The first two paragraphs of the article state:
"This weekend's Fourth of July festivities celebrated the birth of representative government in America. As the Declaration of Independence set forth 233 years ago, our government derives its power from the consent of the governed. Such consent does not exist when legislation is purposely rammed through Congress so quickly that congressmen -- let alone citizens -- do not have time even to read it. Welcome to Speaker Nancy Pelosi's House of Representatives."1
The problem with this article is the last sentence. The truth of the matter is that the problem of voting on laws that legislators haven't even read extends far longer than Pelosi's election. I agree that most Senate assemblies are an exercise in time-killing. But please acknowledge that this has been a severe, long-running problem. Putting Pelosi's name on it not only does no favors, and is actually incorrect. Painting blame on a Democratic Congress ignores the fact that there are still Republican senators, and before 2006, most of Congress was Republican, and the problem existed then, too. The PATRIOT Act is a prime example.
As impotent as Congress generally is, it is still necessary. The problem is getting it to work correctly. It is correct to say that bills are generally fairly long, and reading them is still absolutely necessary. Do senators and representatives actually have a working knowledge of reading legal documents? Even if they do (most are lawyers, after all), if they did sit and read the entire document, it would take forever and nothing would get done, and yet we cannot have a legislature ignorant of what they are legislating (local Intelligent Design decisions, stem cell legislation, abortion legislation, etc).
I thus propose the following: Once a bill is drafted, teams of translators (writers) condense and translate the documents into normal language that is universally understandable and easy to read. This may take more time than simply not reading it, but intelligent decisions are of utmost importance. An informed yet slower Congress is better than a swift and ignorant one.
Also taking up Congress' time are frivolous ceremonies and wasteful legislation on hot-button "smoke screen" issues, like flagburning (which cannot actually be illegal under the Constitution) and the Terri Schaivo disaster, though they haven't pulled that nonsense since.
Sometimes it seems that Congress cannot control itself, and acts independently of the other two branches of government and against public interest (i.e. wasting time). I would advocate some limitations on Congress to better integrate it into the actual governing process and make it more productive, such as an imposed salary (they actually vote on what they earn), and especially term limits.
1) http://washingtontimes.com/news/2009/jul/06/passing-unread-laws/
Tuesday, July 7, 2009
NJ Republicans? Uh oh...
Taxes are becoming an increasingly significant problem in NJ. Do we jump ship and go for the other side? A recent editorial in The Bergen Record by gubernatorial candidate Steve Lonegan set off some alarms when I read it1.
The general problem with the Republican tax model is that the businesses are supposed to contribute to the tax pool, and there seems to be a kind of either/or that is detrimental either way to the citizens of the state: The Republicans present two alternatives: If taxed, the businesses will flee the state, but if they don't, they will stay. Obviously the state gets no money out of that deal, and then the taxes continue to rise for the citizens no matter what the businesses decide to do. Yes, we need jobs in the state, but it is still a lose-lose situation for the people if the businesses get a free pass.
How much should we as a state sacrifice for the businesses to stay, as taxes will surely rise no matter if they flee or we dont tax them. This is where free-market economics (read: Deregulation, aka New Economic Theory, aka Lassez-Faire Capitalism) fails. It favors businesses (entities, organizations) over the people and public good. There is a limit to acceptable greed, but there is always the question of whether or not businesses would accept that ethic. What got us into this nationwide recession is sufficient evidence of that fact. To be too terrified of businesses leaving the state, doing everything we can for them to stay (even if they do not contribute) seems misguided. How much do we stand to gain if we dont tax them, and how much do we stand to lose if we do?
If the businesses aren't taxed, the people must pick up the slack, and they will get up and leave. If the businesses are taxed, they will do the same. How should we find the balance to help this state prosper? We need both, and we need both to contribute.
1) http://www.northjersey.com/opinion/lonegan_062309.html
The general problem with the Republican tax model is that the businesses are supposed to contribute to the tax pool, and there seems to be a kind of either/or that is detrimental either way to the citizens of the state: The Republicans present two alternatives: If taxed, the businesses will flee the state, but if they don't, they will stay. Obviously the state gets no money out of that deal, and then the taxes continue to rise for the citizens no matter what the businesses decide to do. Yes, we need jobs in the state, but it is still a lose-lose situation for the people if the businesses get a free pass.
How much should we as a state sacrifice for the businesses to stay, as taxes will surely rise no matter if they flee or we dont tax them. This is where free-market economics (read: Deregulation, aka New Economic Theory, aka Lassez-Faire Capitalism) fails. It favors businesses (entities, organizations) over the people and public good. There is a limit to acceptable greed, but there is always the question of whether or not businesses would accept that ethic. What got us into this nationwide recession is sufficient evidence of that fact. To be too terrified of businesses leaving the state, doing everything we can for them to stay (even if they do not contribute) seems misguided. How much do we stand to gain if we dont tax them, and how much do we stand to lose if we do?
If the businesses aren't taxed, the people must pick up the slack, and they will get up and leave. If the businesses are taxed, they will do the same. How should we find the balance to help this state prosper? We need both, and we need both to contribute.
1) http://www.northjersey.com/opinion/lonegan_062309.html
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)