Let’s do a simple thought experiment and answer the following question: Do you think that additional laws from Washington will give you more freedom and more prosperity?
I don’t know how you will answer, but I strongly suspect most Americans will say “no.” Indeed, they’ll probably augment their “no” answers with a few words that wouldn’t be appropriate to repeat in polite company.
That’s because taxpayers instinctively understand that more activity in Washington usually translates into bigger and more expensive government. Or, to be more colloquial, this image summarizes how they view Washington. And the last thing you want is more “action” when you’re on the lower floor.
Sort of like living downwind from the sewage treatment plant.
So what’s the purpose of our thought experiment? Well, new numbers have been released showing that the current Congress is going to set a modern-era record for imposing the fewest new laws.
But while most of us think this is probably good news, Washington insiders are whining and complaining about “diminished productivity” in Congress. The Washington Post, which is the voice of DC’s parasite class, is very disappointed that lawmakers aren’t enacting more taxes, more spending, and more regulation.
…this Congress — which is set to adjourn for the year later this month — has enacted 52 public laws. By comparison, …90 laws were encated during the first year of the 113th Congress and 137 were put in place during the first year of the 111th Congress.
Just in case you don’t have a beltway mindset, another Washington Post report also tells you that fewer laws is a bad thing.
…whatever gets done in December will still be part of a year with record-low congressional accomplishment. …According to congressional records, there have been fewer than 60 public laws enacted in the first 11 months of this year, so below the previous low in legislative output that officials have already declared this first session of the 113th Congress the least productive ever.
Let’s actually look at some evidence. The first session of the current Congress may have been the “least productive” in history when it comes to imposing new laws, but what’s the actual result?
Well, there are probably many ways this could be measured, but one of the most obvious benchmarks is the federal budget.
And it appears that “record-low congressional accomplishment” translates into a smaller burden of government spending.
Indeed, government spending actually has declined for two consecutive years. That hasn’t happened since the 1950s.
And it’s worth reminding people that you begin to solve the symptom of red ink when you address the underlying disease of too much spending. That’s why the deficit has fallen by almost 50 percent in the past two years.
Interestingly, the Washington Post accidentally confirms that you get better policy when you have fewer news laws.
In 1995, when the newly empowered GOP congressional majority confronted the Clinton administration, 88 laws were enacted, the record low in the post-World War II era.
Needless to say, the author isn’t saying that we got good policy because there were a “record low” number of laws in 1995. But if we look at fiscal policy during that period, that’s when we began a multi-year period of spending restraint that led to budget surpluses.
In other words, we should be very grateful for “unproductive” politicians.
Now for some caveats.
It’s obviously a gross over-simplification to assert that the number of laws is correlated with good policy or bad policy. Sometimes politicians impose laws that increase the burden of government (with Obamacare being an obvious example).
But sometimes they enact laws that increase economic liberty and reduce government (with the sequester being a good example, even though very few politicians actually wanted that result).
To conclude, the message of this post is that we shouldn’t worry about “diminished productivity” in Washington if it means fewer bad laws.
That being said, we’ll never fix a corrupt tax code or reform bankrupt entitlement programs unless there are new laws to replace old laws that created bad policy.
P.S. Since we’re talking about low productivity in Washington, there’s good evidence that bureaucrats don’t work very hard compared to workers in the economy’s productive sector. But that’s probably a good thing. After all, do we want bureaucrats (like this one) being more diligent? That’s why we should focus on reducing their excessive compensation rather than encouraging them to put in a full day’s work.
[…] not being nihilistic. Instead, I’m making the simple point that America’s Founders had the right idea in creating a factionalism-based system that enables […]
[…] not being nihilistic. Instead, I’m making the simple point that America’s Founders had the right idea in creating a factionalism-based system that enables […]
[…] As I stated in the interview, I don’t think this assertion is persuasive. Most legislation is bad for liberty, so I agree with America’s Founders that gridlock is good. […]
[…] One year ago, I criticized the Washington Post, which complained that the 1st Session of the 113th Congress wasn’t productive. Here are a few excerpts from that column. […]
[…] examples of good news include the fact that very little legislation was enacted during the year, the sequester (while it lasted), the overwhelming rejection of class-warfare tax policy in […]
[…] 2013 was a very unproductive year for Congress, and libertarians were among the few to state that we’re better off with fewer laws rather than more […]
[…] he thinks this is unfortunate, while I view government inaction as a positive development. Simply stated, most new laws lead to bigger government and less […]
*sigh*
Yes, generally Americans would say NO to more Washington laws.
But their NO turns to YES if you ask the question as:
“Would you be willing to let the rest of The People pass ten extra Washington laws if they also pass two of your favorite ones?”
Because this is how the dilemma generally presets itself on the ballot.
In this YES answer lays the foundation of American decline, along the route travelled by virtually all European electorates.
For the voter, a concrete restrain on laws is like trying to say no to crack. And the more addicted you become, the more difficult to say no. In 2008 we got such a strong dose of complimentary crack that saying no has become inconceivable.
In 2008 we got massive doses of European crack. Hopes of free healthcare, free education, even free housing and free food stamps, all paid by people who — in spite of mediocrity becoming more comfortable, and exceptionalism becoming persecuted by pitchforks — will spring out of bed every morning, leaving their families behind to go work in an office, with half their day devoted exclusively to the benefit of distant others, AND do so with enough residual enthusiasm to outcompete the emerging world masses and ensure that the American middle class retains its 10% worldwide prosperity standing in the world. It will happen for sure.
So, the question has become, not how to reverse this situation — leave that to Mr. Mitchell, the chances of that happening are too minuscule to waste time planning for this possibility at the personal level — but rather how to make a modest profit out of the trajectory of decline and not end up in the systemic toilet with the naive HopNChangers who believe their electoral choices in flattening the effort-reward curve will somehow usher America into sustained prosperity. A delusional fairy tale indeed.
HopNChangers will indeed be able to get stickers to drive their electric vehicles in the commuter lane, with $50 worth of subsidized birth control in their veins, but that will be little consolation in an environment of growth deficit, and thus compounding systemic economic decline.
P.S. Here in California, having recognized that Democrats are the party of climate action, we are thinking of handing out commuter lane stickers to anyone who votes Democratic. The green stickers will read: “Doing my part. Voted Democratic. Access OK”.
PPS. The Obama spending binge has ended, but the foundation he set for inevitable future spending is massive. Not only did he do nothing to restrain the two main entitlements that are on track to flatten effort-reward curves to European levels, but he added a third new entitlement that will inevitably follow the electoral trajectory of the previous two entitlements and probably eclipse both in size and economic decline contribution.
PPPS No, there won’t be any Pogroms. But if you think that things will get better, then, in economic terms, you will join 1930’s Jews in Berlin who hoped that “it won’t be that bad, we are about to turn the corner”. Flatter effort-reward curves will bring nothing but economic slowdown and an acceleration of the existing growth deficit — and decline. Things are already starting to go south in terms of long term economic growth trendline, and only a minor fraction of the effort-reward flattening effect has kicked in yet; the rest is on autopilot. And the French long term intergenerational lessons “don’t waste your youth pursuing exceptionalism it ain’t worth it in the end, mediocrity is not too bad and the exceptional meet the pitchforks” have also not yet kicked in; but are also on autopilot.
Reblogged this on Gds44's Blog.