Fareed Zakaria's book, The Future of Freedom, discusses the impact of the Congressional sunshine reforms and the direct democracy/referendum movement in California on budgets and policy. It makes a few very good points that no one should dismiss even though they are nominally "undemocratic" or "anti-democratic."
It seems that given the way business is done in Congress now, with recorded votes on all issues, may very well play a substantial factor in the budget problem because this open voting has lead directly to the creation of faction-specific lobbies that wield a great deal of power over individual issues. In the past, during the private bill mark-up phase, a Congressman could vote against a bill with impunity, claiming that "the Chairman twisted my arm." Now, the votes are known. Individual Congressmen can therefore be subjected to pressure (or punishment) for taking individual positions that might otherwise be justified as being in the public interest.
Simply put, politicians no longer can afford to take the public or national interest in mind when voting. To do so is tantamount to political suicide.
Since most budget items are relatively small, the importance of any item--the ridiculous mohair subsidy, for example--to the budget as a whole is minuscule. However, it is hugely important to the mohair lobby, who works long hours to keep it alive.
There are literally thousands of these budgetary items with a well-heeled lobby to support each one. As a result, budget-cutting is nearly impossible. Budget cuts are virtually impossible to enact since no Congressman wants to piss off a lobby that will punish him for cutting off its sugar-teat.
In the past, before the sunshine reforms, the votes could be concealed, thereby allowing individual Congressmen to vote their conscience or at least take the national interest into account when voting. This is no longer the case.
Since the sunshine reforms were enacted, the number of factions who spread money around Congress has increased tremendously. They have hamstrung the national interest.
The same is true of the referendum movement in California. As a result of the referenda, 85% of the state budget is legally mandated--spent in advance as a result of legal restrictions imposed by referenda. The State House only has discretion over the remaining 15% of the budget. People actually wonder why the state is in such a budgetary fiasco after having had such a tremendous spurt of growth during the '60s and '70s.
Another example of democracy run amok.
Which brings me to Bush who, according to Zakaria, wanted to go forward with cutting the budget by lowering taxes. In his own words, Bush wanted to "starve the beast." He is unfortunately finding that the beast is stealthy and cunning--it is finding other sources of funds. Since taxes are being cut, the funding of pet programs during a budget crunch is...well...one of the worst things a politician can do. But as I said, the alternative is political suicide. Can we really blame Congressmen for failing to act honorably under the circumstances?
Whatever you may say about Bill Bradley, I respect him for leaving politics for this exact reason.
What to do? I think Bush should be admired for trying to "starve the beast."
Anyone got any better ideas? Unless and until the power of factions and lobbies is somehow curbed, we will be in a budgetary pickle for a long time. Period. Full stop.
I'm not even mentioning the public perception--correct, in my view--that Congress is essentially for sale as a result of its subservience to lobbies. Ironic that this whole mess was created in large part by an effort to be more open and "democratic."
A balanced budget amendment comes to mind. |
