Here is a combined opinion piece summarized by myself that illustrates a major problem with the present administration/government: In short, American government and entitlement programs have grown so large that no one is willing to work it off. With over 50 million people on food stamps, and 11 million on disability, programs that were once designed to aide the helpless have become a wheelchair that people never rise out of instead the intended crutch intended to help walk again.
America has painted itself into a corner. The nation
is faced with trillion-dollar deficits, but most political leaders are
unwilling to propose real solutions for fear of alienating voters who want it
all. Special interests maintain a death grip on the status quo, making it hard
to fix things that everyone agrees are broken.
Where is a path out?
Little has emerged from the campaign season to address the
reality that government is unsustainable in its current form. Conservative
candidates pledge smaller government, but no candidate has solutions to
crippling healthcare costs. Pledging to create "a leaner government,"
President Obama has asked Congress to reinstate presidential authority to
reorganize federal agencies. Rearranging the deck chairs will do almost
nothing, however, to rescue the foundering ship.
Insiders say changing the system is hopeless. No democracy
has ever been effective at clawing back promises. America can't even purge
benefits that long ago outlived their usefulness, like farm subsidies from the
1930s. Somehow we'll muddle through. Doesn't it always work that way?
Change is not a remote contingency, however. The next
president will likely have an historic opportunity, thrust upon him by
necessity, to remake the operating system of government. It's time to get ready
for tough choices.
Change occurs not incrementally but in big shifts. The
relative stability over the past half century is misleading. What appears to be
an immutable way of governing, according to political scientists Frank
Baumgartner and Bryan Jones, is just a temporary lull between episodes of big
change, which they call "punctuated equilibrium."
A society hums along for a few decades, as pressures build
up in one area or another. Then, because of a scandal or some outside crisis,
the status quo gives way to this accumulated pressure. At that point, like the
"stick slip" phenomenon of earthquakes, the tectonic plates shift in
dramatic ways, changing the social contract and political equilibrium. Who
would have thought that a man who set himself on fire in Tunisia would have
unleashed the Arab spring?
This pattern is revealed clearly in American history. Over
the past 100 years, America has made three dramatic shifts in the role of
government: The Progressive era at the turn of the last century, ending laissez-faire; the New Deal in the 1930s, instituting social safety nets; and the
rights revolution of the 1960s. Each of these represented a radical expansion
of the reach of government into society.
The challenge of the 21st century is to pull government back
from daily choices while still allowing it to provide regulatory oversight and
safety nets. We must discipline government's appetite for social control, and
push it away from the heaping table of unaffordable mandates and bloated
regulation.
But the inertial forces of government, as the cynics
suggest, don't often turn back towards self-discipline. The parallels to
history are unsettling. The Greek historian Polybius, writing in the second
century BC, famously outlined the cycles of government from monarchs to
aristocracies to democracies and back again. Each form of government works well
until it loses its founding values, generally when heirs grow fat and greedy, and
is then overthrown. Democracy failed, Polybius wrote, "once people had
grown accustomed to eating off others' tables and expected their daily needs to
be met."
The problem of "collective action" , getting people together to act in the common
interest , is notoriously difficult.
Short-term selfishness prevents any significant change until, Polybius would
predict, it's too late. The people who inhabit our national and state capitols,
not only politicians but bureaucrats and special interest lobbyists, see
themselves as agents, not principals. The job is to do what their
"base" wants, not do what they think is right. Interest groups
continue to cling to the status quo, even though they know something has to
give.
Like it or not, America will change its way of governing.
The growing crisis of authority will force us to start over. But how?
Change in a crisis usually follows a new vision of a better society, often
overthrowing either a tyrant or a discredited social norm. Identifying
the culprit requires answering this question: What is it that prevents a
fundamentally sound society from making practical choices?
The villain that keeps America stuck in a swamp is an
underlying presumption about government decision-making, no less insidious
because it rules from our preconceptions rather than from a palace. To get out
of this mess, we must depose it, and embrace a new way of making public
choices.
America is mired in what philosopher Hannah Arendt called
"the rule of nobody." The president's powerlessness to reorganize the
executive branch, supposedly his constitutional responsibility, is just a
symptom of a core structural flaw. After decades of legal accretion, government
is out of anyone's control. Government is run by a giant legal blob, crushing
society and public employees under a mass of mandates and bureaucracy.
Under blob rule, no human is in charge. Who's in charge of
balancing the budget? No one, the budget is largely pre-committed to programs
made in political deals decades ago. Who's in charge of running the school? No
one, the principal is crushed by federal and state mandates, and tied in knots
by union work rules. Who's in charge of approving the power line to take energy
from the wind farm to the urban areas? No one, the bureaucratic process goes on
indefinitely, at the mercy of whoever cares to challenge official judgment.
Americans know that something basic is broken. The
dysfunction is manifested in the daily choices of doctors, educators and
officials unable to act sensibly. The accumulation of countless skewed
choices results in runaway healthcare costs, failing schools and impractical
bureaucracy.
We must restore individual responsibility as the organizing
principle of government. Putting people in charge again is much more radical
than it sounds at first. It requires replacing the unknowable mass of
bureaucracy with a simpler framework of goals and pragmatic authority. Real
people, not a viscous goo of complex rules, would take back the responsibility
to meet our public goals.
The litmus test for a functioning government is this: Is the
person in charge free to make a sensible choice? If not, nothing will work
sensibly.
The challenge is how to make responsibility trustworthy.
What if the teacher is unfair, or the official is on the take, or the President
is just helping his cronies? Personal accountability is one protection: people
caught misbehaving should lose their jobs, or be sent to jail for crimes. But
distrust is pervasive, and Americans will want some protection up front against
bad decisions.
This can be done with human checks and balances, not
thousand-page rule books or legal proceedings that drag on for years. For
important decisions, give oversight authority to an independent official or
group, say, a school-based committee of parents and teachers with authority to
veto a decision to dismiss a teacher. Unlike today's legal tar pit, however,
these checks should be based on human judgment. One person makes a choice,
another checks it. Government can move forward.
Accountability today means mindless compliance, not doing
what's right. The overall effect is profoundly immoral. By what right do we
think we can make the children of tomorrow pay for trillion-dollar deficits
today? This is called "the banality of
evil" in bureaucratic systems: the law made me do
it.
Putting people in charge again is hardly subversive. Our
founders designed our Republic not to avoid human judgment but to give
officials freedom to use their independent judgment. Better that we embrace a
new vision consistent with democratic values than the alternatives provided by
history.