This is all great. I have been a Make Congress Great Again proponent for years. A bunch of the messes we ask the Supreme Court to solve could easily be solved by Congress if it actually decided to do its job.
A few more suggestions:
- Deal-making and horse-trading are underrated. Congress should make more small deals to grease the wheels of larger pieces of legislation, either with small bills or with pork.
- Go to a two-year budget cycle. Don't just pass a giant omnibus CR every February. I don't think there needs to be 12 different appropriations bills like in the 1970s, but there could be four. And if they are two-year bills then Congress has more time for other legislation.
- For those of you upset that GS-13s can no longer make laws willy-nilly, Congress could just hire some of them to help Congress write laws.
Dear God please. If you work in the non-governmental sector, can you imagine trying to plan a big project and having no idea how much money you will have to spend on it? Instead you have to guess and hope.
If agencies knew how much they could expect to receive in future years, they could be way more efficient, saving tons of taxpayer money. Instead they have to build in offramps and contingencies in case the budget is lower than expected. Unlike the private sector, they can't save money to spend for the future. All operations have to be funded with their appropriation from that fiscal year.
Every year lately, agencies spend around six months on a starvation plan under the CRs (that barely come in time assuming no shutdown), and then they get their year's appropriation in the last six months and go on a binge, spending whatever extra money they get on some random things. It's incredibly inefficient and wasteful.
One of the big issues with budgeting for long term is how short house cycles are. But if we were going to do 2 year budgets, would need for it to kick in the second year of a congressional cycle.
I generally totally agree! Though one small thing is that I’m a bit skeptical about the need for a new OTA specifically—as opposed to increasing the capacity of existing offices like CRS and GAO re: science and technology issues.
A lot of the issues that Congress has to consider touch on many different subject areas and disciplines, and I think it’s important to be cautious about creating siloes where we say “science and technology in this one office, everything else in the other office,” as science and technology issues very much touch on economics, law, human behavior, foreign affairs, etc.
Also, no Democrat has ever entered the White House without at least one chamber of Congress held by Democrats--and other than Grover Cleveland's first term, every Democrat has had a trifecta upon entering.
I love the enthusiasm, and I am old enough to remember the wave of ambition and optimism that accompanied the post-Watergate reforms in Congress and then the pleasingly technocratic Carter administration (not quite Obama levels of over-estimation of potential, but up there). But I’m curious what you see in the politics of today that lets you believe that something on that order is possible? I think of the intervening years as a series of political pandemics attacking the very role of government in American life — Reaganism, Gingrichism, Tea Partyism, Trumpism — followed by immune responses that suppress the bug for a while, but select for the stupidest and most extreme pathogens that just come back stronger next time. I don't see that we have escaped that pattern, and the increasingly ugly shape of Senate map provides the perfect vector for this disease to continue to flourish. Maybe another Trump loss suppresses the active MAGA strain for a time, but the variant behind it will contain the same anti-government DNA.
If Harris wins and is greeted by a Democratic House and a GOP Senate, we'll be more or less where I thought we'd be in January, 2021. I had contented myself with the knowledge that the disaster of the Trump presidency was going to end; that, I felt, was enough. I didn't expect any major legislation to be enacted. The people of the Great State of Georgia had other ideas.
There's a related piece from one of my other favorite sub stackers - Ed West (The Wrong Side of History), who writes from the UK from a moderate conservative perspective. He compares the gift scandals in Singapore and the UK and makes a pretty good case that Singapore has avoided more of such things (and is tougher on them) because it pays its politicians quite well and that people in the UK are unrealistic in their expectations for UK politicians when it comes to salary, travel, etc. https://www.edwest.co.uk/p/the-curse-of-ostentatious-egalitarianism. West seems to me to be someone MY could have a really productive dialogue with! Would love to see that.
I don't think that anyone is going to be paying enough attention to the salaries of Congressional staffers to care very much (unless they are pro). I almost think that attaching it to a stock trading ban would have a Streisand Effect. Just do the reforms that are needed. Call it the "Efficient and Informed Legislation Act" or something and it'll put anyone to sleep if they try to talk about it.
All it takes is one Tea Party type (who surely doesn’t use that label any more) to want to make a name for themself, and thus demagogue about Congress increasing slush funds for running their offices, to sink the bill. Tying it to stock trading makes that harder.
This is probably strategic to keep this piece bon partisan, but it is laughable to make Gingrich's killing of the OTA just a random bit of anti government legislating.
It was a definite plan.
Without the OTA, the people writing policy briefs for congress, the people giving policy briefs to Congress, are all lobbyists. That was the goal. Make Congress people entirely reliant on industry lobbyists to understand issues so that they won't do things to harm those industries.
Why would Republicans want to diminish the power of corporate lobbyists by making a competing information source? This is just not addressed here.
Why do Republican congressional members have a special interest in empowering lobbyists, corporate or otherwise? Wouldn't they like to have that power for themselves?
Republican Congress people work for big business. Big business wants their lobbyists to be powerful. The Congress people are happy to sit and then vote according to what the heritage foundation or the American chamber of commerce says.
A public Congressional agency that makes independent non partisan briefs might say something that Republican interest groups don't like... So why support having such an agency
Low pay for high-level government employees is a problem throughout the US. For example, NYC mayor Adams's salary is less than $259K (and less than one city housing authority plumber made last year), which is a nice salary for most Americans, but ludicrous for one of the most responsible and demanding jobs in the nation (and less than many first-year associates at law firms). Although it's not justification for becoming a lackey of Türkiye, it might be partial explanation for the lure of corruption and the disincentive to public service.
Love it! This policy change is different from most other desirable-but-unpopular changes in two ways:
1. it unblocks all sorts of other improvements—it improves the entire system
2. while it is politically difficult, it should be one-and-done
You could write follow-up columns on how the enormous non-profit research industry could be of more use to Congress—does Niskanen, for example, produce work that is designed for uptake by Congress?
As long as we're dreaming, propose realigning committee responsibilities. Past reorganizations of the executive branch have not been reflected by corresponding realignment of committees, notably the creation of Homeland Security, etc. after the 9/11 commission's report.
Two centuries ago, Congress was seized by the quaint idea that congressmen should know something about the world. They built the Library of Congress, and it became the greatest library in the world.
I wish they would spend more time reading and less time flying back to their districts.
No amount of technical literacy or OTA advisory would have changed the Burr-Feinstein bill for the better, because the State wanted exactly what it asked for: the keys to everyone's data and channels of communication. This wasn't an oopsie. This wasn't because they didn't understand the ramifications. They simply believe that nobody has the right to privacy if the State feels, in it's majesty, that it has an interest in seeing and knowing every detail about every person and event when it desires. All other interests are subservient to that. The State will always want a panopticon, they do everything they can to enact one regardless of the law, and they will try to make laws to permit it whenever they can.
That being said, it's hilarious and sad that anyone would take a staff job in the cathedral of global power for 45k. I don't know how much you need to pay someone to get better talent because putting political power on the market is, shall we say, unpopular, but you could look at what a junior research analyst makes in finance or industry and start with that.
Since the left seems to generally be fine with paying government people a lot, I think if you’re going to change this, it would have to be with rhetoric that has some crossover appeal to independents or people on the center right. I think one of the ways to make the argument is that right now a government job is only appealing to ideologues, because the pay is far below what competent people can get in the private market. So I think you could frame this as getting the ideologues out and getting competent people in, and you could base the salaries on some median of comparable jobs (which is how the private sector sets pay).
This is all great. I have been a Make Congress Great Again proponent for years. A bunch of the messes we ask the Supreme Court to solve could easily be solved by Congress if it actually decided to do its job.
A few more suggestions:
- Deal-making and horse-trading are underrated. Congress should make more small deals to grease the wheels of larger pieces of legislation, either with small bills or with pork.
- Go to a two-year budget cycle. Don't just pass a giant omnibus CR every February. I don't think there needs to be 12 different appropriations bills like in the 1970s, but there could be four. And if they are two-year bills then Congress has more time for other legislation.
- For those of you upset that GS-13s can no longer make laws willy-nilly, Congress could just hire some of them to help Congress write laws.
"Go to a two-year budget cycle"
Dear God please. If you work in the non-governmental sector, can you imagine trying to plan a big project and having no idea how much money you will have to spend on it? Instead you have to guess and hope.
If agencies knew how much they could expect to receive in future years, they could be way more efficient, saving tons of taxpayer money. Instead they have to build in offramps and contingencies in case the budget is lower than expected. Unlike the private sector, they can't save money to spend for the future. All operations have to be funded with their appropriation from that fiscal year.
Every year lately, agencies spend around six months on a starvation plan under the CRs (that barely come in time assuming no shutdown), and then they get their year's appropriation in the last six months and go on a binge, spending whatever extra money they get on some random things. It's incredibly inefficient and wasteful.
One of the big issues with budgeting for long term is how short house cycles are. But if we were going to do 2 year budgets, would need for it to kick in the second year of a congressional cycle.
I feel called out.
I generally totally agree! Though one small thing is that I’m a bit skeptical about the need for a new OTA specifically—as opposed to increasing the capacity of existing offices like CRS and GAO re: science and technology issues.
A lot of the issues that Congress has to consider touch on many different subject areas and disciplines, and I think it’s important to be cautious about creating siloes where we say “science and technology in this one office, everything else in the other office,” as science and technology issues very much touch on economics, law, human behavior, foreign affairs, etc.
Fair point. Write a response column!
“A President has not entered the White House with their party controlling both houses of Congress since George H.W. Bush in 1989. “
Clinton, Bush, Obama, Trump, Biden?
Apologies this should have been "White House with their party not controlling both houses of Congress since George H.W. Bush in 1989."
Also, no Democrat has ever entered the White House without at least one chamber of Congress held by Democrats--and other than Grover Cleveland's first term, every Democrat has had a trifecta upon entering.
Not trying to be totally annoying but it would be more clear to say “controlling neither house of congress”.
I don't have a lot of regrets in life, but the way I originally worded that sentence is definitely one of them.
There’s an edit function for comments; is there no edit function for the day’s post?
You don’t have to hide the original, just strike through and put in the corrected version alongside.
Looks like it was corrected, but the email newsletter already went out of course.
Haha
Editors FTW ;)
I love the enthusiasm, and I am old enough to remember the wave of ambition and optimism that accompanied the post-Watergate reforms in Congress and then the pleasingly technocratic Carter administration (not quite Obama levels of over-estimation of potential, but up there). But I’m curious what you see in the politics of today that lets you believe that something on that order is possible? I think of the intervening years as a series of political pandemics attacking the very role of government in American life — Reaganism, Gingrichism, Tea Partyism, Trumpism — followed by immune responses that suppress the bug for a while, but select for the stupidest and most extreme pathogens that just come back stronger next time. I don't see that we have escaped that pattern, and the increasingly ugly shape of Senate map provides the perfect vector for this disease to continue to flourish. Maybe another Trump loss suppresses the active MAGA strain for a time, but the variant behind it will contain the same anti-government DNA.
If Harris wins and is greeted by a Democratic House and a GOP Senate, we'll be more or less where I thought we'd be in January, 2021. I had contented myself with the knowledge that the disaster of the Trump presidency was going to end; that, I felt, was enough. I didn't expect any major legislation to be enacted. The people of the Great State of Georgia had other ideas.
There's a related piece from one of my other favorite sub stackers - Ed West (The Wrong Side of History), who writes from the UK from a moderate conservative perspective. He compares the gift scandals in Singapore and the UK and makes a pretty good case that Singapore has avoided more of such things (and is tougher on them) because it pays its politicians quite well and that people in the UK are unrealistic in their expectations for UK politicians when it comes to salary, travel, etc. https://www.edwest.co.uk/p/the-curse-of-ostentatious-egalitarianism. West seems to me to be someone MY could have a really productive dialogue with! Would love to see that.
I don't think that anyone is going to be paying enough attention to the salaries of Congressional staffers to care very much (unless they are pro). I almost think that attaching it to a stock trading ban would have a Streisand Effect. Just do the reforms that are needed. Call it the "Efficient and Informed Legislation Act" or something and it'll put anyone to sleep if they try to talk about it.
All it takes is one Tea Party type (who surely doesn’t use that label any more) to want to make a name for themself, and thus demagogue about Congress increasing slush funds for running their offices, to sink the bill. Tying it to stock trading makes that harder.
The American public always wants champagne services on a beer budget.
It always amazes me how many forget that “you get what you pay for” also applies to government as well.
Ideally, this investment in Congress would come with some unshackling of government like Matt spoke about earlier this week. One can dream…
I like that this is a proposal for both what needs to be done and a way to politically make the medicine go down. Good post.
I vaguely knew this was a problem but the numbers are insane. 70k for a mid-level position??
This is probably strategic to keep this piece bon partisan, but it is laughable to make Gingrich's killing of the OTA just a random bit of anti government legislating.
It was a definite plan.
Without the OTA, the people writing policy briefs for congress, the people giving policy briefs to Congress, are all lobbyists. That was the goal. Make Congress people entirely reliant on industry lobbyists to understand issues so that they won't do things to harm those industries.
Why would Republicans want to diminish the power of corporate lobbyists by making a competing information source? This is just not addressed here.
Everyone in the congressional reform space, Democrats or Republicans, believes Gingrich is a rotten apple.
His presidential campaign/book tour combo in 2015 helped prove that to everyone.
Why do Republican congressional members have a special interest in empowering lobbyists, corporate or otherwise? Wouldn't they like to have that power for themselves?
Republican Congress people work for big business. Big business wants their lobbyists to be powerful. The Congress people are happy to sit and then vote according to what the heritage foundation or the American chamber of commerce says.
A public Congressional agency that makes independent non partisan briefs might say something that Republican interest groups don't like... So why support having such an agency
Low pay for high-level government employees is a problem throughout the US. For example, NYC mayor Adams's salary is less than $259K (and less than one city housing authority plumber made last year), which is a nice salary for most Americans, but ludicrous for one of the most responsible and demanding jobs in the nation (and less than many first-year associates at law firms). Although it's not justification for becoming a lackey of Türkiye, it might be partial explanation for the lure of corruption and the disincentive to public service.
Love it! This policy change is different from most other desirable-but-unpopular changes in two ways:
1. it unblocks all sorts of other improvements—it improves the entire system
2. while it is politically difficult, it should be one-and-done
You could write follow-up columns on how the enormous non-profit research industry could be of more use to Congress—does Niskanen, for example, produce work that is designed for uptake by Congress?
As long as we're dreaming, propose realigning committee responsibilities. Past reorganizations of the executive branch have not been reflected by corresponding realignment of committees, notably the creation of Homeland Security, etc. after the 9/11 commission's report.
Two centuries ago, Congress was seized by the quaint idea that congressmen should know something about the world. They built the Library of Congress, and it became the greatest library in the world.
I wish they would spend more time reading and less time flying back to their districts.
No amount of technical literacy or OTA advisory would have changed the Burr-Feinstein bill for the better, because the State wanted exactly what it asked for: the keys to everyone's data and channels of communication. This wasn't an oopsie. This wasn't because they didn't understand the ramifications. They simply believe that nobody has the right to privacy if the State feels, in it's majesty, that it has an interest in seeing and knowing every detail about every person and event when it desires. All other interests are subservient to that. The State will always want a panopticon, they do everything they can to enact one regardless of the law, and they will try to make laws to permit it whenever they can.
That being said, it's hilarious and sad that anyone would take a staff job in the cathedral of global power for 45k. I don't know how much you need to pay someone to get better talent because putting political power on the market is, shall we say, unpopular, but you could look at what a junior research analyst makes in finance or industry and start with that.
Since the left seems to generally be fine with paying government people a lot, I think if you’re going to change this, it would have to be with rhetoric that has some crossover appeal to independents or people on the center right. I think one of the ways to make the argument is that right now a government job is only appealing to ideologues, because the pay is far below what competent people can get in the private market. So I think you could frame this as getting the ideologues out and getting competent people in, and you could base the salaries on some median of comparable jobs (which is how the private sector sets pay).