I've never been much impressed by committee efforts. Maybe a little brainstorming for ideas on a problem but from there on, I say, put one or two people in charge and let them run with it. The result won't satisfy everyone but it will be done, it's more likely to be coherent, and it will be relatively speedy. The U.S. Congress, one of the world's largest committees, has provided some excellent examples this week of the problems with a committee approach.
1. Defense Secretary Gates wants to put a stop to production of F-22 fighters and use the money that would be spent on them for expenditures more relevant to today's warfare. Who's standing in the way? Congress, or certain members thereof, who would rather preserve themelves in power than spend our defense dollars effectively.
2. Much criticism of the health reform plans being floated now centers on the fact that they do nothing to control the rising costs of Medicare. Who's standing in the way? Congress, or many members thereof, who have the amazingly sweet and largely unpublicized privilege of increasing Medicare payouts in their districts, and would rather garner votes than see the country have a viable health care system.
Who originally said that "all politics is local?" It's often true, but the system that makes it possible for a small district's representative to the national legislature to continue to harbor petty parochialism and inflict it on the nation seems increasingly, frustratingly, anachronistic in the 21st century.
Historically, of course, there were a lot of political leaders back in the late 18th century who thought the country could work as a loose confederation of states without a national government. (Actually, many still seem to believe this.) We probably wouldn't have a federal government if some clever politico of the 1790's hadn't hit on the idea that it could be a bonanza of some other state's or locality's money from which a smart or powerful legislator stood a chance of grabbing more than his own state's share. Since then, Congressmen have been stampeding the trough like a bunch of shoppers at the original Filene's Basement.
Nothing has changed since those days (unless it's gotten worse) so maybe that's why the whole idea that we should continue to pay for more and more unneeded and outmoded airplanes just to keep a company and its Congressman afloat seems so....well, so eighteenth century.
I've always thought the musical "L'il Abner," despite its limitations as high art, truly captured some truths about social issues. (Who can forget Jubilation T. Cornpone?) When I contemplate these political shortcomings, the lyrics that always come to mind are those of "The Country's In The Very Best of Hands." You can see them here . Maybe the best line here is, "As long as no one knows where noone stands, the country's in the very best of hands." The flood of pork depends very much on a Congressional shell game, and the public's failure to focus on it.
Two or three decades from now, perhaps, some President will run once again on a platform of badly needly reform, reform as clearly needed as rationalization of our health services system or war funding is now. That future "big idea" will be a reform of how Congress works, and getting pork off the menu in the cafeterias at the House office buildings. Until then, there doesn't seem to be much way to get things done without it; but I don't believe we can truly afford it much longer.
Comments