Opinion Editorial

By Dennis Polhill

As the Colorado Legislative approaches its final month, the words of Thomas Paines Common Sense ring with modern meaning: “We may be as effectively enslaved by the want of laws as by submitting to laws made for us.”

The job of legislating becomes more difficult as the pace and complexity of society intensifies. Lobbyist and special interest groups are more numerous and more sophisticated. Legislation able to survive the process is less relevant as substantial issues are ignored or left to a more active citizen initiative process.

In response to these disturbing trends and dilemmas, the Colorado Legislature may choose one of two paths. The “less-for-more” path is the default position: ignore major societal events and trends. The Legislature works harder, trying to force an outmoded industrial-age legislative process to work. Industrial-age policy conflicts were largely one- dimensional with two opposing views, such as business versus labor. Ultimately, efforts of the Legislature to focus, prioritize, and intensify will fail to force an outmoded system to work. The Legislature can expect to continue to produce less results for more effort.

To pursue the path of “more-for-less” the Legislature must have the political courage to experiment with new systems that may increase legislative effectiveness. The political risk of legislative effectiveness is not trivial. It is always easier to blame others or the system for failure. However, the stress and challenge that legislative effectiveness brings will also be enriching and rewarding to most legislators.

How might an ongoing intractable issue of great importance to many be advanced? Either the Colorado House of Representatives or Senate may take the lead. The body elects a five member committee to write “breakthrough” legislation on say K-12 Education Reform. The committee election will take several weeks. After each vote, the candidate with the fewest votes is eliminated. After the final vote the votes of the sixth candidate are redistributed to the five elected. Each committee members weight in committee is measured by final votes received.

If the five member committee reaches unanimous agreement on its proposal, then the full legislative body may vote the proposal “up-or-down” with NO amendments. If the committee cannot reach unanimity, standard rules apply when the proposal reaches the full body. Without unanimity, the committees reform proposal stands little more chance of surviving the legislative process than any innovative proposal from any legislator.

Unanimity gives all committee members great negotiating clout. The needs and priorities of each committee member are known to all. If trade-off decisions are not made fairly, the committees hope of unanimity are dashed. Stonewalling is discouraged, because everyone would know who is responsible for jeopardizing the process and their credibility is injured. Both the committee and its members will wish to maximize their credibility as the proposal advances and for future issues.

An environment of constructive dialog is created by the election of a “select” committee charged with drafting breakthrough legislation. With a list of prioritized concerns members can negotiate and make trade-off choices intelligently. By yielding on lesser concerns, large concerns are protected and opponents concerns can be accepted. The product is likely to be a more efficient public policy; one that benefits many interests significantly rather than one that benefits one interest at the expense of many others.

The fact that similar systems have worked is sufficient proof to justify experiment. The military base closing dilemma at the Federal level illustrates how legislative bodies can do the right thing by adopting innovative procedures.

In 1984 there were over 4000 military installations in the U.S. Only 312 were considered by the military to be “significant and necessary.” Although Congressional rhetoric called for reductions, the system of “reciprocal pork barrel” motivated Congress to put $6 billion in the 1985 Defense Department budget that was not requested. To make things worse, Congress regularly cut essential expenditures in order to accommodate its pet projects. Eventually public outrage grew to the point that Congress agreed to tie its own hands so that a workable solution could be implemented. In 1990 Congress created the Defense Base Closure and Realignment Commission. The law prohibited Congress from making any amendments to the Commissions base-closing recommendations. Thus, Congress decision was condensed to “all-or-nothing.” The process worked. The issue was finally resolved.

Congress is currently considering a similar commission to make corrections to the Consumer Price Index (CPI) use in the calculation of entitlement Cost of Living Adjustment (COLA). Most people agree that the current method of calculating CPI exaggerates annual COLA, but various groups cannot agree as to how much.

By experimenting with this process during the 1997 off-session, not only does the Colorado Legislature have the opportunity to break through an important issue, but veteran legislators have an opportunity to add a significant crowning success to their many achievements.

——————————————————————————–

Dennis Polhill is a Senior Fellow at the Independence Institute, a free-market think-tank located in Golden, Colorado.

This article, from the Independence Institute staff, fellows and research network, is offered for your use at no charge. Independence Feature Syndicate articles are published for educational purposes only, and the authors speak for themselves. Nothing written here is to be construed as necessarily representing the views of the Independence Institute or as an attempt to influence any election or legislative action.
Please send comments to Editorial Coordinator, Independence Institute, 14142 Denver West Pkwy., suite 185, Golden, CO 80401 Phone 303-279-6536 (fax) 303-279-4176 (email) webmngr@i2i.org

Tags: