Government Reform

Conversations like this are important to have, because they can help point the way to areas of bi-partisan agreement and cooperation.  Transparency is not a Left/Right issue; the coalition against transparency consists of 536 elected politicians in Washington, DC, and the favor-seekers that orbit them.   Breaking that chokepoint will require Left/Right collaboration.

The Sunlight Foundation's Ellen Miller responds to my post yesterday regarding the routine Congressional bribery that doesn't seem to attract the attention that Gov. Blagojevich's attempted bribery received.  She doesn't think "the horse trading Congress conducts" is "quite the same kettle of fish" as the personal profit of the Blagojevich, Duke Cunningham or Abscam scandals, but says transparency would help deal with both problems...

This is where more transparency is key to combating corruption. Openness is not only the cure for the sickness; it’s a prophylactic that åcould prevent the illness in the first place.

Take Jon’s hobbyhorse  –  earmarks. The practice of earmarks might not be a problem…or the problem just might be the lack of transparency. Suspicions of quid pro quos is all too strong where the process is opaque and there is huge potential for corruption. If the decisions were made in the light of day, I suspect there would be far less abuse.

I think we're mostly in agreement.  Congressional horse-trading - "I'll vote for your pelf if you'll vote for mine" - isn't quite the same as trading votes for personal gain.  However, I don't think it's necessarily a categorical difference, either.  Earmarks often do benefit the politician personally, whether as a de facto campaign contribution or by giving more power and prestige to the politician. That's less overtly outrageous, but still a serious ethical problem.

While negotiation has a place, the implicit extortion that goes on in omnibus bills or in the decisions about what makes out of committee in the first place lead to very sub-optimal decisions.  It's hard to see how that kind of bartering results in good collective decision-making.

This is not representative democracy, it is legislative collusion.

As Ellen Miller wrote, more transparency could help resolve these problems.  Ideally, transparency would improve the decision-making processes.

For instance, each Senator/Representative should be required to vote (even just a simple box-check) on each individual earmark/line item, providing (a) specific legislative approval for each project, and (b) legislator accountability for each vote.  If legislators have to evaluate and make a yes/no decision on each project, you can expect much better oversight of earmarks.  You could also expect many fewer earmarks, as we discover that Iowa rainforests don't turn out to be compelling national projects with overwhelming legislative support.

Procedural transparency and line item budgeting would improve the decision-making process.  Without it, we'll continue to have omnibus bills that act as a trojan horse for corruption and deal-making.

This is the sort of thing we could work together to achieve.  The result would benefit everybody...except, perhaps, those 536 politicians and the favor-seekers surrounding them.

In Part 1 of this subject, I discussed the Agenda of Equal Opportunity as a new "Contract with America" that could coalesce old principles and new ideas together to unite different sectors of the conservative movement; reach out to independents, conservative Democrats, ethnic minorities and young voters; and allow for a lively platform debate not only on the national level, but also at the state level.

A couple days ago, Jon asked the following: "What policy should Republicans be advocating and pursuing to limit government and regain popular support?" Aaron Marks had a partial answer to that question by talking about reviving the economy through free market principles. David Brooks and Bill Kristol have recently argued that government has grown to be too big and too entrenched, especially in a time of recession, for us to successfully argue for principles of freedom and less government. It's surprising to see that folks like Brooks and Kristol, self-identified conservative intellectuals, have conceded the intellectual battleground on the proper role of government.

Then I read an interesting column from Robert Samuelson in Newsweek a couple weeks ago, defending lobbying as "democracy in action." His observations are thought-provoking:

We here in Washington are anticipating a stampede of lobbyists, influence peddlers, media consultants, paid "experts" and self-styled crusaders. Who brought us this onslaught of special pleaders? Why it's Barack Obama, the man who vowed to "change" how Washington works and banish from the political arena all those "special interests" that were depicted as a form of lowlife. Well, this is one Obama promise doomed to fail.

The only way to eliminate lobbying and special interests is to eliminate government. The more powerful government becomes, the more lobbying there will be. So, paradoxically, Obama's ambitions for more expansive government will promote special pleading. You need only watch the response to the expected "economic stimulus" plan—totaling perhaps $700 billion—to verify this eternal truth. A LOBBYING FRENZY FOR FEDERAL FUNDS headlined a Washington Post story. The auto-industry bailout has inspired a similar swarming.

I couldn't have said it any better.

In Part 1, I proposed that the three principles of an Agenda of Equal Opportunity should be (1) promoting freedom, (2) fighting for accountability and the rule of law, and (3) branding smaller government as "smarter" government, and vice versa. Along with the thoughts of Samuelson, these principles can be combined to start a serious intellectual discussion and debate about government reform and the proper role of government.

Soren started this discussion earlier, trying to prod the GOP into adopting a transparency and ethics agenda. And today, Jon made the valid argument that the deeds of Gov. Rod Blagojevich are a "matter of routine" with Congress when it comes to earmarks and pork. While these items do put us on the political offensive, they don't necessarily put is on the intellectual or public policy offensive. Sure, in order to put us in that position, any government reform package has to be sweeping and comprehensive. (But the want of any "comprehensiveness" of any government reform legislation should not prevent us from making little reforms here and there.) What principles and policies should we put out there?

• Earmark Reform: While not comprehensive, pork is probably here to stay. So let's make the process of requesting pork transparent throughout the entire budgeting process.
• Budget Reform: This can be comprehensive. The Federal Government passes separate budgets for different bureacracies at different times. The line between operational costs and capital costs of government is blurred. Somehow, the federal government needs to pass operational and capital budgets separately to know exactly what the day-to-day operations of government costs, and what long term projects that government has alloted.
• Bureacratic Reform: We need to develop some sort of system that tracks, in a detailed fashion, the "performance" of government agencies so that we can know what works and what doesn't. Each agency should be required to submit substantive goals they want to achieve in the next one, two and five years with the money they request. If those agencies don't achieve satisfactory completion of those goals, they should get less money or go "out-of-business" for being inept. If those agencies do achieve those goals, or go beyond them, they should be rewarded. (That's how it works in the private sector.) Kristina Rasmussen of the National Taxpayers Union talks about a similar existing accountability review system in an opinion piece in The Hill. By the way, the Pentagon should not be excluded from this type of bureacratic reform, even if Republicans fight against it.
• Tax Reform: Is it really impossible to get rid of the excessive progressivity in our tax code? Maybe. But one thing that can be done is to reduce the complexity of the tax code. One of the reasons why there are so many lobbyists is that government can choose who to reward and who to punish in a very quiet, but powerful manner through the tax code, whether they be credits, deductions, exclusions, etc. We can debate the flat tax vs. fair tax proposals, but one thing is clear: individuals and businesses should make decisions based on the market, not based on the tax code.

So how does all of this relate to the Agenda of Equal Opportunity? Simple. Not only is it government's job to provide equal opportunity (and not equal outcomes) through the law, substantively. It is also government's job to provide equal opportunity procedurally through the daily operations of government. The principles involved are just as simple, and are easy to communicate:

• Money is not the fix-all to all of society's and government's problems. Everybody knows that throwing money at a problem doesn't necessarily create a solution. In order to create equal opportunity for those interested in using government money wisely, government should adopt "investment principles" instead of "spending priorities," paying attention to outputs as well as inputs of government agencies.
• Smaller government means smarter government, and vice versa. Smaller, smarter government doesn't only mean reducing the size of government. It also means government regulating the externalities of market forces, not the market itself.
• Government should not be in the business of picking winners and losers. (This is the tie-in to Samuelson's argument.) When government does pick winners and losers, through the tax code or the budget or the administrative code, it can lead to problems. "Special interests" don't create problems for government; bigger government leads to more "special interests."

I'm sure individuals, businesses and other organizations don't want to spend money for lobbyists. So instead of relying on who can get the best lobbyist inside the Beltway, instead of trying to compete for the attention of lawmakers, instead of attempting to get the government to distort the market in their favor, the American people should rely on their creativity and ingenuity to compete and succeed in society. All government needs to do is give them the equal opportunity to do so. A smaller, smarter government that can truly provide equal opportunity will also be a "cleaner" government. Let's not concede the intellectual battleground on the size and the role of government ... especially now!

Gov. Blagojevich was caught offering to trade a decision for a reward, personal or political.  This is widely understood to be disgraceful and illegal.

But is it really so unusual?  How does what Gov. Blagojevich did differ from the (bipartisan) extortion that is considered routine in Congress?  Blagojevich sought $1 million; Congressional bribes cost billions.

House Democratic leaders are offering billions in federal funds for lawmakers' pet projects large and small to secure enough votes this week to pass an Iraq funding bill that would end the war next year. ... To get them off the fence and on the bill, Democrats have a key weapon at their disposal: cold, hard cash.  The bill contains billions...

Perhaps one might argue that Blagojevich sought personal benefit when he demanded campaign contributions in exchange for his vote.  Perhaps.  But earmarks are little more than incumbent slush funds - a de facto campaign contribution, paid for by US taxpayers.  The effect is the same. (we are leaving aside, for the moment, the also-vexing issue of vote-trading)

The legislative bribery works two ways.

1. Pork buys votes for the basic legislation (as described above), or...
2. Legislation is leverage to get votes for otherwise unacceptable pork.  After all, you can't vote against funding a spinach farm without voting against funding the troops; and you can't vote to fund the troops without voting for a few billion dollars worth of pork.  Whatever the legislative rationale for these omnibus bills, they amount to extortion.

Yes, Gov. Blagojevich is a disgrace.  But Gov. Blagojevich merely did what our US Congress does as a matter of routine.

Former Republican House Majority Leader Dick Armey wrote in his book, Armey's Axioms, “When we act like them, we lose. When we act like us, we win.” Such words seem appropo after the 2008 general election. However, there is so much more to those words today than when they were written.

I cannot tell you how many times during the Bush Administration, political staffers at the state and federal level would seemingly say the same thing, 'I didn't sign up for this.' From the ill-executed war in Iraq to the prescription drug plan to the recent government bailout, many Republicans – both grassroots and professionals alike were caught off-guard by the brand of conservatism and, thus, the brand of Republicanism being executed at the highest levels of our government. And, worse yet, it was for the world to see. But, in his defense, President Bush didn't do it alone. He had a lot of help.

President Bush's proclamation of “compassionate conservatism” when he ran for office in 2000 was great rhetoric and a wonderful mission statement. However, Republicans failed to understand that it actually meant something. Compassionate conservatism meant spending – a lot of spending on government programs. It meant deficits and increased debt. It meant a foreign policy that focused on American exceptionalism and a Wilsonian offense spreading democracy around the world rather than a peace through strength national defense policy. In short, it was a brand of conservatism with which many Republicans were uncomfortable. It was not the brand of conservatism that built a center right America. However, he was “our guy” and they kept their lips sealed.

Now, in the wake of the recent elections, both grassroots and professional Republicans are asking, “where do we go from here?” Pundits have been busy today arguing whether Republicans and conservatives should revert back to their principles and become more partisan, thus, playing the role of loyal opposition? Or, should they acquiesce and work with the increased majorities of the House, Senate and new President-Elect Obama. Oddly, the answer can be and should be - both.

For years, conservatives have tried to indicate their political leanings by expressing themselves as Paleo-conservatives and Neo-conservatives. These designations spoke to the type of conservatism they believed in. As described by Wikipedia, Neo-Conservatives were/are, “a modern form of conservatism that supports a more assertive foreign policy, aimed at supporting American business interests abroad.” Paleo-Conservatives were/ are described as, “arising in the 1980s in reaction to neoconservatism, stresses tradition, especially Christian tradition and the importance to society of the traditional family.”

But, as President-elect Obama plainly put it, “Change has come to America.” This must be with the Republican Party and conservative movement, too. We can revert back to our most fundamental traditions, principles and philosophies; be a loyal opposition when warranted and work with the new majorities in the House and Senate at the same time. How? It won't be because of re-branding an image or reinventing the wheel. It will be by returning to our roots; a center right roots of thinkers and philosophers that ushered us into a time of peace and prosperity. We need to look to the past writings of Russell Kirk, Edmund Burke, Richard Weaver, Friedrich Hayek and Ludwig von Mises.

In these writings we will find a stark contrast with modern conservatism most recently on display. We will find a place in the very first chapter of Russell Kirk's book, The Politics of Prudence, a proclamation that conservatism is, in fact, the lack of ideology. It is not partisan but reasoned. It is not argumentative or “gotcha” but measured. It is a far cry from the conservatism contemporaries have come to know. Further, we will find a reason for a just and moral order in our society for the sake of shared interest and partnership toward a shared future – not to force dogmatic practices on an unwilling citizenry.

In other writings from Hayek and Mises we will find a proven direction to build prosperity without taking from the rich and giving to the poor. In Burke, we will find a role for regulation without over-regulating to the point where we choke a small business' or individual's opportunity to make a profit. In Weaver, we find that ideas have consequences. Every decision carries with it levels of impact. But, as Weaver notes, “All work is a bringing of the ideal from potentiality into actuality.” We work together.

As a collection, we find a place where minorities have a home through public policies that directly benefit them and a place where they are not only welcome but are relied upon. We find a proper role for government while not intruding into peoples' personal lives or asking them to give up their liberties in the name of national security. We find a place for achieving peace through strength without active nation building or misdirecting aggression; not confusing offense with defense . We find a place for a limited social safety net while still relying on the hard work and individual responsibility of every able citizen because the greater we limit the fall, conversely, the greater we must limit the success. And, we find a place where we are truly “our brother's keeper” but a keeper by choice – not by government force.

In this time, we can begin anew to read and understand and share what traditional conservatism is and what it was meant to be. We need our state and federal leaders to do the same and be able to practice and articulate it. In this, we will be able to work with a President Obama when he has it right and serve as a loyal opposition when he has it wrong. Rather than a partisan approach – we show what a reasoned, measured and prudent approach to public policy looks like. More importantly, we will show our citizens and the rest of the world what we were supposed to be; what our movement was built to be and what our Party quit trying to be. At the very least, we will most certainly find a brand of conservatism that most of America agrees with – they just haven't seen it in a quite a while.

The American political system is a drag at times like these, when one is about to become disenfranchised in Washington.  Barack Obama will have an all-Democrat, all-the-time Congress to work with and, unlike the Republicans' little train wreck this far this century, they're probably going to get a lot of their agenda made into law.

The problem with the result, aside from the obvious liberal, neo-socialist outcome, is that it's driven by the party system, a corrupt, artificial channeling of votes into pork-laden, least-common-denominator policies preferred by the powerful.  Where can a true maverick fit into our current system now that the national party bosses have a stranglehold on the electoral process all the way down to the local level?

In fact, the 2 major parties completely dominate politics at the highest level to the extent that 3rd party candidates are completely excluded from the presidential debate process.  It's effectively impossible for anyone not willing to kow-tow to one of the parties to become the leader of this nation.  That's bad because the best thing that could happen to Washington D.C. is for a true outsider to be elected president with a mandate to whip their sorry rear ends into shape.

Wouldn't Sarah Palin be great in that role?  She's not the best person to lead the U.S., particularly with the financial and international issues that we're facing, but a Palin presidency could result in the bursting of a ego-bubbles on Capitol Hill.  Sadly, that's not going to happen for at least a few more years.

Another way to get some fresh blood and increased accountability back into Washington would be to implement term limits.  Frankly speaking there's no good reason for people like Joe Biden or Trent Lott to make a life's work out of sitting in Congress.  Serving so close to the center of power corrupts people and we need to be protected from them.  Given the incumbent advantage, the simplest way to realize this goal is for their departure to be made mandatory.

The argument that experience is required to fulfill one's responsibilities in Washington is fallacious.  Oh, it's true enough given the effectively lifetime reigns of Robert Byrd and Strom Thurmond, both of whom went senile while sitting in the Senate.  Remove these permanent fixtures and a more meritorious mechanism for distributing power will quickly surface.

Washington's complexity is in large part due to the entrenched powers that are protected by the very complexity that rejects outside interference.  Representatives whose terms are limited have no need to protect their positions - there's nothing to protect.  The natural response would be to create streamlined systems so that actual work can be accomplished in the little time an elected official has in office.

Sneaking term limits past the U.S. Congress and into law would be akin to pulling a Radio Flyer wagon up to Fort Knox and asking for it to be filled up with gold bullion.  Not going to happen unless there's a truly special individual willing to make change happen no matter what.

One characteristic of this person would be a fundamental belief that he/she should do what is right at all times, regardless of party affiliation.  The two-party system rejects these people automatically, but occasionally one will slip through.  A real agent of change always votes his conscience and that cannot be allowed in the 2-party system.  Real rebels are not wanted here.

I'll be voting against Chet Edwards, the Democratic representative from Texas, this fall.  As Chuck points out, he's somewhat out of touch with his constituency in a very conservative district, and he's been in office for too long as it is.  But one thing that can be said is that Edwards at least pays lip service to a fundamentally important idea:  voting one's conscience.

Edwards said any action he takes in Congress is guided by independence and reason, rather than by partisan politics.

Chuck sees this as a problem but I disagree.  Voting one's conscience is essential in a representative.  Assuming that's what Edwards has done, his beliefs are out of step with the people in his district, as Chuck says.  But the solution is for the voters to elect new representation, not for Edwards to vote per polls instead of his own values.

Barack Obama claims to be this change agent that's needed in Washington.  Though his record indicates otherwise there is always a chance that once he's elected he could turn on the Democratic party that shepherded him into power and rule, as Edwards says, according to his independent judgment and reason.

Lipstick-covered pigs could fly, too.

Our best chance at revitalizing the democratic process in this country is to pursue a Constitutional amendment to limit the terms of the House and Senate as the presidency is limited.  Not only would this churn the waters in Washington but it would have the effect of aerating the parties themselves by forcibly injecting new personalities and values into the parties themselves.  While not as optimal as having a viable 3rd party option to vote for, change within the existing parties would certainly benefit Americans by making elected service a job with limited longevity.

What say you?

Cross-posted at Black Shards

Sarah Palin has a strategic advantage in this race. She's run something: a state with 15,000 employees and a multi-billion dollar budget and a small town. It seems to me that she should adopt a positive message hitting that that bottles together government reform, government competence, management, etc. Jonathan Martin notes that she already mentions government reform on the stump. I see several advantages to this.

First, this scratches an itch that the American people actually have. They saw Katrina. They saw Iraq. They see right now the mismanagement of the financial system regulatory framework. She can bring up examples from her own time as governor cutting budgets, etc.

Second, it attacks one of her perceived weaknesses by focusing on her strengths. Barack Obama and his campaign attack her for not having experience (never mind that he has less). By talking about what she has done here, it addresses that uncertainty. This does not weaken the reform message.

Third, it expands the positive contrast with the other ticket. With John McCain, we have leadership and reform. Palin has reform and adds management. This is in contrast to "change" (and what?). This is more meat on the bones of the McCain-Palin ticket. At the same time, this inverts the "experience" attack by talking about the category of government experience that none of the other national candidates have.

Fourth, I think that it continues to innoculate against the Obama attacks of McCain=Bush. I was struck by this from Joe Trippi:

The brilliance of the McCain strategy and messaging is that it includes a trap for Obama. To push back on the McCain claim of "country first" and "the original mavericks who will shake up Washington" the Obama campaign's attack of "four more years of George Bush" becomes a problem. In a country that yearns for post-partisan change the Obama campaign risks sounding too partisan and like more of the same.

Emphasizing management and attacking Bush examples slides into that post-partisan and anti-Bush space that makes it harder and harder for these attacks to stick.

Imagine how this might work. A big event on government management rolling out some plans and bio material. Carli Fiorina, Mitt Romney, Rob Portman and others could validate it with examples of their own government management. An event every other week through the end of the campaign.