Congress’s 4,155-Page Omnibus Bill Is a Symbol of American Decadence
A few Republican senators made a shuffle before a crowd of reporters, ready to spew fiery polemics about the year-end Omnibus bill. The bill, which was eight-ream in absurdity, sat on a cart wheeled before the five-senator assembly.
“DANGER: $1.7 trillion of hazardous debt” read one of the mock-hazard signs decking the cart. Kentucky Senator Rand Paul declared this bill an “abomination,” while Utah Senator Mike Lee skewered the unseemly pressures to freeze it into law by proclaiming the process “legislative barbarism.”
[embedded content]Every year it happens with textbook repetition: Washington politicians procrastinate in releasing a colossal expense prospectus for the following year which unfailingly runs thousands of pages, requests billions of dollars, and is granted mere hours of scrutiny before being thrust to a congressional vote. This is a partisan-intimidating and shrewd slandering process. Democratic politicians offer peoplesy pleas to help struggling Americans. That is, of course, what the bill is expected to accomplish. Most Republicans cave to its smothering inevitability; a minority bitterly protest.
The omnibus bill earns its name from its practice of absorbing a collection of smaller bills into one vote. You might be tempted to call this government efficiency, but think again. In reality, it’s the gateway of legislative sloppiness and profligacy. And you might be tempted to believe Washington’s Christmas tradition is paternal benevolence for the common man but this too is a smokescreen. They would not bankrupt the country if our political leaders actually looked after our future as responsible stewards. They would not allow dozens of silly congressional pet initiatives to be incorporated into our legislative initiatives. They wouldn’t make a mockery out of the political process by requiring that bills be approved after a few hours of review. They would not spend money in a sexy way We did not have. They would not knowingly funnel funds to any country bureaucratic who is hungry. They wouldn’t insult American taxpayers by degrading our currency, inflating our debt and covering it all with a veneer of Progress and charity. This indictment, however grim and apocalyptic it may seem, is still the bitter truth.
Desensitization
As Americans, we have become numb to the money-gobbling maneuvers of the bureaucratic machine. We hardly flinch at billion-dollar price tags, not because we do not cognitively register such a number as large but because we feel detached from its significance. We do not feel connected to its consequences. We don’t even feel particularly sure about what the spending figures should be, so bewildered by the dizzying complexity of contemporary American politics are we. We put our fingers to the glass and watch but we cannot seem to stretch our fingers out and really touch the harrowing reality of a $1.7 trillion bill or a $31 trillion in national debt. These numbers are not enough to shake our consciences. Why?
These are some possible reasons.
- Fiscal conservatism is not something that anyone talks about anymore. Republicans love to rhapsodize about this fixture of their intellectual tradition but few are those who actually extend this principle from token rhetoric to the necessary scolding and refashioning efforts of current regimes. No matter whether they claim democratic or republican status, administrations do a sordid job of expenditure restraint. This equivalence between the parties is sobering indeed, indicating that the majority of republicans do not know how to defend small-government and balanced budgets with any authentic confidence. You might hear it. “fiscal conservatism” sprinkled throughout the campaign trail for its old-fashioned appeal and knack for attracting votes, but it is no longer practiced by those in Washington. Longtime champion of fiscal restraint Sen. Rand Paul has made entreaties for years that are drowned out by the opportunism and apathy swarming the Capitol.
- No one knows why fiscal conservatism is important. It is regrettable that the morality of government money was lost. It is not afraid to temper its quantity or maintain its quality because of an ethical agreement with the people. Money is no longer subject to any scruples. The modern conscience conceives of it as a hollow instrument; a neutral tool to get from A to B. But what is real money? What is the source of money’s value? What are its wonderful qualities and what can make it dangerous? These questions are often overlooked by most people.
- Nobody quite feels the consequences of reckless spending yet: Because we raise debt ceilings with impunity and have thrown that old burden of balancing budgets out the window, we stay disconnected from the ramifications of fiscal hedonism. It is hard enough for politicians to make difficult choices that affect life beyond their term limits, because where’s the motivation in that? And so, money becomes this distant, untouchable relic that no one wants to poke at.
We have lost an emotional response to government spending, i.e. It is no longer possible to discern when government spending crosses the threshold of moral questionability. We also have lost our intellectual understanding of it. An understanding of why excess cannot continue in perpetuity. All this contributes to a massive desensitization, which leaves us dangerously acclimated in an environment that pretends that money is a game and not the beating heart of civilization.
Here are some of the ways in which this unlucky acclimatization has occurred:
- The return on investment is not always the same as what was spent. In government, addition is the path of least resistance. Subtraction has poor incentives, can be politically painful, and sounds mean and parsimonious to us Americans who see government as our rightful pursestrings and sympathetic caretaker.
- Added bureaucracy is rarely reviewed or pruned: More money inevitably feeds more bureaucratic cubicles. Bureaucracy is a curious animal: one that has a considerable appetite for more money and workers and administrative projects, but one that also has a deadening effect and leaves decay in its wake. In this way, bureaucracy has always bizarrely appeared to me as a life/death personification. If one thing is for sure, it will seek to justify its existence and once breathed form by taxpayer dollars, will lunge for more funds to legitimize its continuance.
- Law becomes more complex and disorienting: As sentences rain from keyboards and paper churns from the printer and more thousand-page legal monstrosities are produced, we end up building on a (new-ish) toxic American tradition of unintelligible, byzantine law. The less lucid and graspable the law is to the public, the less accountable government becomes—and the more fuzzy the political vision of the masses grows. Do we really know which laws were included in the year-end Omnibus Bill? More worryingly still, do our politicians even know? Is this state of affairs normal? This would be considered a natural process. I would warn against this particular temptation: the temptation to believe that increasing complexity is a sign of sophisticated progress, of governmental fine-tuning. It isn’t. It gets entangled with its ferocious demands and chokes under its stifling demands. And it throws a veneer of precision and compassion (owing to its seeming charity) over it all. As a general rule of thumb, when edicts becomes more profuse and complex and fail to remain concise and coherent to the public, they are unequivocally not serving the masses. They are likely serving the elites.
Post-Empire Flavor
What does one see when they gaze upon a 4,155-page bill? A symbol of American decadence. A pile of legal jargon so exhaustive its efforts look undeniably frantic. This is what inspires blind mania. What are we doing and why? Are there any? principle Behind governmental motion Is there any semblance of thought or prudence? Or is the impetus merely zombie-like bureaucratic appetite? No matter how comprehensive and caring we would like our present government to appear, the rot cannot be fully concealed. A eight-ream bill does not signify legislative nobility. It is an insult for the common man. It makes for a ridiculous picture of thoughtless excess. It is just Looks stupid at first glance. This intuitive, gut-level reaction is important. It’s the embarrassing truth of our attempts at managerial sophistry laid bare. It’s worth mentioning that empire decline is marked by an apathetic watering-down of principle, by money deterioration, and by administrative overextension. Check out, Please check, Please check.
It is important to consider the size of your business
The larger government grows, the more money it absorbs; sure. However, it also becomes less functional. It ossifies, and its vibrant principles start to decay under the dead weight.
Once a certain threshold in size is reached (and who’s to say exactly where that is) organization lapses into oppression. Vibrancy lapses into atrophy. Decent functionality is lost to chaos. What is the lesson?
Overreach can lead to a life of misery. Congress’ proud 4,155-page creation is a post-empire emblem if there ever was one. Do not be fooled by the legislation’s size: it represents a floundering American system, not a vibrant one.
" Conservative News Daily does not always share or support the views and opinions expressed here; they are just those of the writer."
