Paul Light’s excellent suggestion on fast-track reorganization authority

OP-ED: “Fast Track to Efficiency,” by Paul C. Light, New York Times, 12 November 2008.

From 1932 to 1983, the U.S. president has a fast-track authority for any gov reorganizations, meaning he could present a package, not unlike base closure lists, and the Congress would have a veto (up or down vote) but no line-item capacity to mess with it.

The Supreme Court vetoed the idea of legislative vetoes as unconstitutional in 1983, and Light wants the capacity restored.

He sees it as a key for Obama to fulfill his promise to generate a 21st-century government structure.

Excellent argument.

Comments

[William R. Cumming]

Actually the SCOTUS case was Chadha v. US (1982) (I believe). While it knocked out a one house veto as being UNConstitutional the fast track reorg authority might be useful but requiring both houses to vote up or down without authority to make changes. But of course again they would have to agree or Chadha case ruling would control. And I could have this completely wrong. Now what happens is the President submits his proposal and it gets worked over by both Houses as does normal legislation and then if enacted sent to President for signature.

[Hugh]

It is pure fantasy if you think about it in context. If President Obama attempted anything resembling fast track authority the Democrat Party would be the first to turn on him, he would be goring too many sacred cows. Second, since he appears to lining his cabinet with Democrat Party cronies, its a non starter.

[Tom Barnett]

My my. Paul Light is one smart, credentialed, experienced guy to be engaging in "pure fantasy." And he always thinks in context, in my opinion.

Then again, I suppose Obama could have gone for Republican cronies after his big win. That would been a "starter" for a Dem-controlled House and Senate.

Next time, Hugh, try some analysis instead of emotion.

[Louis Heberlein]

But we should involve Congress in areas of its expertise, like wind and natural gas power.

[Seth]

Representative Frank Wolf (R-VA) and Rep Jim Cooper (D-TN) have a plan called the SAFE Commission. It’s aimed at reforming government and is designed similarly to the BRAC Commission. The bottom line- “The SAFE Commission Act of 2007, H.R. 3654, would require Congress to vote up-or-down on a plan to overhaul spending and revenue, as drafted by a 16-member, bipartisan commission made up of members and outside appointees of the legislative and executive branches.”

Here is some information from Heritage about the commission and the need for the reform- http://www.heritage.org/research/budget/tst062508b.cfm

This is Rep Cooper's website with information about the proposal http://www.cooper.house.gov/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=141

[prescottrjp]

An equally critical, but terribly overdue, reform will have to come inside Congress - committee jurisdiction is completely dysfunctional. Inhibits oversight and exacerbates inefficiency.

PS: Light's book "A Government Ill Executed" is a worthwhile read

[zenpundit]

I'm not sure that legislative vetoes and fast-track authority are inextricably linked in a way that runs afoul of the separation of powers doctrine.

SCOTUS recognizes that each House of Congress controls their own rules. If something is desirable to subject to an up-down vote - why not just do it in the rules for debating that particular bill instead of as part of a law providing a wide authority?

I tend to agree that the House Democrats are no more likely to agree to this as a general rule than they are likely to give the President a line-item veto