An Agenda of Equal Opportunity - Part 2: Looking Beyond Government Transparency and Ethics

In Part 1 of this subject, I discussed the Agenda of Equal Opportunity as a new "Contract with America" that could coalesce old principles and new ideas together to unite different sectors of the conservative movement; reach out to independents, conservative Democrats, ethnic minorities and young voters; and allow for a lively platform debate not only on the national level, but also at the state level.

A couple days ago, Jon asked the following: "What policy should Republicans be advocating and pursuing to limit government and regain popular support?" Aaron Marks had a partial answer to that question by talking about reviving the economy through free market principles. David Brooks and Bill Kristol have recently argued that government has grown to be too big and too entrenched, especially in a time of recession, for us to successfully argue for principles of freedom and less government. It's surprising to see that folks like Brooks and Kristol, self-identified conservative intellectuals, have conceded the intellectual battleground on the proper role of government.

Then I read an interesting column from Robert Samuelson in Newsweek a couple weeks ago, defending lobbying as "democracy in action." His observations are thought-provoking:

We here in Washington are anticipating a stampede of lobbyists, influence peddlers, media consultants, paid "experts" and self-styled crusaders. Who brought us this onslaught of special pleaders? Why it's Barack Obama, the man who vowed to "change" how Washington works and banish from the political arena all those "special interests" that were depicted as a form of lowlife. Well, this is one Obama promise doomed to fail.

The only way to eliminate lobbying and special interests is to eliminate government. The more powerful government becomes, the more lobbying there will be. So, paradoxically, Obama's ambitions for more expansive government will promote special pleading. You need only watch the response to the expected "economic stimulus" plan—totaling perhaps $700 billion—to verify this eternal truth. A LOBBYING FRENZY FOR FEDERAL FUNDS headlined a Washington Post story. The auto-industry bailout has inspired a similar swarming.

I couldn't have said it any better.

In Part 1, I proposed that the three principles of an Agenda of Equal Opportunity should be (1) promoting freedom, (2) fighting for accountability and the rule of law, and (3) branding smaller government as "smarter" government, and vice versa. Along with the thoughts of Samuelson, these principles can be combined to start a serious intellectual discussion and debate about government reform and the proper role of government.

Soren started this discussion earlier, trying to prod the GOP into adopting a transparency and ethics agenda. And today, Jon made the valid argument that the deeds of Gov. Rod Blagojevich are a "matter of routine" with Congress when it comes to earmarks and pork. While these items do put us on the political offensive, they don't necessarily put is on the intellectual or public policy offensive. Sure, in order to put us in that position, any government reform package has to be sweeping and comprehensive. (But the want of any "comprehensiveness" of any government reform legislation should not prevent us from making little reforms here and there.) What principles and policies should we put out there?

• Earmark Reform: While not comprehensive, pork is probably here to stay. So let's make the process of requesting pork transparent throughout the entire budgeting process.
• Budget Reform: This can be comprehensive. The Federal Government passes separate budgets for different bureacracies at different times. The line between operational costs and capital costs of government is blurred. Somehow, the federal government needs to pass operational and capital budgets separately to know exactly what the day-to-day operations of government costs, and what long term projects that government has alloted.
• Bureacratic Reform: We need to develop some sort of system that tracks, in a detailed fashion, the "performance" of government agencies so that we can know what works and what doesn't. Each agency should be required to submit substantive goals they want to achieve in the next one, two and five years with the money they request. If those agencies don't achieve satisfactory completion of those goals, they should get less money or go "out-of-business" for being inept. If those agencies do achieve those goals, or go beyond them, they should be rewarded. (That's how it works in the private sector.) Kristina Rasmussen of the National Taxpayers Union talks about a similar existing accountability review system in an opinion piece in The Hill. By the way, the Pentagon should not be excluded from this type of bureacratic reform, even if Republicans fight against it.
• Tax Reform: Is it really impossible to get rid of the excessive progressivity in our tax code? Maybe. But one thing that can be done is to reduce the complexity of the tax code. One of the reasons why there are so many lobbyists is that government can choose who to reward and who to punish in a very quiet, but powerful manner through the tax code, whether they be credits, deductions, exclusions, etc. We can debate the flat tax vs. fair tax proposals, but one thing is clear: individuals and businesses should make decisions based on the market, not based on the tax code.

So how does all of this relate to the Agenda of Equal Opportunity? Simple. Not only is it government's job to provide equal opportunity (and not equal outcomes) through the law, substantively. It is also government's job to provide equal opportunity procedurally through the daily operations of government. The principles involved are just as simple, and are easy to communicate:

• Money is not the fix-all to all of society's and government's problems. Everybody knows that throwing money at a problem doesn't necessarily create a solution. In order to create equal opportunity for those interested in using government money wisely, government should adopt "investment principles" instead of "spending priorities," paying attention to outputs as well as inputs of government agencies.
• Smaller government means smarter government, and vice versa. Smaller, smarter government doesn't only mean reducing the size of government. It also means government regulating the externalities of market forces, not the market itself.
• Government should not be in the business of picking winners and losers. (This is the tie-in to Samuelson's argument.) When government does pick winners and losers, through the tax code or the budget or the administrative code, it can lead to problems. "Special interests" don't create problems for government; bigger government leads to more "special interests."

I'm sure individuals, businesses and other organizations don't want to spend money for lobbyists. So instead of relying on who can get the best lobbyist inside the Beltway, instead of trying to compete for the attention of lawmakers, instead of attempting to get the government to distort the market in their favor, the American people should rely on their creativity and ingenuity to compete and succeed in society. All government needs to do is give them the equal opportunity to do so. A smaller, smarter government that can truly provide equal opportunity will also be a "cleaner" government. Let's not concede the intellectual battleground on the size and the role of government ... especially now!