Reform Of The Poor Approaches Of Government Activities
By: Doug Busselman, Executive Vice President
When the Democrats took control of the Nevada Senate, as the majority party, there was a lot of hoopla over the transparency they planned to bring to the legislative process. Not too long after the news conferences telling what they were going to do, the process moved behind closed doors where arrangements were worked out, deals consummated with those deemed worthy of insider status and the legislative process was transformed into a system oriented to whatever it took to achieve expediency. Beyond the forced mid-night sessions, there was also the Assembly of the Whole hearing on the tax package legislation which hadn’t cleared the Senate to be available for the Assembly to hear – let alone act on.
With the Republicans set to take the majority party role in the U.S. House, the idea of reform and an open process which citizens can consider less seedy and more appropriate is again being discussed. One area of this type of attention is the reform of earmarks . It is good to see that Senator Mitch McConnell has decided that he is now in favor of legitimate legislative deliberations being given to how taxpayer money is spent.
Those who believe that whatever methods are quickest in distributing taxpayer dollars are squealing over the difficulty that a system which operates in a deliberate fashion will be. Fiscal responsibility and perhaps deciding to not spend dollars as wastefully as we’ve become accustomed evidently is a problem. To these folks it’s not an issue to be spending more money than what government has available – it’s not taxing enough that causes government deficits.
In 2011, it would be a positive approach to see Nevada’s Legislature adopt an operating policy which avoids the “Core”, select-persons approach for negotiating an end-game for how much money will be spent…followed by the continuation of the behind-closed door process to work out the details for increased taxes. Spending proposals could and should be dealt with through the proper committees of the Senate and Assembly and taxation measures should be processed in their proper course through the taxation committee or “Revenue” committee. If there are too many moving parts in doing things the right way that might be a problem in getting the pre-determined outcomes to line up… so be it -- (the fault lies in the pre-determined outcomes…not the legitimate operating system).
Whether in Carson City and the 2011 Legislative Session or Washington, D.C. and the 112 Session of Congress there is a lot of meaningful reform that can be carried out to improve the processes used – not to make arriving at decisions faster, but to actually demonstrate that open and orderly systems of committee hearings, deliberative considerations and legitimate votes can serve citizens with effective government.
When the Democrats took control of the Nevada Senate, as the majority party, there was a lot of hoopla over the transparency they planned to bring to the legislative process. Not too long after the news conferences telling what they were going to do, the process moved behind closed doors where arrangements were worked out, deals consummated with those deemed worthy of insider status and the legislative process was transformed into a system oriented to whatever it took to achieve expediency. Beyond the forced mid-night sessions, there was also the Assembly of the Whole hearing on the tax package legislation which hadn’t cleared the Senate to be available for the Assembly to hear – let alone act on.
With the Republicans set to take the majority party role in the U.S. House, the idea of reform and an open process which citizens can consider less seedy and more appropriate is again being discussed. One area of this type of attention is the reform of earmarks . It is good to see that Senator Mitch McConnell has decided that he is now in favor of legitimate legislative deliberations being given to how taxpayer money is spent.
Those who believe that whatever methods are quickest in distributing taxpayer dollars are squealing over the difficulty that a system which operates in a deliberate fashion will be. Fiscal responsibility and perhaps deciding to not spend dollars as wastefully as we’ve become accustomed evidently is a problem. To these folks it’s not an issue to be spending more money than what government has available – it’s not taxing enough that causes government deficits.
In 2011, it would be a positive approach to see Nevada’s Legislature adopt an operating policy which avoids the “Core”, select-persons approach for negotiating an end-game for how much money will be spent…followed by the continuation of the behind-closed door process to work out the details for increased taxes. Spending proposals could and should be dealt with through the proper committees of the Senate and Assembly and taxation measures should be processed in their proper course through the taxation committee or “Revenue” committee. If there are too many moving parts in doing things the right way that might be a problem in getting the pre-determined outcomes to line up… so be it -- (the fault lies in the pre-determined outcomes…not the legitimate operating system).
Whether in Carson City and the 2011 Legislative Session or Washington, D.C. and the 112 Session of Congress there is a lot of meaningful reform that can be carried out to improve the processes used – not to make arriving at decisions faster, but to actually demonstrate that open and orderly systems of committee hearings, deliberative considerations and legitimate votes can serve citizens with effective government.
Comments