From Country Club Burgers to Congress: Why Government Keeps Making the Same Mistake

Perhaps someone who has run for office already and hopes to again one day shouldn’t talk about belonging to a country club…

I belong to a country club. Several years ago when Covid restrictions forced the club to shut down its indoor dining, management decided to open a temporary burger and hotdog stand on the golf course to feed hungry golfers. It was a Covid-era adjustment always meant to go away. And it did go away after Covid…for precisely three weeks before member uproar required its reintroduction. It is now permanent, with additional capital spent to get a proper sized grilling station to replace the temporary one and additional recurring expenses to hire new employees to replace the ones that moved back inside to the main kitchen.

Whether it is with that country club burger stand or with your local coffee chain’s seasonal pumpkin spice latte or with McDonald’s iconic McRib sandwich, the principle is the same. Once you offer something to customers, it’s hard to take it away.

The same is true of government services and, indeed, citizens’ rights. Once the customer, the American citizen in this case, has grown accustomed to a government service, it is hard, and in many cases unfair, to take it away. And it doesn’t matter if that service provided or right granted is Social Security, Trump-era tax cuts, Affordable Care Act subsidies, or reproductive rights. No one likes having something and then having it taken away.

In any endeavor there are two components, the idea and the execution. I find that the original idea is rarely the problem. The problem often lies in the execution. Let’s look at an example. Somewhere along the line an efficiency expert had a great idea. He or she said, let’s conserve by cutting down on the amount of hand soap and paper towel dispensed by the automated machines in public lavatories. Weird example, I know, but stick with me. Reducing those by a reasonable amount would truly be conservation. But what happens when the execution is flawed?

Anyone that has used an airport lavatory while traveling lately has probably noticed that the pea-sized dollop of soap dispensed has gotten so small that one must go back to the dispenser for a second or third dose. The amount of paper towel dispensed is now so little that it requires one to go back for a second…third…or perhaps fourth sheet. Where is the conservation there? Had they reduced the settings by say a third, one might be satisfied using just what is dispensed. But by reducing by half, the user now feels compelled to go back for more, using the same or more than they would have under the original settings. There is a point where intended savings leads to actual waste.

All too often government is the guy who took a good idea and blew it by making the piece of paper towel just a bit too small. And because proper execution is the difference between whether or not an idea works and because it is hard to take something away from a citizen once granted, it is all the more important for government to get it right in the first place.

Very seldom does government intervention need to be immediate. Wars, depressions, and pandemics are hopefully few and far between. The rest – the everyday business of government on which our representatives spend the bulk of their time – can be, and should be, more deliberate. Deliberateness allows for getting things right the first time.

Getting it right the first time is one of the many reasons I argue for a more moderate approach to government. One side passing legislation with 51% of the votes is simply asking for that legislation to be reversed when they have only 49% of the votes. I would argue further that no piece of legislation is important enough, no piece of legislation has enough consensus within our country, if it can garner only 51% of the vote. I would argue that legislation without consensus is unnecessary legislation. Less is often more.

I do grant that there will be times of such import – such as matters of equal protection or national security – that a representative must vote a certain way regardless of public opinion. Otherwise, slow, deliberate legislating that can garner a filibuster-proof 60 votes in the Senate and be justifiable to the vast majority of the populace should be the regular order. Put another way, if two thirds of the American people wouldn’t agree something will improve our lives or our nation, don’t saddle us with it. And if they do agree it will improve things, then execute it well, revisiting it often to be sure it is still necessary and achieving the desired outcomes.

Similarly, if a nominee proposed by the Executive cannot garner 60 votes in the Senate, that nomination should not move forward.

I understand that the Executive has the ability to nominate who he feels would best fill the role. But to the Senate belongs the duty of Advice and Consent. And that duty is not a rubber stamp; it is a check.

I would argue that if 41 Senators cannot support a nominee, there must be a better nominee out there. And the Executive should pick one so good out of his candidate pool of 266,000,000 adult Americans, that 41 Senators couldn’t come up with a defensible reason to vote no.

We need to get back to regular order, legislating through hard committee work that leaves each side of the aisle just a bit disappointed in the end product. Because just a little bit disappointed is not enough of a reason to revisit that legislation upon the next change in majority. Just a little disappointed is legislation that can stand the test of time. Just a little disappointed is legislation that lets Americans and American businesses know they can plan for the future without fear of erratic change or things granted being taken away.