MAKING GOVERNMENT RESPONSIBLE means . . . making responsible decisions about what government should do — and what government should NOT do . . . limiting Congressional action to what is in the interests of all Americans — and staying out of matters that are none of federal government’s business . . . prioritizing national needs and acting only when we can afford the investment required to solve a problem … finding the “right” solution to national problems … putting the needs of the country ahead of partisan politics and not using the legislative process to advance the political agenda of any individual or party.
With reasonable debate, and rational consideration of the facts, we can solve ourproblems.
Political extremism is the enemy of Responsible Governing!
Relying on fabricated facts is not Responsible Governing!
Acting responsibly as a member of Congress is not that hard. It only requires that our elected representatives adhere to a few simple guiding principles. In the following sections, I present what I believe those principles should be–and which will guide me when elected.
In report on the state of the government’s management of federal programs, the General Accountancy Office, [GAO-08-93-SP] the GAO said:
“[A] top-to-bottom review of federal programs and policies is essential. Congress, the President and the American people need to decide which federal activities remain priorities, which should be overhauled and which have simply outlived their usefulness.”
Controlling the Government, and federal spending, does not mean simply saying “no” to every piece of proposed legislation. What it does mean is that Congress must take a disciplined approach to determining which problems to address, and how to best address them.
Our problem is not that government has grown too big. Our problem is that government is trying to do too many things. Not every problem requires a “national” solution. Not even all the problems that are common across all states require federal action. We need to stop trying to solve every problem, and focus on the problems that are important and that can be solved.
The federal government should address national problems — but no others.
Congress does not act on “problems” because it needs to act. Congress acts on what constituents and special interests want. Congress is more concerned with the perception of action than with actually solving problems.
Congress has little concern for the consequences of its actions, and it rarely tries to establish exactly what its enactments are actually intended to accomplish. Until it can identify what “success” means, Congress cannot begin to write effective legislation.
Congress should not act on a problem until it can identify a specific, measurable objective for its legislative enactments.
Congress does not require the programs it authorizes to achieve their objectives . . . because Congress is not responsible for outcomes. Programs continue because entrenched bureaucracies and special interests make it impossible to end them.
Every legislative enactment should include a provision for evaluating its effectiveness in achieving its stated objectives–and by automatically terminated if its objectives are not being achieved.
Congress must learn to respect the Constitutional limits on its legislative action. 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 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.”
Unless a federal action is BOTH Necessary AND Proper, Congress should not act on the problem.
In addition to recognizing the constitutional limits on its power, members of Congress, and especially those who represent the most conservative end of the political spectrum, must recognize that the Constitution is not, and was never intended to be, a “straight-jacket.”
Those who want to limit government contend that the powers of the federal government are limited by the “Enumerated Powers” identified in Article 1, Section 8. These people ignore the fact that the preamble to the Constitution provides than one of its express purposes was to “promote the general welfare.”
The general authority of the federal government to act in the interest of the welfare of the nation as a whole established by United States v. Butler, 297 U.S. 1, 56 S.Ct. 312, 80 L.Ed. 477 (1936) in which the United States Supreme Court explained that:
“The general welfare clause should be construed broadly to include anything conducive to the national welfare; it is not limited by the subsequently enumerated powers.”
The scope of this authority, as it applies to social programs, was clarified in Helvering v. Davis, 301 U.S.619, 57 S.Ct. 904, 81 L.Ed. 1307 (1937), in which the Supreme Court explained that federal action is authorized by the general welfare clause of the Constitutional where …
“[the problem is plainly national in area and dimensions" and it is a problem that "laws of the separate states cannot deal with [] effectively.”
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.
There should be a mandatory period for public comment preceding a vote on any non-emergency legislation.
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.
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. Federal agencies are required to conduct a cost-benefit analysis of major regulations before they can be implemented, but no such requirement must precede the enactment of legislation.
Congress must seek the most cost-effective solution to any problem, and must conduct a cost-benefit analysis of its legislation before it is enacted.
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.
Before enacting legislation creating a new program or agency, Congress should be required to identify of all related programs and the agency where the program is administered and state, in the legislation, exactly why a new program or agency is required to address the identified problem.
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.”
If a program or service is “traditionally” subject to State administration or control, it is not a proper subject for federal action.
Federal programs exist for a reason — and bureaucracies exist only to accomplish the purposes of legislation. Taxpayer money should be spent achieving the objectives of legislation — not maintaining bureaucracies.
To ensure that taxpayer money is spent accomplishing the goals of the legislation, every appropriation should contain a specific limit on the portion of the funds that can be spend on “administration” — whether by a federal agency, a state agency or a local agency.
Federal programs all have constituencies, both the providers and users of program services and the agencies that administer them. These constituencies have a vested interest in the continuation of programs that benefit them. Once programs and agencies have been established, it is virtually impossible to terminate them.
Every piece of legislation should include a “sun-setting” provision terminating the legislation and requiring that it can only be re-authorized if it is demonstrating success in attaining the expressly stated objectives that justified its initial enactment.
Virtually every congressional 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.
Congress should adopt a “single subject” rule limiting amendments to the subject matter of the core legislation.
If Congress will not discipline itself, we should seek a “single subject” amendment to the Constitution.