Rampell dances right up to the edge of it, but stops short of identifying what I think is the real problem. ie: Republicans are deliberately fucking things up.
They don't want the government to work.
If government works - if we're allowed even to think in terms of "good government" - then their project fails.
After breaking itself, Congress tries to break the rest of government, too
The GOP House’s debt-limit-and-spending-cuts bill does a lot of things to sabotage the basic functions of government. It decimates spending on safety-net programs. It creates more red tape to block Americans from accessing services they’re legally eligible for. And it makes it harder for government to fund itself in the first place.
But perhaps the most destructive, least noticed part of the bill is a provision that would force virtually all federal regulatory machinery to grind to a halt.
Tucked into Republicans’ debt-limit-ransom bill is some legislative language that has been kicking around Capitol Hill for a while, known as the Reins Act. If enacted, the law would prevent “major” agency regulations — somewhere around 80 to 100 per year — from going into effect unless Congress first approves each and every one.
To be clear, under current law, Congress already has the ability to rescind regulations it dislikes. This new bill would essentially change the default, so that no major regulation could take effect before Congress gives its blessing.
This change might sound reasonable. After all, tons of American problems have been dumped at the feet of executive branch agencies (guns, immigration, health costs, etc.). It would be great if federal lawmakers got more involved in trying to solve literally any of them.
But if you think about how Congress actually functions (or rather, doesn’t), you’ll realize this is not an earnest attempt to get lawmakers to roll up their sleeves and conquer the Big Issues. It’s about throwing sand in the gears of the executive branch so that no one can solve any issue. Ever.
There are two main reasons Congress currently delegates certain regulatory issues to executive branch agencies such as the Food and Drug Administration or the Securities and Exchange Commission.
First, some policy questions are technically challenging. What amount of arsenic in the air is “safe”? What should be the technical standards for mammography equipment? How should the Volcker Rule be implemented in practice? As talented and hard-working as congressional staff are, they might not have the time or expertise to make informed decisions about such minutiae. Agency scientists or other subject-matter experts are tapped to weigh evidence, solicit input from the public, hold hearings, etc., to execute the objectives Congress has enacted.
The second reason is political.
There are plenty of policy questions that Congress has technical capacity to resolve but might prefer not to. Maybe lawmakers can’t come to an agreement within their caucus. Maybe they know that whatever they choose to do will be unpopular.
So: They punt, and make it some other government functionary’s problem.
For example, Congress has been unable to pass significant immigration reform in more than three decades, leaving the executive branch to address migration-related problems in sometimes legally tenuous ways (see: the legal limbo of so-called dreamers, or former president Donald Trump’s unfunded border wall). Congress has all but abdicated many of its basic responsibilities to other branches of government, such as passing a budget, setting tariffs and deciding on abortion rights.
Or, you know, making sure the federal government doesn’t default on its debt. Apparently even some Republicans are now rooting for President Biden to direct Treasury to mint a new $1 trillion platinum coin to pay off government expenses or adopt some other deus-ex-machination.
Now, are all the rules and regulations put into place by the executive branch perfect, or even good? Obviously not.
But it’s hard to see how inserting Congress into the tail end of the process — given that Congress can barely pass a bill to name a post office — will make our already convoluted, protracted regulatory process better. Instead, it might block any major rule change from happening ever again.
And before my libertarian friends start celebrating the new laissez-faire utopia that awaits, note that the GOP bill would make it harder to deregulate, too. Or to update old regulations when technological change or other new economic conditions warrant. Any significant rule change, in any direction, would require congressional debate and approval.
The GOP’s bill could also create even more regulatory uncertainty, as University of Michigan law professor Nicholas Bagley pointed out.
Agencies might decide not to invest the years, resources and public engagement required to produce new regulations, given that the fruits of their labor might never get through Congress. As a result, regulators might switch to less transparent and ultimately more arbitrary methods for assessing corporate behavior. For example, they might move toward making decisions case by case, rather than laying out crisp, clear rules. That would make it more difficult for businesses to figure out how to reliably stay on the right side of the law.
In other words, apparently not content with breaking Congress, Congress now wants to break the rest of government, too.
The GOP House’s debt-limit-and-spending-cuts bill does a lot of things to sabotage the basic functions of government. It decimates spending on safety-net programs. It creates more red tape to block Americans from accessing services they’re legally eligible for. And it makes it harder for government to fund itself in the first place.
But perhaps the most destructive, least noticed part of the bill is a provision that would force virtually all federal regulatory machinery to grind to a halt.
Tucked into Republicans’ debt-limit-ransom bill is some legislative language that has been kicking around Capitol Hill for a while, known as the Reins Act. If enacted, the law would prevent “major” agency regulations — somewhere around 80 to 100 per year — from going into effect unless Congress first approves each and every one.
To be clear, under current law, Congress already has the ability to rescind regulations it dislikes. This new bill would essentially change the default, so that no major regulation could take effect before Congress gives its blessing.
This change might sound reasonable. After all, tons of American problems have been dumped at the feet of executive branch agencies (guns, immigration, health costs, etc.). It would be great if federal lawmakers got more involved in trying to solve literally any of them.
But if you think about how Congress actually functions (or rather, doesn’t), you’ll realize this is not an earnest attempt to get lawmakers to roll up their sleeves and conquer the Big Issues. It’s about throwing sand in the gears of the executive branch so that no one can solve any issue. Ever.
There are two main reasons Congress currently delegates certain regulatory issues to executive branch agencies such as the Food and Drug Administration or the Securities and Exchange Commission.
First, some policy questions are technically challenging. What amount of arsenic in the air is “safe”? What should be the technical standards for mammography equipment? How should the Volcker Rule be implemented in practice? As talented and hard-working as congressional staff are, they might not have the time or expertise to make informed decisions about such minutiae. Agency scientists or other subject-matter experts are tapped to weigh evidence, solicit input from the public, hold hearings, etc., to execute the objectives Congress has enacted.
The second reason is political.
There are plenty of policy questions that Congress has technical capacity to resolve but might prefer not to. Maybe lawmakers can’t come to an agreement within their caucus. Maybe they know that whatever they choose to do will be unpopular.
So: They punt, and make it some other government functionary’s problem.
For example, Congress has been unable to pass significant immigration reform in more than three decades, leaving the executive branch to address migration-related problems in sometimes legally tenuous ways (see: the legal limbo of so-called dreamers, or former president Donald Trump’s unfunded border wall). Congress has all but abdicated many of its basic responsibilities to other branches of government, such as passing a budget, setting tariffs and deciding on abortion rights.
Or, you know, making sure the federal government doesn’t default on its debt. Apparently even some Republicans are now rooting for President Biden to direct Treasury to mint a new $1 trillion platinum coin to pay off government expenses or adopt some other deus-ex-machination.
Now, are all the rules and regulations put into place by the executive branch perfect, or even good? Obviously not.
But it’s hard to see how inserting Congress into the tail end of the process — given that Congress can barely pass a bill to name a post office — will make our already convoluted, protracted regulatory process better. Instead, it might block any major rule change from happening ever again.
And before my libertarian friends start celebrating the new laissez-faire utopia that awaits, note that the GOP bill would make it harder to deregulate, too. Or to update old regulations when technological change or other new economic conditions warrant. Any significant rule change, in any direction, would require congressional debate and approval.
The GOP’s bill could also create even more regulatory uncertainty, as University of Michigan law professor Nicholas Bagley pointed out.
Agencies might decide not to invest the years, resources and public engagement required to produce new regulations, given that the fruits of their labor might never get through Congress. As a result, regulators might switch to less transparent and ultimately more arbitrary methods for assessing corporate behavior. For example, they might move toward making decisions case by case, rather than laying out crisp, clear rules. That would make it more difficult for businesses to figure out how to reliably stay on the right side of the law.
In other words, apparently not content with breaking Congress, Congress now wants to break the rest of government, too.
No comments:
Post a Comment