3 Wishes

As an institution, the legislative branch has accomplished little of distinction recently. Consequently, the press rightly dubbed it a "do nothing" entity during the session preceding this one. Despite the effort of House Speaker Pelosi to dispel this notion over the first hundred days of the present session, little has changed. During the first six years of the Bush administration, the Republican party controlled the House, and Vice President Cheney held the tie breaking vote in the Senate. Even after Democrats wrested a majority in the 2006 midterm election, divided government, which provided adequate impetus for clash and compromise during the Reagan and Clinton years, still seems supine even up against an unpopular lame duck. As public attention focuses on presidential primaries, Congress has vetted little noteworthy legislation. So perhaps the explanation for passivity within the legislature may have a structural basis.

Since the catchy political idea of the day seems to be change, especially espoused by Democratic presidential hopefuls - both of which are senators, why have their fellow Democrats not seized upon the opportunity to get a head start? They could even take a cue from presumptive Republican nominee McCain whose name has been on the byline of several significant bills. However, the relative merits and drawbacks of McCain sponsored bills are not the issues. Rather, why have legislators resigned themselves to a seeming wait and see approach? Despite wielding a veto, President Bush lacks the political capital to oppose initiatives which are popular (SCHIP). Despite a shelf life of less than a year, this Congress can exact some vengeance on an administration which ran roughshod over the legislature and claimed more power for the executive branch in the process. It has a chance to win back some of the turf it has lost. In a turn of odd poetic justice, it can force the hand of the same man which has forced its hand for the past seven years. Congress can finally play some offense, yet, oddly, it seems intent on running down the clock.

Pervasive, palpable, indiscreet, this tactic is highly disingenuous to the public. In a grander strategic context, it still does not make sense. Congress has governed itself poorly. Why is the market for political ideas failing? There are three faults within the structure of modern legislature: districting, the absence of 'no-compete' moratoria for lawmakers becoming lobbyists upon their exit from office, and, as noted previously in this space, earmarking. Start with the latter:

- Earmarking is rampant. It has replaced caucus and debate as the vogue, efficient means of accumulating votes to pass a bit of legislation. The economic repercussions are grave as this system has placed price tags on Congressional votes. As an example of market failure, it should be abolished, since even doling out millions in pork is insufficient incentive to write purposeful laws.

- Second, congressmen joining the cadres of K Street immediately after retirement or losing an election gives those exiting the public sphere prolonged, ex officio access to government. Not only is this downright un-American, it is also very French. In legally acceptable employment contracts, major corporations prohibit workers from joining competitors unless a minimum time interval elapses. Competition and intellectual property concerns override any other considerations. There is no reason why Congress ought not to have similar 'non-compete' rules governing its former members. There are myriad opportunities in the private sector for lawmakers who have had enough of a public sector salary and want to earn more. Insider status allows them to influence debate unfairly. Born of the Progressive period, lobbying is a good thing, but it fails when a newly forming, incestuous political class monopolizes access to government.

-Lastly and most importantly, Congress ought not to have authority to determine the geographic boundaries of voting districts. Gerrymandering is a political relic worthy of relegation. On the state level, voters disgusted by the entrenchment of 'safe' seats for a particular party have considered other means to mark voting districts. A popular remedy has involved asking committees of retired judges to set boundaries so that districts look less like Rohrshack ink blots. The Supreme Court ought not to be bothered with this task. Rather, the Census Bureau has the best factual basis of any part of the federal government to determine districts. Moreover, the Census Bureau aggregates statistics essential for forecasting budgets and allocating resources. If the Census Bureau seems too unconstitutional a choice, then the power should lie with the Government Accountability Office (GAO), which is an arm of Congress.

The status quo has too many leakages. After establishing an uncompetitive, 'safe' seat for his home district, an outgoing congressman can join a lobby firm, donate to the campaign of his chosen successor, then, after watching his fair haired boy win, still influence legislation, political discourse, and resource allocation to his district and clients while earning a private sector wage. Bullshit. Total bullshit. Rather than seize back some of the balance lost over the past seven years, Congress has waged a stealth campaign of expanding its powers while avoiding confrontation with the executive, the real bully who still wins political street fights. Co-opting the political, constitutional process is a horrible trend. Doing so at the expense of the public it ought to represent is reprehensible. Between doing nothing and flagrant cheating, the public pays the price of an unquantifiable, though clear cost.