The effectiveness of our political system isn’t solely the personal responsibility of our elected officials.
Last column, we discussed the post-election responsibility of politicians to focus on solutions instead of the problems and promises that dominate campaigns as well as utilizing common sense for our as opposed to their party’s benefit. We, as citizens, have a responsibility to do the same.
Instead of reiterating problems, we must use our conscious thought to try and develop solutions. We must subsequently implement them or communicate them to those who can. We must examine the pros and cons of others’ solutions on their merit as opposed to automatically attaching judgment based on our own personal agenda or that of our party.
We can help our legislators focus by not basing our assessment of their performance on the number of bills they propose or get passed. Because we and the press tend to evaluate them in that fashion, legislators focus in that regard. The 114th Congress dealt with over 10,000 bills. In 2017, Colorado dealt with over 700. The federal code encompasses more than 32,000 pages. There are thousands of pages of state, county and city law as well as even more pages of administrative regulations.
We’ve had over 230 years to add to, revise and improve our laws. Times change and so must our laws, but it isn’t logical that each year requires hundreds of proposed additions and modifications. It isn’t as if our system doesn’t work. It would seem legislative focus on the most significant issues instead of personal or party agendas would be a better course of action.
Limiting each legislator to 1 or 2 bills per year would not only make them focus on the big issues, but require them to work cooperatively with other legislators. It would facilitate their writing better bills that are clear in intention and implementation. If laws were better written, the Supreme Court wouldn’t have to spend so much time interpreting them. With less required interpretation, the Supreme Court could evolve toward the goal of being apolitical.
It would also be constructive to eliminate the riders, amendments that are unrelated to the subject of the original bill. Attaching them has become common practice as a method to buy votes from other politicians or facilitate the death of a bill. Examples are numerous. Two are: a rider about electronic cigarettes was attached to the farm bill; an abortion funding rider was attached to a motorcycle safety bill.
It’s our personal responsibility to encourage the right people to run for office. Not only people who have the requisite knowledge and experience, but possess common sense and are good people. That may be hard to define, but we all know it when we are around or work with them. Values may be hard to define but aren’t hard to detect.
It’s hard to convince the best people to run. Competent people are busy people. Who wants their life microscopically examined, back to their teenage years. We’ve all made mistakes and they aren’t …read more
Via:: Post Independent