A book we're reading (A Government Ill Executed 1)

One of the many books we're reading at TPB is Paul Light's A Government Ill Executed. The title, and much of the book's framework, is derived from Alexander Hamilton's Federalist Paper essays concerning the Constitution's provisions on the executive branch of the federal government:

A feeble execution is but another phrase for a bad execution; and a government ill executed, whatever it may be in theory must be in practice, a bad government.

The Federalist Papers, you'll recall, was a series of newspaper articles written in support of the new Constitution to help persuade delegates to the New York ratifying conventions to support it. Penned primarily by Hamilton and James Madison (with a few by John Jay) The Federalist Papers are still must reading for those who wish to understand our system of government.

Whether its one of the many security breaches, loss of private information about its citizens, the breakdown in our response to Hurricane Katrina, public health scares from imported toys and food, etc., there have been numerous examples of government's failure to perform its most basic function. The most notable in my view is the intelligence failures that led us to our failure to prevent the 9/11 attacks and then misinformed our debate over whether to invade Iraq. This isn't a partisan problem and many of the issues Light discusses have been around for a long time.

Light proposes that we dust off The Federalist Papers, particularly those Hamilton wrote numbered 70-77 on the functioning of the executive branch and see if there are lessons that can be applied today to restore the competent execution of government. This is an important task. All too often we ask whether Congress has past a law to address a problem, and forget that without competent enforcement what Congress has done is meaningless. We need to go beyond the passage of the law and look at its execution to see if something has really been done to address the problems we set out to solve.

Although this seems to be such basic, common sense, it seems we take it for granted that Congress's will expressed in legislation will operate as intended. As Light illustrates, too many recent events show we can no longer do so. It is time that we reexamine the day to day operations of our federal government "in the trenches" to find what's wrong with our governent's performance and how we can solve it. Despite having worked in Congress for 10 years, I'm convinced that the answer isn't simply passing more laws, but rather rolling up our sleeves and doing the sort of boring "housekeeping" necessary to enjoy, once again, the benefits of a government will executed.

In short, as I work through the book, I'll post short summaries and my own thoughts from having worked on these issues in Congress and now from my perch outside government. I can tell you from reading the first few chapters and a speech Light delivered on the same topics that it will be highly instructive and always thought provoking.

Bad Government in Action - US Senate Edition

Senator Tom Coburn is not the most popular man in the US Senate to put it gently. His refusal to accede to the typical "unanimous consent" requests necessary to the chamber's operations under its archaic rules, his use of the filibuster, insistence on transparency and his war on government spending have aroused a lot of ire, and not just on the Democratic side of the aisle.

Still, the Senate's refusal to grant Coburn permission to practice his profession (Coburn is an OB-GYN) is a true low in good government.

The Senate Ethics Committee has warned Coburn that delivering babies in his home state of Oklahoma is a violation of the Senate's rules on outside employment and gave him until June 22nd to cease and desist. Although Coburn doesn't charge for his services (he says he wants to keep his professional skills up because he doesn't plan to stay in Congress until he can't chew his own food the way several unnamed members (on both sides) have), his practice is under the umbrella of a "for profit" entity, which, one infers from the Politico's story, is the problem.

Given that several Members of the US Senate apparently received sweetheart loans (see here and here for just a few samples) from the very company whose mortgage practices helped to get the economy rolling downhill, you'd think it would have better things to do than chase a doctor who is providing free medical care to poor and at risk populations.

She's Got A Point

In today's Providence Journal, Columnist Froma Harrop calls out those who are complaining most loudly about the economy:

Middle-class Americans fell into this predicament because they started acting like people who are richer than they are. They had built extravagant lifestyles with borrowed money. And they ignored the many warnings that the growth of China and India would push energy prices skyward.

Now is a time to recognize reality and adjust to it in an adult fashion...Did I whine about the cost? More than I care to admit.

But then one reads about the food lines in the Great Depression. You look at the destitute norm in the Third World. And you focus on any war, including Iraq, and try to fathom the tragedy of an 18-year-old dying in a foreign desert.

Let's keep some perspective here. We're not all going to be able to retire at 50, drive BMWs at 25 and enjoy a life without tradeoffs, but that's a far different world than the one we sometimes talk about when you start hearing about this economy being in the tank. Some are throwing around the phrase "Great Depression" without much perspective. Or they are talking about how we've "changed capitalism."

Cooler heads, however, note that we're debating whether we're even in a recession, let alone what this country went through in the 1930s and 1940s (and numerous times in the 19th century).

If we forget that, we can all too easily start looking to quick fixes that will hurt us more in the long run that help us in the short.

Having the right perspective is the starting point to enacting the right policies.

A Lesson from High Energy Prices

This blog is mostly focused on government itself, rather than specific policies. However, this particular op-ed on energy prices is worth a read because it contains many basics that are endemic to sound policy making:

High prices, painful as they may be, do more to encourage energy conservation than replaying every one of President Carter's sweater-clad exhortations to turn down the heat... Politicians seem to have an irresistible urge to intervene whenever voters start suffering from higher prices, but usually those interventions do more harm than good.

The author, economist Ed Glaeser, singles out several congressional proposals for critique.

(1) A tax credit to offset high energy prices:

Tax credits for home energy use reward people for using more fuel. If anything, the environmental consequences of carbon emissions and the strategic repercussions of importing Middle Eastern oil, suggest that lawmakers should be raising, not lowering, taxes on energy. Standard economic analysis suggests that oil companies would be a primary beneficiary of lower energy taxes

(2) Price caps:

Energy price controls were the clever idea of the 1970s, which only managed to give economists more evidence that you can't repeal the laws of supply and demand. Fixing prices below the market level, whether on oil or apartments, only produces shortages and long lines.

One idea he mentions without further analysis is limits on speculation. Others have noted the many problems that such curbs have, though.

More important than any particular aspect of energy policy, though, is Glaeser's conclusion:

High prices may be painful, but they convey a key nugget of information: Energy is scarce; use it wisely. If the government uses tax policy to artificially reduce energy prices, then the government will only deter private individuals from appropriate conservation.

In short, prices are a signal of what's happening in a given marketplace. When government policy targets prices, it's attacking a symptom while doing nothing to address the underlying fundamentals. When evaluating government policy, it's always worth asking whether it truly addresses the true long term problem (in this case, too little production to meet demand or too much demand given our limits on supply, given your perspective) or whether it's a quick fix to turn down the heat on politicians.

Out of Town

No posts for a few days while on personal travel.

Some Seperation of Powers Issues

Yesterday, the US District Court ruled that Congress could haul executive branch staff before it by using subpoenas.

A few days ago, the executive branch prosecuted a US Senator for violating what are arguably Congressional housekeeping rules on financial disclosures.

Meanwhile, Congress continues to squeeze the courts by continuing to keep judicial pay substanard compared to what law firms and even non-profits are paying lawyers of comparable seniority and skill.

The Courts as showing an increasing willingness to stray into what was previously thought to be "political issues" for Congress and the executive branch to decide.

Just a health clash of the branches of government using constitutionally provided checks and balances to exercise oversight? Or does this represent a disturbing trend whereby the branches are slipping traditional restraints and asserting their perogatives beyond traditional, self imposed boundaries?

Something to consider.

US Senator Ted Stevens Indicted

Our hometown gazette, the Washington Post, has the details:

Alaska's Ted Stevens, the longest-serving Republican senator in U.S. history, was indicted yesterday on seven charges of making false statements about more than $250,000 that corporate executives doled out to overhaul his Anchorage area house.

The Post doesn't quite get it right when it labels the charges as "corruption," which implies that Stevens is charged with providing something of value for the gifts he received. It appears that at this point the charges focus on issues involving the disclosure of gifts and whether Stevens was fully truthful.

Regardless, most in the media are asking the following:

What does this mean for Senator Stevens's reelection?

What are the broader ramifications for the Republicans' efforts to make some headway given the Democrats' problems in running the 110th Congress?

What does this mean for chances that Congress will allow more domestic drilling, a cause Senator Stevens passionately championed?

These are the questions that are being most asked in the media, but I think they are the wrong ones.

The REAL question is what this means for the Senate as an instituion. The only one taking that perspective is The Politico's David Rogers:

Like him or not, Sen. Ted Stevens is an institution, and the news of his indictment is another blow to the Senate, not just because of the man but also because of the nature of the alleged crime.