Less publicizd but critical reasons why Congress isn't working

M sent this insightful article: http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-three-reasons-congress-is-broken/2013/05/23/8b282d2c-b667-11e2-aa9e-a02b765ff0ea_story_2.html

I think the author brought up a good point - why should we have fairly ignorant people write our laws? I often hear interviewed Congressmen compliment each other for being very sharp and smart. But I think that org is no different than any other American professional group - you have a bell-curve where about 15% are actually smart (Frank, before he retired), 15% morons (Bachmann), and the rest mediocre (McCain). That might work most of the time at Walmart or the United Way, but the risks are greater in Congress.

Lobbyists and interest groups would say that there is where they come in - to give Washington the info and persuasive arguments it needs to make the best decisions. But then we need to trust legislators to scrutinize info properly and be impervious to COI (especially when these biased sources come bearing gifts vital to them and their parties). And if staffs write most of the bills, then they are even more susceptible to influence because they are less established in their careers, and their dealings are mostly unmonitored by the public. A Congressman has staff to support them, not to do their job. But I guess this situation arose because Congressmen now need to spend so much more time fundraising, traveling, and campaigning, to avoid getting primaried or falling out of favor with their party bosses. Where is the time left over to be a Congressman?

A term exists called "technocracy" where subject matter experts rule. I think that would be a disaster as well (Einstein turned down being the first leader of Israel for a reason), but I would hope there could be some balance between political knowledge and actual knowledge. Maybe the best solution (and one that played out during America's best decades - politically speaking) is for leaders to be humble and conscientious enough to seek out the counsel of the right sources, and then have the good judgment to use that counsel to help the nation. Barney Frank was on the SF Commonwealth Club last night talking about Dodd-Frank and gay issues. He said that in committees, Congressmen love to work on the one or two issues they care deeply about and know about, but of course they have to deliberate and vote on all issues that are raised. And some of them sit on like 3 cmtes. So if they show up to vote, like 90% of their votes are ignorant and apathetic (or they just fear sweeping, divisive issues that could affect their careers). There has to be a better way?

So we know that too much apathy/risk-aversion is bad, too much ignorance is bad, and too much obstructionism is bad. An arbitrary, artificial solution I could come up with is a "points system". I know there are many unofficial Congressional scorekeepers out there, but in this case let's give it teeth:

-Congressmen need to pass a basic knowledge test before being able to vote. If they miss too many votes, they lose points, and that will hinder their seniority and demote the bills they care about down the queue.


-Congressmen have to achieve a minimum level of creative productivity too (# bills co-authored, # bills passed - like performance goals in the private sector). Conversely, very productive/helpful/engaged members will get more perks (raises, fast-track to chairmanship, etc.). Heck there could even be a leader-board and a cut like golf.


-Senators get X filibusters per session, and each time used, the Senate scores the quality of the argument. If the score is too low, then that Senator gets reduced filibuster privileges for the rest of his/her term. Same thing for floor speeches.

Various scores and evaluations like that could be aggregated, and if the Congressman's total score is outside of "acceptable" limits, then they can't run for re-election or some other punishment. This will never come to be, but they need some sort of punishment for not "doing their jobs" and some rewards for doing it right. Right now the GOP's biggest fear is getting primaried or their party losing seats, and that should not be the case.

In order to encourage real debate, maybe there could be some private, closed-door deliberations. I know I am contradicting myself because I just said that staffers writing bills is risky because they have less oversight. But the situation is different in the actual Congress. With the cameras on during floor debates, as the author said, legislators feel pressured to just posture and rehash talking points that poll well in focus groups. But in confidential proceedings, they can actually talk like respectful adults with each other and negotiate without getting crucified by their own parties/media. Secrecy is usually not good for a free society, but in some cases it's a part of the process. State said the worst thing about Wikileaks was now diplomats are paranoid of being exposed, and can't be as frank in their communications. Maybe it will make them more conscientious in what they say, or maybe it will make them too reserved. I guess there has to be a balance in order to come to the best political solutions.

BTW have you seen "The Campaign"? Horribly hilarious and scarily realistic stuff.