Regular Order

We can thank cool heads for bureaucracy. I am not kidding you. 

No, I am not talking about the processing kind where some piece of paper goes past a desk where two pieces of paper are launched in different directions, eventually circualting around and progenating reams of forms, memoranda, studies, reports, critiques, agendas, minutes, focus groups, models, and after six years winnow down into a statement that the generated 1,375 pages is christened “Resolution to Preserve Willow Creek Rill, .25 acres in Wilderness Montana.”

I am thinking about the process that was set in place that, in principal, means Congress will think about something before making a law about it. One aspect of this process is that any proposal will work better if there are four representatives of Congess willing to help it start out, two from each party in the House and Senate. In theory, that means the proposed legislation is looked at from different points of view, and that it is sane. In practice, from the citizenry point of view, that it’s sane is at best a 50/50 proposition. However, this is the highest percentage of reality it will achieve through the Regular Order gauntlet.

Dialog begins on the proposal, with all the benefits to the various legislators, above board and under the table, being identified to the voters. The bill is taking more shape, getting more details as participants add their two cents, three cents, and what-you-give-me’s-that-I-will give-you’s. A lot of this involves staff who summarize the information for their various Dukes and Earls of the Senate and House, and take their yeas and nays for reprocessing. We the mere proles see and here none of this unless our bank accounts have at least eight zeros in them. And this is where the real making of the hog into sausage takes place.

Inquiry and Inspection and Point and Counterpoint are taken with the introduction of the legislation into the committee process, where mere legislators get to show how much smarter they are than people in the respective field including scientists, economists, social researchers, and even Nobel Laureates. But the airing of these committees involves insightful staff working in the background to validate and invalidate various propositions depending on the desires of their masters. This process, basically of making the representatives speak out on the bill, illuminate the bill, hold lobbyists accountable for the bill, put the pros and cons out there for the media to convey to the public what the heck these $200,000 a year schmoozers are doing for them.

As the bill moves through pretty much each member is now aware of it and what it will do (a) for his reelection (b) for his big donors (c) for his special interest groups (d) for his district or state and (e) for America – in that order – –  –  

So as grubby and winding and imprecise as this buearcratic journey for a bill is, it is essential. Bipartisanship ensues. Shining lights ensue. Familiarity ensue. And finally there has to be enough of all of this that this bill is worthy. It may be filled with special interest, and inequity, and legal challenge, and even be downright stupid. But this bill is now worthy and it can be voted on in the originating house and passed to the other, and become a real law someday. 

Or not.

That’s what these ladies and gentlemen are supposed to do for the $100 million we pay them yearly. 

But after all that we should not have an investment in the bill unless it passes. Sometimes the very best thing our representatives can do for us is… nothing.