority of a nation. This is all that a republic that has the coercive power over all individuals in its 'sovereignty' can give us. I have doubts that this could be ever curbed.
But what do you turn to? The word 'anarchy' is completely destroyed. Classical liberalism, perhaps. Make the government a voluntary organization that people in a nation can choose to accept or not.
If they do not, they accept, as has been defined in the Articles of Confederation, the rights of property. That is "the Union". We are united in our love of property. All freedom follows from that and nothing more. That is as American an idea as you can get. I am not yet 20 but I think my mind is already maturing quickly enough.
Published: June 2, 2006 5:35 PM
To add to this, does anyone really think the average American honestly understands or is conscious of every action and deed done by his favored politicians?
I don't think joe generocon really gives a sh*t about Iraq or ever cared. I don't think peter generocrat really gives a sh*t about global warming.
But none of this matters to them, of course, as they believe that by choosing the level of control they must submit to, they are free. Many people unfortunately believe this with iron stubbornness.
The rest of us, as I have also noted before, are too apathetic, weary, or plain nihilistic to make any change (in democratic terms, a good thing), but also wearily giving up and failing to stand against the force the "Union" demands they submit to. Or just not caring about that much, either.
They let the circus ravage on and could care less about any particular value at all except the present moment.
Published: June 2, 2006 5:40 PM
This all comes down to how authority is obtained and its necessity in human life.
There is the successful economic way of governance, the market, as Oppenheimer noted, and there is the political way: what we have seen always attempting to 'improve' and challenge the economic way, governMENT.
Governance does not need Government.
Published: June 2, 2006 5:47 PM
The only way out seems to be to subvert the system and do it as much harm as possible, or so I have been told. I met a guy who went by the name of John the Super Smith and that was his angle. I knew that was not his real name but that was what he went by. He undertook cash jobs around the place and appeared to live in a motorhome (but I'm not completely certain of this). His favourite pastime was what he called "subdiversion." He reckoned he was into burgling and vandalising the homes and property of bureaucrats and junior level politicians. He said he wasn't the only one into this sort of thing. He knew of a guy who stole a politician's car from outside a party seminar and he told me about an associate who used to post human waste to politicians on a regular basis. I know that was true as it was subsequently reported in the newspaper. They never did find the culprit. Booking taxis in the name of famous politicos was another trick. Eventually the taxi companies got tired of this and fail to come when a real booking is made. And on he went. Probably still at it.
Sione
Published: June 2, 2006 7:57 PM
If they were required to read the bills legislation would surely slow down to a crawl and another benefit is that it would become VERY simplified. Instead of hundred page bills laws would be enacted based on two page documents.
I suppose the only way to force a politician to adhere to such a system would be to penalize them of income if they don't comply. 50% of their salary should do they trick
The only question is how to document that they have read it. Possibly a test at the end on the details of the bill. Not only would they thus be forced to read but also to COMPREHEND the bill as well!
What a concept!
Published: June 2, 2006 10:39 PM
But Averros, Reisman can't totally advocate abolishing the state, because that would render his silly copyright notices useless!
Published: June 3, 2006 6:40 AM
This: "since 1937, the Supreme Court has refused to read.", is put forward with no supporting clue or fact.
Why was 1937 the magic year for the Supreme Court's commencement of its myopic reign?
And, this: "the absolute enormity of legislation that is enacted by the dozens of government regulatory agencies every year, under the authority that has been delegated to them by Congress.", leads to the Q: Isn't the act of Congress' delegation, of rule(Lawmaking) promulgating, Unconstitutional on its face?
Maybe, just maybe, the answer to the first(Q) would illuminate the answer to the second(Q).
Published: June 3, 2006 8:15 AM
The proposal assumes that those we elect to Congress can actually read. Even if they are literate, they can be presumed to be ineffably lazy; else they would not have gone into politics in the first place. Were the proposals to be miraculously enacted, the result would be a vast expansion of the Congressional payroll, as politicians are much too busy running from one free lunch to another to waste time on trivial stuff that can be handled by less exalted - but still very expensive - personnel. The current system is self-perpetuating. We elect buffoons to public office. They reward us by parcelling out the Federal treasury - a little something for everyone and a good deal extra for those who grease the wheels of the process. In gratitude, we re-elect the buffoons and they pass out more goodies. No legislation can cure this. The only hope is that the system collapses of its own weight. (Although it is possible - if highly unlikely - that a majority of the electorate will someday discover that the pork they get ain't worth the porking they take.)
Published: June 3, 2006 8:45 AM
There is actually an organization whose aim is to force the Congress to read the bills!! Go to www.downsizedc.org and click on the info for RTBA (Read the Bills Act).
Obviously, this is not the ideal solution, as most regulars here would know. But it IS a step in the right direction, so I've supported them and sent messages in favor of RTBA. They seem to be growing fairly rapidly, so maybe this is a good sign.
Published: June 3, 2006 9:58 PM
RTBA will not work, because it must be READ and approved by those that will have to follow it.
It would be better if it was called "Spend More Money Act" or "Free Lunch Act" but have the entire contents of RTBA logrolled.
Published: June 4, 2006 1:29 PM
Maybe Congress will pass a law requiring themselves to follow the Constitution!
aaaaaaaaaaaaaa-hahahahahahahahahaah
- Josh
Published: June 4, 2006 3:00 PM
Prof. Reisman, I completely agree with your sentiment and diagnosis - except I think it's worse. My own view is that what you describe is not "a thousand train wrecks, just waiting to happen", but that we are all witnessing the trainwreck right now.
This started with voter fraud in the 2000 elections, was evidenced in the early days of the administration with all of its closed door meetings with the energy industry friends that bankrolled it, and accelerated with 9/11.
There truly is an orgy of rent-seeking underway, and the sheer volume of legislation and regulation make it impossible for legislators literally to know what is going on. That lack of information, and the fact that Republicans are in control over both Houses, makes the abuse of legislation even more inevitable.
The situation is compounded by the fact that we have a Republican administration, so Congressmen are not serious about checking flagrant abuses of power by the President, and the President is not serious about keeping Congressional spending in check. The fact that Democrats have been hobbled by gerrymandering - on which the courts have yet to impose any meaningful restrictions - means that there is no effective partisan check on irresponsible exercises of legislative and executive power.
Rent-seekers, mainly large corporations, are having a field day at the expense of the Treasury and future taxpayers.
The genius of our Constitution was supposed to be in divided government, but we have seen little so far, with the courts largely deferring to the Administration. There is some possibility that the States will take an oppositional role, such as what we have seen from Eliot Spitzer as attorney general in NY, and there are increasing flashes of independence from various ambitious attorneys in the Justice Department.
But finally, responsibility lies with voters. If voters don't demand more responsibility from legislators, then we deserve what we get. We certainly cannot expect that Congressmen will agree to increase their own burdens of responsibility.
Published: June 5, 2006 6:31 AM
TT,
With this :"means that there is no effective partisan check on irresponsible exercises of legislative and executive power." you overlook the power the (D)'s have.
If they were, actually, a "party of opposition", they hold a sufficient # of seats in both! Houses of Congress to effectively stop the goings-on, to which, we are entreated.
The Genius is Still in the Constitution, but, as you, correctly, point out: (It is up to the voters) to ensure that that Genius is applied.
Published: June 5, 2006 7:10 AM
M E:
It's hard to really know about how bad the abuses of power are in Congress, and what the Dems could do if they really wanted to, but it is clear that there has been a concerted effort by Republicans to change and abuse rules to stifle debate and to sneak through or ram through pork barrel bills. One thing I recall hearing is that, besides the abuses of legislative practices, rules have been jiggered so that no Democrats have subpoena power with respect to the Administration.
I just ran across this 120+ page report from the leading Dem member of the House Rules Committee, dealing with the abuse of legislative rules:
democraticleader.house.gov/pdf/BrokenPromises.pdf
Regards,
Tom
Published: June 5, 2006 9:20 PM
TT,
The (D)'s may very well bewail their Plight, but that they choose to do so in small rooms, dim alleys, and amongst themselves only adds to the conviction that they AND the (R)'s are convictable(in the main).
The 'poor' (D)'s have access to the Media, surely.
That they choose to keep up appearances, rather than keeping the American people's interests, should be telling.
Tom, you're a good dude, the (D)'s, not so much, do better, do different.
This: "It's hard to really know about how bad the abuses of power are in Congress..." is, Only, the case because the (D)'s wish it to be.
Published: June 5, 2006 9:36 PM
M E: Good points. I think the problem is that the Dems have not been able really to find their voice, because the Dems have never been the party of limited government, and the Reps have simply out-spent and out-pork-barreled them. Dems have been trying, but the voters just don't see the Dems as being particularly credible.
I hope you don't think I'm one of Dem, though.
Tom
Published: June 6, 2006 3:36 AM