It is a wonder that Osama bin Laden is not occupying the Oval Office. Defense Department officials are some of the most stupid, inept people on the planet.
Or so you might conclude from listening to politicians describe recent base-closing recommendations. Senators and representatives are shocked and outraged by the gross incompetence manifest in the idea of closing South Dakota’s Ellsworth Air Force Base or any other of the 62 major facilities on the list.
But that conclusion would be false. While defense officials are not infallible, we remain unconquered and safe. The commanders weighing the military effects of closings are competent. They understand threats to the nation and the resources needed to protect against them.
The exaggerated rhetoric used by members of Congress from affected states reflects political fears, not substantive issues. Despite the fact that past base closings generally did save money without harming affected communities as feared, lawmakers believe that acquiescing to base closings is political suicide.
The base-closing brouhaha is an example of a broader set of challenges that democracies face. How do you structure government to make necessary decisions that are politically unpalatable?
One option is to create a nonelected, ongoing body to absorb political heat. The Base Realignment and Closing Commission (BRAC) is just such a body. The Federal Open Market Committee is another. Both make decisions that Congress prefers not to make, because initial public reactions to base closings or higher interest rates often are highly inflamed.
The blue-ribbon commission or task force is another. President Reagan named the “Greenspan Commission” to examine restructuring Social Security in the early 1980s and President George W. Bush named a new commission to revisit the same issues soon after his inauguration.
The Federal Reserve functions well as a scapegoat, as does the BRAC, despite the heated rhetoric whenever closings are proposed. Could we tackle other thorny problems with similar nonelected bodies?
One obvious move would be to appoint an impartial body to rule on budget issues and absorb resulting political fallout. The last two Minnesota legislatures struggled with budget deficits. Both resorted to accounting gimmicks to close projected gaps. An independent fiscal accounting commission might be a salutary move to deliver the legislature from temptation. It could determine which deficit closing measures are legitimate and which are shams.
A similar national body might remove much flimflam from federal budgeting. Are we really protecting Social Security funds or using them to mask current deficits? Will tax revenues or spending change as projected?
Useful as such insulating bodies may be, they do obscure a fundamental problem. Elected officials feel the political risks of taking necessary but unpopular actions are unacceptable. What in our system of campaigns and elections makes them so gun-shy?
© 2005 Edward Lotterman
Chanarambie Consulting, Inc.