DC Confidential. David Schoenbrod

Чтение книги онлайн.

СКАЧАТЬ statutes.¹ As I will show, however, the theories usually failed to deliver the benefits without burdens, but promising something for nothing, or very little, had become the course of least resistance. The Five Tricks had begun.

      The tricks differ from the spin and deceits with which politicians have always tried to put their actions in the most favorable light. The Five Tricks allow them to act in new ways that shift the blame for unpopular consequences to others:

       • The Money Trick lets current members of Congress get the credit for gratifying the public’s demands for tax cuts, benefit increases, and other spending increases, while shifting the blame for the inevitable tax increases and benefit cuts to their successors in office when the long-term fiscal consequences of these actions require painful adjustments. As a result, Congress has set a course that, unless soon changed, will require draconian tax increases and spending cuts across the entire population.

       • The Debt Guarantee Trick lets current members of Congress get support from the too-big-to-fail banks and other businesses whose profits it increases by guaranteeing their debts, while shifting the blame for the eventual bailouts to their successors in office when the debt guarantees produce fiscal crises. As a result, Congress grants debt guarantees in a way that encourages these businesses to run risks that will lead to fiscal crises, lost retirement savings, unemployment, and foreclosures.

       • The Federal Mandate Trick lets members of Congress get the credit for the benefits they require the state and local governments to deliver, while shifting the blame for the burdens necessary to deliver those benefits to state and local officials. As a result, Congress mandates benefits without considering whether they are worth the burdens they place on us.

       • The Regulation Trick lets members of Congress get the credit for granting seemingly rock-solid rights to regulatory protection, while shifting the blame to federal agencies for the burdens required to vindicate those rights and the failures to do so. As a result, Congress designs regulatory statutes to maximize credit for its members rather than providing us with effective, efficient regulatory protection.

       • The War Trick lets members of Congress get the credit for having a statute that requires them to take responsibility for going to war, while colluding with the president to evade responsibility for wars that might later prove controversial. As a result, members of Congress can march in the parade if the war ends up proving popular, but put the entire blame on the president if it does not. Although the presidents must take the blame, they get the power to launch wars.

      I am not arguing that deficit spending, debt guarantees, federal mandates, or regulation are always bad. Far from it. And I understand that war is sometimes necessary.

      I am arguing that to make government work for us, we need a Congress whose members are responsible for the consequences their decisions impose on us. Such responsibility would give them a powerful personal incentive to produce consequences that we favor. That is why the Constitution sought to put an accountable Congress at the heart of our government. What the Five Tricks do, however, is to short-circuit legislators’ personal responsibility for the consequences and, as a result, they give them a strong personal incentive to produce decisions that make themselves look good regardless of the consequences for the rest of us. The bad government hurts us deeply because the federal government controls far more of the peoples’ lives than it did before the Five Tricks began.

      The presidents, as the most powerful participants in the legislative process, are in on the tricks, too. The tricks also give the president a more powerful federal government and absolute power to start wars. This is a concern now that Donald Trump has gotten elected in 2016, but should have also been a concern had Hillary Clinton won.

      Photograph by Scott Pinney, 2012.

      FIGURE 1. Chilkoot Charlie’s, Anchorage, Alaska.

      With Congress and the presidents promising everyone something for nothing, the Capitol’s dome might as well bear the sign that is posted in front of Chilkoot Charlie’s bar in Anchorage, Alaska: “We Cheat the Other Guy and Pass the Savings on to You.”

      Voters, of course, sense that trickery is going on, even though they don’t understand the sleights of hand that allow elected officials to seem to pull rabbits out of hats. The well-connected and the well-organized do, however, understand the sleights of hand and so know how to work the system for their own special benefit. The rest of us end up feeling cheated. All of this prevents broad agreement on the fairness of a system that can maintain legitimacy despite clashing interests.

      As the tricks brought bad government and bad feeling, the public’s trust in the government plummeted. In 1964, shortly before the trickery began, trust in Washington stood at 76 percent, but by 1980, with the trickery underway, trust had fallen to 25 percent. Today, only 19 percent of Americans trust government in Washington to do what is right “just about always” or “most of the time.” Pew Research reported that we are now in “the longest period of low trust in government in more than 50 years.” According to Wall Street Journal columnist Peggy Noonan, “Over 80% of the American people, across the board, believe an elite group of political incumbents, plus big business, big media, big banks, big unions and big special interests—the whole Washington political class—have rigged the system for the wealthy and connected. . . . People feel they no longer have a voice.”²

      Of course, the tricks are far from the only change since 1964 likely to breed distrust in the government. Other possibilities include big campaign contributions, downturns in the economy, and polarization. Yet, as I will show, the tricks contribute to these problems, especially in Washington. Meanwhile, trust in state and local government remains high.³

      While voters from across the political spectrum distrust the federal government and openly blame Congress, members of Congress privately blame voters. Tim Penny wrote after serving in the House as a Democratic representative from Minnesota, “Voters routinely punish lawmakers who . . . challenge them to face unpleasant truths.” He is correct. We voters demand something for nothing. The trickery takes place in the legislative process, but We the People are complicit. New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman wrote that we need better citizens rather than better leaders.⁴

      Yet, as I will show, we can be better citizens only if we get Congress and the presidents to stop the tricks. It is the Five Tricks that allow us to escape responsibility for weighing whether we are really willing to bear the burdens needed to produce the benefits we demand from government. We have thereby come to regard the government as a Santa Claus capable of conferring sugar plums from on high, rather than as a system through which We the People take care of ourselves.

      DC Confidential holds up a mirror to the people. If we have the courage to look in that mirror, we will see a citizenry that goes along with being tricked and, as a consequence, suffers. If we see our own part in the dishonesty and stupidity, we can force the politicians to stop the tricks.

      Recognizing that the selfishness inherent in the human nature of voters and officials could, unless tamed, bring bad government, the drafters of the Constitution quite consciously came up with a solution that worked in their time and long after. In recent decades, however, the Five Tricks have rendered that solution ineffective. We need to implement a solution that works for our times.

      With voters frustrated with the government in Washington and members of Congress frustrated with voters and Congress itself, we have come to a crossroads at which we can stop the tricks. This would be a constructive response to the anger that СКАЧАТЬ