54 Comments

1. cjm:

laws should be written in a programming language so they can be evaluated using a machine.

Jun 30, 2009 - 6:22 am 2. no mo uro:

Years ago, a buddy had the notion that there should be a Constitutional amendment that limited the number of laws, so that in order to create a new law or program another would have to be terminated – essentially a ‘cap and trade’ for laws.

At the time I thought this was nutty. Not so much, now.

Jun 30, 2009 - 6:28 am 3. michael hoskins:

Actually not such a bad idea. At 2000 or so words, brevity and clarity count a lot.

One of the things I try to teach my team is that everything they write, letters, reports, technical responses, etc. are ultimately to be read by a lawyer. My instructions: Hemingway, not Faulkner, minimul use of adjectives and adverbs (all subject to legal parsing) and clear simple statements of unassaible fact…that you can honestly support 5 or 6 years hence when testifying at an arbitration hearing (I meant what I said at the time). The example: The sky is blue. Not: The sky is azure blue. Azure is subject to discussion. KIS for the S.

One could also argue that legislation held to clear and brief segments is much less actionable in court. This could unload the judicial branch a great deal.

Finally, an incremental approach to most things minimizes unintended consequences.

ta

Jun 30, 2009 - 6:29 am 4. Mongoose:

Well we in effect do hqve both white box and black box testing: The states that have been blue for decades.

CA and MY come first to mind.

And guess what, the program needs some work.

Jun 30, 2009 - 6:30 am 5. Dave the Kapampangan:

It’s excellent to try to compel Congress to actually read their own legislation, as opposed to being a rubber stamping body of Congressional committees, or even worse, a blatant tool of President Nanny Obananarama in the manner that the mainstream media is.

The law of unintended consequences may rear its head, for better or for worse. On the 2000 word limit, if something is written unclearly, then the Supreme Court’s interpretation of the law may gain more influence. Also, if something is written modularly, there’s a possibility the beginning and the end might pass, but the middle might not, thus preventing a coherent whole. (This would then force an evolution towards putting the whole thing in one document.) Finally the politicians would certainly try to find a back door to get their 9000 earmarks of horsetrading in (because these days, every law is a handshake on the distribution of money contracts or money entitlements)– and you never know what their back door might look like.

I think 8 pages is about right, although those lawyer windbags in politics, against their nature, will have to learn to internalize the KISS heuristic (Keep it simple, stupid!). Also, they should have a guy with a trumpet and pointy elf shoes post these concise proposed laws up on a web site. Hear ye, hear ye….

Jun 30, 2009 - 6:41 am 6. Parabellum:

I’ve said something similar for a long time now: No bill should be more than one page long.

Double spaced.

Jun 30, 2009 - 6:44 am 7. Lifeofthemind:

Compare the original NY State Constitution with the current bloated monstrosity. It goes with the farce that is the NY State Legislature.

No clear expression of words is proof against deliberate assault by subterfuge, violence and brazenness. The Honduran Constitution stated clearly that the President is held to one term and gave penalties for attempting to over ride that bar. Chavez and Obama are angry that the Honduran courts and army read the document they took an oath to uphold.

Perhaps we can have an amendment that makes them write all laws using words of only one syllable all of which must be found in the Webster’s Third edition dictionary. Otherwise some Clintonite word parser will smile at a 2000 word limit and come up with a law written using german expressions of 12 syllables each.

All members should be on oath that they have read and understand the matter they are voting on, no proxy or paired votes should be allowed. Violation of this should lay the member open to a civil charge of Fraud by any citizen, not withstanding other provisions of the Constitution granting members immunity and making each house sole judge of its conduct.

Jun 30, 2009 - 6:59 am 8. Mel Williams:

Perhaps the founders were able to keep things so short because there was a common sense agreement on what commonly used words meant. Legaleze hadn’t yet crept into the mindset.

Jun 30, 2009 - 7:04 am 9. programmer:

Programs (or systems, for that matter) grow and grow until they collapse. Start over. It saves money and time.

Jun 30, 2009 - 7:12 am 10. wws:

“laws should be written in a programming language so they can be evaluated using a machine.”

Quis custodiet ipsos machinaes?

And actually, brevity just trades one poison for another. The briefer the written law is, the more freedom of interpetration any sitting judge has. Now, of course, that is the heart of the Common Law, and I do not think it would be a bad thing. But the length and specificity of modern lawmaking is directed at removing power of interpretation from the judiciary, and I think many people who rail against “judicial activism” would be surprised that a great increase in judicial lawmaking would be the result.

Power never goes away, it just gets transferred from one player to another.

Jun 30, 2009 - 7:13 am 11. John Work:

I’ve heard some claims (don’t remember where) that some items in this bill were “stubs” (to be filled in later – AFTER the bill was passed)! If true, this would be a significant expansion on the current practice of making some areas intentionally vague to allow the bureaucracy, the lawyers, and the courts to create the law later to suit their own interpretations.

To continue the coding analogy, maybe this is a case of a failed design concept, not just a coding problem. The Founders considered the Constitution and the Republic as a great experiment in liberty. Many had their doubts as to whether it would succeed. Maybe we are seeing that the experiment was only partially and temporarily successful. Read Leoni’s “Freedom and the Law”, especially the chapter “Freedom and Legislation” for a description of how legislative law has undermined and changed the definition of “the rule of law”. “Freedom and the Law” is available in pdf form at the Liberty Fund website.

Maybe the next great experiment in liberty will try a Constitution where laws are based on basic principles and are not “crafted” as multiplying sets of rules that attempt to cover every possible situation. And perhaps in this Constitution there will be no legislative body. In good systems design you define and address the purpose of the system. If you take the position that the only valid reasons for forming a government are to provide for defense against external enemies and to provide a system of justice that allows the citizens to co-exist without having to use force to settle disputes, then a legislative body probably wouldn’t be necessary. If the justice system were based on Constitutionally defined basic principles instead arbitrary legislative law, then “law-making” would be unnecessary. Cases would be decided based on applying these basic principles, much as they previously were in English Common Law and Roman Law prior to the rise of legislative law over the past two hundred years. Taking away the ability of legislators to make rules for the rest of us would remove that means for the looters and tyrants to rule us as they have come to do in our current Constitutional democracy. Would this new, hypothetical Constitution create a perfect society where all problems are solved? Of course not. It would just be the next great experiment in liberty. Maybe we need to learn that there are no perfect systems that solve all problems and contain no “bugs”. Sometimes simple is better (I know I’m sticking my chin out on this statement).

Jun 30, 2009 - 7:56 am 12. M Carolan:

Given the increasing numbers, scope and complexity of laws, is it humanly possible for a single individual to read each one start to finish in the course of a professional lifetime?

It is an ancient principle that ignorance of the law is no defense. But this principle originated in times when laws were few and widely known and understood.

Surely we are approaching, or perhaps beyond, the point at which the sheer volume of legislation makes ignorance a reasonable defense, or at least a mitigating factor, so long as a good faith effort to generally act in a legal manner can be demonstrated.

Jun 30, 2009 - 8:32 am 13. Papabear:

It’s uglier than the average person thinks. The average bill is an “edit script” on a HUGE text document called the United States Code. Bills contain things like “Title 18 Section 399 paragraph 5 is amended to strike ‘or’ and replace it with ‘and’”

The full implications of the changes would take a trained lawyer a long time to fully figure out, particularly if the change is to a definition that’s used in dozens of dependent sections. A one-line change can potentially have HUGE cascading implications.

Jun 30, 2009 - 8:51 am 14. Lifeofthemind:

John Work
I pointed out the blanks in the bill in comment #21 of The molten calf

Jun 30, 2009 - 8:53 am 15. BWR:

Two observations. First, while I agree with the intent of the proposed amendment, I fear that the most immediate impact will be to further empower the unelected bureaucracy to adopt regulations and policies that will in turn be largely upheld by the Courts. My personal opinion is that the demise of the “nondelegation” doctrine, which at one time represented a restraint on the legislative powers that Congress could delegate to the executive branch, when combined with the Supreme Court’s decision in Wickard v Filburn that the Commerce Clause authorized the exercise of federal authority over virtually any activity, represent greater threats to our federalism based system of democracy. Constitutional amendments that reversed these expansions of federal authority may provide a more effective barrier to the ever-increasing expansion of federal authority. Second, at some point in time it might, just might, be possible to raise a “due process” defense to criminal prosecutions based on endless and incomprehensible legislation. However, these sorts of defenses have not been that successful so far even though modern federal regulations are already endless and incomprehensible.

Jun 30, 2009 - 9:08 am 16. wws:

M. Carolan wrote:

“Surely we are approaching, or perhaps beyond, the point at which the sheer volume of legislation makes ignorance a reasonable defense, or at least a mitigating factor, so long as a good faith effort to generally act in a legal manner can be demonstrated.”

Sadly, no. Since ignorance of the law is now to be expected, a reasonable person or business today is expected to know that all major decisions and actions must be subject to professional legal review before any action is taken. Call it the “permanent employment act for attorneys” effect. And I say that as an attorney myself.

I know you may think I’m kidding, but I’m not. If you make a major decision without submitting it to some level of prior legal review, you will not qualify for a good faith exemption. (You are expected to know that you should have hired counsel) And therefore you will be easy prey for anyone who objects to your actions, for any reason. Is this a healthy state for our sociey? Oh hell no – but that’s where we are.

And as far as someone actually reading all the laws – the Federal Criminal Code alone (forget about the states) runs for 27,000 pages. Add in civil law, civil codes, and caselaw (just as important, if not moreso, than statutory law) and there are easily several million pages of relevant documents. Nowadays the only way to find what’s relevant is to use good keyword analysis and crosslinking in the appropriate database.

No living person – no lawyer, no judge, no Congressman, certainly – actually knows personally what the entire law is. It has not been possible for some time.

And BWR – you make very good points. You’ve overlooked, however, the fact that it is NOT the criminal code which is going to destroy the federalist system and many of the liberties we still enjoy. Rather, it is the civil code and the ever encroaching adminstrative law judges who will do that.

One of the “features” of the administrative law system is that the burden of proof is flipped, and defendants are no longer innocent until proven guilty. This is tolerated/encouraged because the only penalties are economic (fines and injunctions) not jail. However, it is often MORE effective to control people economically than it is to control them physically.

One last stat that should scare everyone who doesn’t realize how far this movement has gone – in the United States today, 90% of all cases filed are decided administratively, without trial. And this percentage continues to increase year over year.

Jun 30, 2009 - 9:20 am 17. always right:

From what I read, it is not just the length of the legislation (1,200 page long). This just-passed bill in the House is full of holes.

A lot of it inside (i.e., the real meat, the details) is still yet to be determined. Even if some congressman/woman managed to read through the whole thing (let alone comprehend it), it does not tell you the whole thing.

Jun 30, 2009 - 9:25 am 18. Jay:

The staffers and the lobbyists are writing the laws. The House and Senate can change the rules but for centuries the Anglo-American parliaments had unwritten rules to debate legislation. No longer in the US.

Jun 30, 2009 - 9:26 am 19. Alexis:

If one truly wants brevity in our laws, Congress could require each law to be read publicly before any vote is taken on it. The result would either be short laws or a de facto filibuster.

Jun 30, 2009 - 10:08 am 20. JMH:

Constitutional ammendments, or any rules for that matter, requiring elected officials to behave better are useless. The Founder’s understood that. They only way to ensure better behavior is to create some competing power base that punishes poor behavior.

Jun 30, 2009 - 10:48 am 21. Jack Okie:

#1 cjm and #10 wws:

“laws should be written in a programming language so they can be evaluated using a machine.”

Quis custodiet ipsos machinaes?

This reminds me of Ira Levin’s 1970 dystopian novel “This Perfect Day”, in which programmers are the elite, and a computer decides whether or not you might get yourself a shirt today. Given our hell-bent race to the Nanny-State, it’s unfortunately not as far-fetched as I once thought it was.

Jun 30, 2009 - 11:04 am 22. RWE:

No Mo Uro #2:

I have often thought the same thing, one law should require the cancellation of another. Or better yet, 2 or 3 other laws.

Do you realize that it is even worse than what Wretchard describes? Because it turns out that you not only have to read the legislation itself but also the extensive legislative discussion that supports. So in order to find out what was meant by a simple phrase like “commercially equivalent services” given in some legislation you have to go read the discussion that is not part of the bill and explains what that means. And that is not even readily available to the public. And you are still not done, because no matter what the legislation says and the backup discussion explains, the government lawyers may choose to interpret it in a way that amounts to the exact opposite of the clear intent of the Congress.

And then there are the codewords employed to disguise the pork. To give a specific example “Upgrade the only inland missile test range.” meant “Take $30M of USAF funds and buy the Univ of AK a new office building with a built-in solarium.”

When at the Pentagon, frequently dealing with not only the perversity but the obtuseness of Congress, I came to a realization. If you were independently wealthy and could afford to do nothing but spend 8 hours a day, 5 days a week, 52 weeks a year doing nothing but identifying all of the Federal Laws and regulations that exist and understanding how they affect you and what they require you to do or not do …. you could NOT do it. No way.

“Ignorance of the law” used to be considered an inadequate excuse for violations. Now it is an everyday requirement for existence.

Jun 30, 2009 - 11:05 am 23. Roderick Reilly:

The climate bill, or whatever we call it, and the stimulus bill, are many, many pages long because they are huge monstrosities that shouldn’t even exist. Suggesting brevity for measures designed to codifiy and enable massive Madoff-like theft is a silly waste of time and just enables the white-collar criminals we keep sending back to the Hill.

Jun 30, 2009 - 11:29 am 24. Tcobb:

Alexis writes
If one truly wants brevity in our laws, Congress could require each law to be read publicly before any vote is taken on it. The result would either be short laws or a de facto filibuster.

Excellent. I would also incorporate the requirement that it be read in the house that is voting on it, and that no Legislator who was not there for the entire reading would be eligible to vote for passing it, although they could vote against it.

I would also extend this to administrative regulations. The agencies might come up with them, but the Congress would have to rubber stamp them by having them read in the House and Senate under the same requirements mandated for passing legislation.

Jun 30, 2009 - 11:43 am 25. Mad Fiddler:

Some wise ones have pointed out that the vocabulary of English language was recently estimated to have Four Hundred Thousand words.

400,000 words.

Even if you eliminate multiple uses, variations, and alternate spellings, that’s a pretty respectable number.

Shakespeare, whether you like him or no, is regarded as having laid the foundations for modern English, using an estimated thirty-thousand word vocabulary in all his plays, sonnets, and other writings.

Brevity is the tool of those who wish their writing to be understood.

A 1200 page document submitted without enough time for a world-class speed reader to skim through it, is clearly meant to confuse and frustrate understanding.

Even if you allow that some issues are necessarily complex, the legislation addressing complex issues does not itself therefor have to be complex.

The European Union commissions are also using encyclopedic regulations to stifle any protest by miring the people affected by those regulations in complex, redundant, and opaque bureaucratic jargon. If my memory serves, the various European Union commissioners are appointed not elected and the EU commissions have priority over the laws passed by the elected legislatures of the constituent member nations.

This is the model approved by the Left.

We are so screwed.

Jun 30, 2009 - 11:53 am 26. Mad Fiddler:

The Gordian Knot is an apposite historical model.

Jun 30, 2009 - 11:59 am 27. Tcobb:

In regards to my comment #24 I would also like (in my own fantasy world) that every law and regulation would automatically expire after ten years, and would have to be re-enacted again as if it had never existed—reading the whole thing aloud with the requirement that any Legislator who was not present for the entire reading would be ineligible to vote for passing it into law again.

Jun 30, 2009 - 12:13 pm 28. Robohobo:

programmer @ 9: “Programs (or systems, for that matter) grow and grow until they collapse.”

We are just about there, aren’t we? Fedzilla (h/t Ted Nugent) has grown just about bog enough to be “too big to fail”. Which then implies societal collapse when it does fail.

The real question is, has this societal experiment gone as far along as it can?

Jun 30, 2009 - 1:26 pm 29. buckets:

Wretchard and others have talked before about this ever-increasing surfeit of laws and regulations. Practically, there is no good answer. Limits on wording obviously would hamper even a (theoretically) effective legislature which is (theoretically) drafting wise legislation on an important topic.

Setting old laws to expire, requiring 3 old laws to be removed for every 1 new law… these things are nice to bat around because we are dealing with a very serious topic, but it’s simply not possible to implement any of these changes without critically wounding Congress. And while many would be OK with shutting down Congress, it must be acknowledged that occasionally new laws need to be written. We can’t simply allow all old laws to expire on set times – RICO? Too important to combating modern crime. Congressional health insurance and benefits? Fat chance. Laws dealing with voting and registration, and fraud and crimes connected to the process? Open season for the Dems and their “election enhancement” activities.

Solution to the ever-expanding U.S. Code madness: None.

Nope. I just don’t see this inevitable growth as reversible, and the Left, the Dems, regulatory agencies and lobbyists will fight any measure to do so. Too many powerful and wealthy special interest groups have too much tied up in the current monstrosity that we call our body of laws. The current system will continue on until it collapses, or the burden it places on the public becomes so outrageous and oppressive that they overload and crash the system.

Programmer “Stormcrow” could be right.

Jun 30, 2009 - 1:47 pm 30. Tcobb:

buckets writes:
… but it’s simply not possible to implement any of these changes without critically wounding Congress.
With all due respect Buckets, if any group of people deserves a critical wound, the US Congress is one of the most deserving candidates for such a fate.

Jun 30, 2009 - 2:46 pm 31. JFSanders:

The U.S. Congress is all but dead as a power wielding body as it stands today. They have abrogated their constitutionally assigned powers and obligations to the bureaucracy. Basically what is in existence at this time is a social club with a very close if not twin to the ones you would find in certain Italian neighborhoods in New York and Chicago.

Jun 30, 2009 - 3:15 pm 32. Derek:

There is no need for constitutional amendments, or special laws. There are two avenues available.

Make a concerted effort to get every democrat or republican that voted for some inane legislation on tape stating that they didn’t read the bill.

Start doing ads with the statement and some nasty detail in the bill.

The second alternative is tar and feathers.

Derek

Jun 30, 2009 - 4:17 pm 33. LFMayor:

Derek @32
I find your second proposal refreshingly acceptable. When do we begin?

Jun 30, 2009 - 4:47 pm 34. Subotai Bahadur:

31. JFSanders

– The U.S. Congress is all but dead as a power wielding body as it stands today. –

One could make just a cogent argument that electoral politics is just as dead as a way allocating power in this country. The question is what is in the process of replacing it? Both now, and as the end stage.

Subotai Bahadur

Jun 30, 2009 - 5:29 pm 35. Subotai Bahadur:

re: #34

Lets try “just as cogent an argument”. PIMF

Subotai Bahadur

Jun 30, 2009 - 5:31 pm 36. buckets:

I’ll rephrase, because TCobb is probably right. The Congress needs to be reined in, that’s for sure. But what about emergency war resolutions, impeachment, ethics proceedings, emergency funding for attacks on U.S. cities or natural disasters, etc.?

We have to concede that Congress is necessary in a few ways. The ultimate question is how to cut their power and/or undo the massive accumulation of corrupt, oppressive, and useless laws. A line item veto is a good start, but that still wouldnt do anything about the bloated U.S. Code. I don’t have a good answer, because I don’t think there is one.

Jun 30, 2009 - 8:07 pm 37. Cowboy:

I’d be surprised if anyone in Congress today has ever read any of the laws they have voted on, and this includes the ones they themselves have sponsored.

I’d insist on a rule that before any law is voted on that all members of either of the House or the Senate (respectively), who are not on specially granted (and rarely given) leave, must be present in the respective chamber while the law in question is read in full aloud. The sponsors of the bill must be the ones who read it.

I imagine that’d change things around right fast.

Jun 30, 2009 - 10:28 pm 38. Gaffe Prices:

“Government [that is] big enough to supply everything you need is big enough to take everything you have … The course of history shows that as government grows, liberty decreases.” Thomas Jefferson

Its like the raggamuffins in “Major Barbara”: in her presence, they behave all puppy eyed and helpless, humbly accepting the mere crumbs from the upper crust, but behind her back they scheme, convinced that one day there will be a much bigger payoff in a bigger lottery jackpot, but meanwhile, continue the con.

Its just that there are so many of them now; lawyers, wall street ballet dancers, bureaucrats, lobbyists, “activists”, scam artists, sham artists, “community organizers”, leeches, vampires, and bloodsuckers. What they crave is more temptation and opportunity to satisfy their habit.

Now they drain us dry with words no one has read: it will all take myriad forms as ‘custom’ by those in government love agencies, empowered with police powers to conduct the *new* bold, courageous inquisition/holocaust.

Jun 30, 2009 - 11:29 pm 39. Micha Elyi:

John Work (#11) says he hears that some items in this bill were stubs to be filled in later.

The magic asterisk returns, eh?

Jul 1, 2009 - 1:18 am 40. Andy:

Wretchard’s post reminds me of why I first started reading him regularly, after Steven Den Beste retired.

Jul 1, 2009 - 1:41 am 41. ledger:

@ 11. John Works
“I’ve heard some claims (don’t remember where) that some items in this bill were “stubs” (to be filled in later – AFTER the bill was passed)! If true, this would be a significant expansion on the current practice of making some areas intentionally vague to allow the bureaucracy, the lawyers, and the courts to create the law later to suit their own interpretations.”

@ 14 lofthm
“I pointed out the blanks in the bill in comment #21 of The molten calf.”

@ 16 wws
“Sadly, no. Since ignorance of the law is now to be expected, a reasonable person or business today is expected to know that all major decisions and actions must be subject to professional legal review before any action is taken. Call it the “permanent employment act for attorneys” effect. And I say that as an attorney myself.”

To the untrained eye the bill looks like a large confidence game (yeah, I know my brother is a lawyer). Some would even go so far as to call it a “swindle.”

I think it is a legal and economic abomination.

Will it help the average joe? NO. Will it help Obama and his democrat cronies? Yes.

For Obama and his cronies it is a “Heads I win and Tails your loose” situation.

Now how do we rectify the gross legal miscarriage?

Obama and his gang control the House. They control the Senate. They control the Oval Office. As Obama noted, “We won.”

Short of Obama stumbling into impeachment and exiting Office, how do we actually change this situation? Speak up if you have any good ideas.

Jul 1, 2009 - 2:51 am 42. Lifeofthemind:

While we are going over the wish list of Constitutional reforms, we have done this before, the consensus top item on our list is usually repeal of the 17th Amendment. Like with the strategic impact of removing Saddam it could be the one targeted blow that changes everything.

Subotai Bahadur,
Who has replaced the Congress and the citizenry? Soros and the Chinese.

Jul 1, 2009 - 3:26 am 43. Wadeusaf:

Mandatory, make it mandatory, that for every thousand words in a bill, one week shall be set aside for dissemination and debate with no chance of a vote until the time has been spent. So fittingly, the longer the bill, the longer the debate.

Makes sense no? No bums rush at creations from who knows where. No feeling of being completely abandoned by politicians, representatives, senators and the press.

Alas such a law would have no chance as it would have to be an amendment to the constitution and would have to gather two thirds of the states support. Would that such rules could be adopted and followed by congress, but there is where the ultimate rules are meant to be broken mentality exists.

Jul 1, 2009 - 5:31 am 44. Herb:

Had a conversation with a tax lawyer the other day. We are of the opinion that it wouldnt take an awful lot to bring the tax system down. It now takes the IRS about six months to process what are simple appeals and routine requests that require a human being. Nobody is testing the system. What happens when a bunch of people (say 2 million) start aggressively testing it. All correspondence (returns, inquiries, payments, everything) goes in in hard copy. No electronic filing. Certified mail, return receipt. Subsequent correspondence includes hard copies of all pertinent previous correspondence. Oldest first.

The government is fond of saying that the US tax system is successful because its mostly voluntary. What happens if we decide that its not?

I read the other day that the govt is worried that tax receipts are way down from their expected take.

Jul 1, 2009 - 6:13 am 45. Pseudo-Polymath » Blog Archive » Wednesday Highlights:

[...] The too many regulations and laws problem. [...]

Jul 1, 2009 - 7:45 am 46. Stones Cry Out - If they keep silent… » Things Heard: e74v3:

[...] The too many regulations and laws problem. [...]

Jul 1, 2009 - 7:47 am 47. Mad Fiddler:

When you have a bunch of thugs who will do or refrain from doing according to the wishes of the messiah, laws are of no consequence.

An uncommmonly cynical person might predict under the current admin that if people actually begin to take advantage of the appeals process enough to measurably impede the flow of revenues, Urkel will issue an executive order to the inland revenue collection service to ignore or even punish such appeals.

Jul 1, 2009 - 8:50 am 48. Mark:

Herb,

An IRS phone agent told me yesterday, when I called about a matter, that I had neglected to claim a credit worth $1000 per year for each of three years. IRS has been very helpful on a personal level for quite a few years now, responding to the request a decade ago that it be nicer to taxpayers.

This is just to say that any bad system tends to ensnare the often good people who work in it.

If bad money drives out good money, a corollary is that bad systems drive away good people, who just want to be left alone to do the best they can. Needless to say, this situation favors the proponents of the bad systems, who can use those systems to drive away the people who don’t want the system.

PBS aired ‘Bleak House’ and ‘Little Dorrit’ during the last two years. Dickens lived inside of bad systems. His depictions of the legal system in Bleak House and of the government “Circumlocution Office” in Little Dorrit are, unfortunately, timeless.

Jul 1, 2009 - 10:21 am 49. peterike:

Who’s kidding who? The system will not change, baring a revolutionary moment. Essentially, we need some sort of populist firebrand to start a movement and roll into the Presidency, taking a few hundred new Congress folks from a new party with him. Given the media lock on information (to the masses), this just can’t happen.

What else will change things? The Republicans? Please.

The next Black Swan is the inevitable complete collapse of the US economy and government, if things continue down this road. Herb notes that tax receipts are down. Of course they are, because economic activity is down (Democrats never seem able to make this connection, which a ten year old could figure out). If all the ‘Bamas gradiose schemes go through, we will see a collapse in economic activity that will make the Depression look like a bull market. From whence, then, comes the government’s revenue?

It may come as a shock to the Democrats in the near future that without people making money, there is no money to take. They won’t like it, but as the late great James Burnham put it, “Who says A must say B.” There’s nothing they can do to stop it, no matter how much they scrunch up their fat, stupid faces and bulge out their vacant, evil eyes while spouting off on the House floor. Reality will be, as they say, a bitch.

What does the government run on when there’s nothing to run on? What happens? What gets cut? What doesn’t? What happens in the streets when unemployment is 20%, 30%, 40% or more? What happens when people can’t eat because there’s no food to be had? Will we still be worried about our carbon footprints? (I cried because I had a big carbon footprint until I met a man who didn’t have any carbon footprint at all.)

Just who will be the Who after the deluge? If we are lucky, a good and strong person will arise to take that role. The odds ain’t good, but it’s what we got.

Otherwise, we’re on target to resemble something along the lines of North Korea. Think it can’t happen? It could all happen in six months.

Jul 1, 2009 - 12:17 pm 50. peterike:

PBS aired ‘Bleak House’ and ‘Little Dorrit’ during the last two years.

Both are readily available for instant play on Netflix, and highly recommended.

Jul 1, 2009 - 12:18 pm 51. ag:

Well, there is a godd news and bad news. Good news is that the “context analyser” I. Azimov briefly described in his Foundation series might help. The bad news is it still exists in the uncertain future.

Jul 1, 2009 - 6:57 pm 52. Josh:

I like it.

Jul 1, 2009 - 8:08 pm 53. Herb:

Mark:
Im sure there are a significant number of able people in the IRS. The ones I talked to were fine.

The point is that the economy has become so complex and large that there is no way that anybody can manage or police it. The IRS is a mid 20th century construct. It hasnt been up to its task for 25 years. In order for the govt to gather the revenue it needs, it has to come up with a much simpler and robust system.

Jul 2, 2009 - 6:56 am 54. Greg:

Amen,

We should be hammering all politicians who do not take seriously spending the tax payers funds in such a flagrantly irresponsible way of not even reading the legislation. Are politicians only rubber stamps? pawns? Who is really calling the shots?
These are very serious economic decisions that will awaken voters.

A politician can gush, jobs, jobs, jobs, as justification of their actions. Maybe someone will now check up on the results.

GL

Jul 3, 2009 - 9:39 pm

Sorry, comments for this entry are closed at this time.