Politicians love to make promises about reforming this or that. The list is practically endless: health insurance; entitlements; taxes; immigration; government organization; education; welfare; the Veterans Administration; agriculture; and energy. These are just a few of the vast programs that politicians tell us need some kind of overhaul or comprehensive reform.
This business of comprehensive reform is just smoke-and-mirrors, meant to deceive us. The politicians know that it is so much empty rhetoric, especially in an election year. Not only that, it is dangerous.
No administration gets more than one or two cracks at comprehensive reform legislation. Think back several presidencies. Obama’s signature efforts of healthcare and banking reform qualify. The Bush Administration worked at education reform (No Child Left Behind) before 9/11 distracted other efforts. Welfare reform was accomplished during the Clinton Administration. The first Bush Administration was too short and distracted by the Gulf War to accomplish anything major. The Reagan Administration achieved tax and regulatory reform. No major reforms happened during the short Carter years. You get the picture.
It takes vision and leadership to reform any major program. I think it also requires wide, bi-partisan support. There is real danger if one political party tries to go it alone and ram legislation down the country’s throat. And this type of legislation needs to be carefully thought-out. Inevitably, there will be ‘unintended consequences’ as a result of implementation; those problems can be minimized by a methodical, bi-partisan approach. Already, we are seeing major problems unfold with both Obamacare and Dodd-Frank.
Let me focus on this aspect of leadership. In my opinion, only the president can lead a reform effort. He (or someday she) is in the unique position to stand above the political fray and bring both political party leaders to a centrist position that will benefit the American people rather than one political party. It requires give-and-take. This is a criticism I see in our current president.
Do you recall President Obama’s effort to bring us comprehensive healthcare reform in 2009-10 -- Obamacare. He made countless promises that proved to be untrue: you can keep your health insurance if you’re satisfied; you can keep your doctor; a family of four will save $2,500 annually on their insurance. None of these promises were kept and many more were broken. Yes, more Americans have health insurance than before, but at what cost?
Furthermore, the method used to pass this historic, game changing legislation was a partisan sham. Not a single Republican in either the Senate or House voted for the bill. The Senate leader Harry Reid had to use legislative shenanigans to get the bill passed. The vote in the House was 219-217, passing by the slimmest of margins. The only bi-partisan vote in the House was against the bill when some Democrats joined every Republican voting nay.
This isn’t how law is supposed to be made, especially sweeping legislation. It is no wonder that we have the mess on our hands today and court challenges continue to unfold. Should the major health insurers lose too much money and decide to bail, Obamacare will fold like a house of cards.
In my opinion, it is much better to change an existing law or system incrementally, one piece of legislation at a time. While not as flashy as comprehensive reform, this approach is much less dangerous and better for the country. Take immigration law for example. There are parts of it that simply do not work efficiently. Tackle these incrementally and make specific changes rather than scrap the entire law and start anew. The chance for success is much better and the American people will be the beneficiaries.
Most programs that deliver government services are too large to reform with a single piece of legislation. Welfare is way too convoluted to instantly reform. Energy policy is too widespread to instantly make it right, but there are parts that should be changed and can be accomplished with targeted changes to the law.
The Department of Agriculture is in bad need of overhaul, as is the case with the Veterans Administration, but we would be much wiser to tackle problems individually, one at a time. Early in the Clinton Administration, Vice President Al Gore was put in charge of government reform. Not much came of it. That would be the equivalent of trying to slay a dragon with a pen knife.
This formula works on a small scale as well. I am the spiritual leader of a small traditional church in Madison and have been for nearly four years. We are making small, incremental changes to our service, ministries and facility. We’re not trying to go too fast, and we’re bringing the congregation along with each change. There is more, much more to do… all in God’s time.