New Year’s Day is a traditional time for people to vow to change their behavior. We resolve to lose weight, stop smoking or drinking, spend less or exercise more. Few of us carry out our noble intentions, however. Those who succeed tend to be people who structure things to reinforce their own limited self-discipline — by joining a group, setting up a buddy system, or perhaps just setting milestones against which they measure progress. None of these measures are guarantees, but they foster greater success than good intentions alone.
Congress needs to change its ways, particularly in how it spends money. Since the November elections, we have heard many pious expressions about how things are going to be different. After all, the voters have spoken.
History tells us, however, that true internal reform is hard for government bodies to accomplish. It requires elected officials to recognize the incentives that exist for harmful behavior — or collective ineffectiveness — and to structure offsetting constraints. In Greek mythology, Ulysses recognized that the Sirens’ song was irresistible and had his crew bind him to the mast so that he would not be tempted to steer his ship onto the rocks. Politicians need to follow his example.
Ulysses could order his crew to plug their ears, in addition to tying him to the mast. Things are more complicated in collective bodies like Congress.
In natural resource economics, “mutual coercion, mutually agreed upon,” is necessary in many situations. People will not stint in using a scarce resource if they know everyone else will binge. You can limit over-consumption only if you can get everyone to agree on some rules in advance.
Likewise, Congress only can limit wasteful appropriations and influence if it establishes internal procedural rules that help its members resist the siren songs of constituents, lobbyists and interest groups.
For example, the use of “earmarks” in which senators and representatives arrange special appropriations for pet causes is clearly out of control. One of the reasons is that current rules allow members of conference committees to insert such appropriations even when the earmark was not included in the bills passed by either house. Once a compromise bill is produced in conference, its passage usually is a foregone conclusion. No one looks to see what little pork projects have been attached.
If both houses enact internal rules that ban such last-minute unexamined additions, the process of securing pork-barrel money will be more difficult. The existence of a ban makes it easier for honest officials to be honest.
Limits on what can be added in conference are just one example of a procedural rule that can foster reform. There are many others, and veteran legislators know what they are. But they will only be adopted if voters continue to demand ongoing accountability – not just in the few weeks prior to an election.
© 2006 Edward Lotterman
Chanarambie Consulting, Inc.