Publius Speaks

Publius Speaks
Become A Follower

Friday, October 25, 2013

Bombing Obamacare Again

“Obamacare Website Failure Threatens Health Coverage for Millions of Americans” --

Not bad for a headline if your intention is to scare the “bejeezus” out of a large number of people.  This, and other headlines and articles about the “failure” of the website are everywhere you look, with a false implication that “millions” of people are going to lose their healthcare coverage because of it.  Nothing could be further from the truth.  Of course, Congress has gotten into the act, for here is another incident for the House Republicans to manufacture and seize upon as a “failure” or “scandal".”  So let’s see now, what are the failures exactly?

  • Creating personal accounts is difficult
  • Actually signing up online for a plan is virtually impossible
  • The codes are too complicated and way too long
  • The cross-overs between systems created by separate vendors is not going well
  • Too much money has been spent on the contracts
  • The administration made the decision beforehand to make people go through a verification process first and then choose a plan after they have been declared eligible; some sites do it the other way round: shop first, then apply
  • Secretary of HHS, Kathleen Sebelius, deserves to be fired

Don’t you love it?  None of these so-called failures has anything to do with the efficacy of healthcare reform contained in the Affordable Care Act!  Apparently, some of these critics have never been on a new website that has been constructed to handle huge numbers of visitors, and yet has miscalculated.  I remember when genealogists were greatly anticipating the opening of a new site for Ellis Island that would contain many ship’s lists of immigrants to this country in the 19th and 20th centuries.  Everyone tried to get on the site when it opened and it crashed almost immediately!  This same scenario has happened so many times, that it is not unusual at all in the cyber world.

Criticisms about decisions made by the Obama administration are not unusual;  glitches are not unusual; delays are not unusual; the complaints are not unusual.  So first of all, let’s hope that the critics, including Congress, get to the bottom of this mess by ignoring the usual and concentrating on the real problem: the private contracts and the contractors responsible for building this site.  Secondarily, the decisions and parameters given the contractors by representatives of the administration should be examined.  So far, it doesn’t look like the former will happen, if yesterday (the 24th) is any example.  Giving soft-ball questions to the contractors; passing-the-buck to the government by both questioners and contractors; nailing the Obama administration and the ACA for a big failure are all we saw -- that’s what Congress is doing.

I want to be perfectly clear about what I am saying here.  I am saying that much of the problem lies with one of the favorite mantras of the Republican party:  “privatizing government operations.”  I am willing to bet that had the Obama administration brought together the best and the brightest IT minds within government agencies, and the best and brightest from their own 2012 campaign, to build this site that it would have gone much more smoothly and turned out to be more effective.  One reason:  the government IT folks would have had some “skin-in-the-game” -- they would have wanted it to succeed beyond expectations.  Second, they would have already had some idea of the parameters that were needed, having worked on government systems before.  Third, they would have been able to translate the jargon spoken by government  bureaucrats that sometimes leaves outsiders from the private sector in a fog.

On what basis do I make these observational claims?  I personally took part in helping to build a system from scratch utilizing just such government employed IT’s.  I was the project director for a state-run Program that needed an automated system that could prepare payrolls and also track a myriad of individualized services of stipended mentors.  It was my job to work with the IT’s to help them understand our goals for the system, the outcomes we wanted, and the user friendliness that needed to be built in to the system.  My job was also to gather from my Program’s office staff and field staff their recommendations and hopes for outcomes, so that I could feed that into the process.  The IT staff and I, along with my staff at times, worked well together.  We mostly understood each other; we made accommodations where needed to the exigencies of a governmental system that we all worked within and knew well.  Testing the system at certain intervals was crucial to its success.  Roll-out was fairly smooth, but some glitches did need fixing before it was finally implemented.  Even after initial implementation, there were glitches and inadequacies that needed to be re-coded or adjusted in some way.  That is the nature of the “beast.”

I am saying that I think that having a number of outside private contractors work on this crucial government website may have been the biggest mistake of all.  Privatization either by devolvement or by contract is not always the best way to go!  However, let’s face it, choosing the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) to oversee this website’s construction and affiliated services, was probably not the best idea either. 

According to several sources, the CMS did not have the expertise necessary to manage the blending of all the different software and systems necessary to build this site.  According to the NY Times, problems that have arisen in the last few weeks are “not uncommon when software from several companies is combined into a large, complex system.”

So, if Congress wants to look at something in this particular case, let them look at the private contractors and the contractual components and behaviors.  So far, the hearings being held have not delved deeply into their shortcomings, allowing them to place blame on government failures to provide enough testing time or enough oversight and managerial coordination.  However, Luke Russert of MSNBC on Thursday, the 24th, hit the nail on the head when he said that the main focal point of any hearing should be the questioning of how contracts are distributed and the performance of the contractors.  Here‘s something of a guide for doing so, from my own experience:

1)    What was the preliminary process by which this private contract was initiated?

  • How were applicants notified
  • Was there an RFP process
  • Who oversaw the process
  • On what bases were applications (RFP’s) judged; were there standards for pre-qualification promulgated by the government
  • How were finalists vetted - e.g. was past work explored; past clients interviewed or contacted
  • What determined the final selection

2)    What was the process by which the final decision was made to award the contract?

  • How many sessions or interviews were held with the contractor applicants before the contract was signed
  • What was discussed at these sessions
  • What goals were laid out for this project and for the contractor
  • What were the outcomes or expectations laid out for the contractor
  • Was there a full Plan or preliminary Plan discussed
  • If preliminary, when was the final Plan expected
  • Were past projects discussed with questions or glitches explored
  • What were the deciding factors in the choice of the contractor

3)   Once the contract was awarded, what steps were followed?

  • Which government personnel were assigned to work with the vendor in the construction of the project;
  • who was assigned to monitor all aspects of the private contractor’s performance under the contract terms
  • Who was assigned overall responsibility for the Project
  • Was there a Tic-Toc (schedule of benchmarks or achievements) put in place
  • What was the final Plan that was locked into place; was it included in the contract
  • Were monthly progress reports required from the contractor
  • What sort of testing procedures and schedule for them would be implemented
  • Were there any penalties placed in the contract if the vendor missed or delayed deadlines or benchmarks; what liability for failure could be incurred
  • Was termination of contract included without penalty to contracting government agency
  • Was a plan of evaluation at certain increments placed in the Plan
  • Who was responsible for evaluation
  • Who were the responsible parties involved in each aspect of the Plan
  • Were there any contingency plans placed in the contract in case of failures
  • Who were the responsible parties assigned to these plans

The aspects of process are not something about which people get excited, but without some major attention to them, there is cause for alarm.  The process by which contracts are let by our federal government and other government offices is something that cannot be ignored if we are to solve the failures caused by inadequate contracts and by unregulated and unguided contractors.

So, what about that $93.7 million contract with CGI for the website?  And please, don’t forget those other vendors like Quality Software Services, Inc. (QSSI)-- a unit of the UnitedHealth Group, by the way -- responsible for the “data hub” that funnels information collected by federal agencies to and from the state health care exchanges ($55 million).  Or, how about Oracle, sub-contracted by QSSI to build the key “identity management system”, or maybe Teal Media, responsible for visual design, who created the “Look and Feel” of  the various windows, especially the “card motif.”  All told, the GAO reported in March 2013 that between fiscal year 2010 and March 2013, the total doled out on about a dozen contracts has been $394 million!  CGI itself has about tripled their original contract costs to $294 million! Could any of these vendors have had an ulterior motive for sabotaging their part of this project?  We can’t be sure.... 

But, with all contracts from government, the crucial question must be: what are we getting for the taxpayers’ money?  Another critic, Luke Chung, who heads a small software and site-building firm in Virginia, appeared on the Chris Jansing show on MSNBC Thursday to criticize the contractors for botching a relatively simple procedure of getting information and then having users fill out an application.  He was a bit brutal in his assessment of the final product. 

It appears what we have gotten is a system with certain inadequacies that does not begin to meet the demand of consumers for information and application.  Now the administration appears to be scrambling to bring in the best and the brightest to fix the problems.  One would think that’s what should have been done in the first place.  And that’s another reason why process is so important:  to try and avoid the type of situation we now find ourselves in.  Attention to a careful process at the beginning of contract-letting is superior to trying to fix problems after they arise!  For, as one technology and consumer expert has said: “With software, adding people at the end of a project to fix things that are broken or unfinished can actually do more harm than good.”   It may actually slow a project down even more.

I’d sure like to see those contracts -- wouldn’t you?  Sorry, we can’t get them unless we file an FOIA, and that sometimes takes up a lot of time, and garners poor results.  But here’s what the Washington Examiner had to say on the subject on October 13th:

“Federal officials considered only one firm to design the Obamacare health insurance exchange website that has performed abysmally since its Oct. 1 debut.

Rather than open the contracting process to a competitive public solicitation with multiple bidders, officials in the Department of Health and Human Services' Centers for Medicare and Medicaid accepted a sole bidder, CGI Federal, the U.S. subsidiary of a Canadian company with an uneven record of IT pricing and contract performance.

CMS officials are tight-lipped about why CGI was chosen or how it happened. They also refuse to say if other firms competed with CGI, or if there was ever a public solicitation for building, the backbone of Obamacare’s problem-plagued web portal.

Instead, it appears they used what amounts to a federal procurement system loophole to award the work to the Canadian firm.

CGI was one of 16 companies that had been qualified by HHS during President George W. Bush's second term (emphasis added) to deliver, without public competition, a variety of hardware, software and communication products and services.  In awarding the contract, CMS relied on a little-known federal contracting system called ID/IQ, which is government jargon for ‘Indefinite Delivery and Indefinite Quantity.’

CGI was a much smaller vendor when it was approved by HHS in 2007. With the approval, CGI became eligible for multiple awards without public notice and in circumvention of the normal competitive bidding procurement process.

The multiple awards were in the form of ‘task orders’ for projects of widely varying size. Over the life of the CGI contract — which expires in 2017 — the IT firm can receive awards worth anywhere from the ‘$1,000 to $4 billion,‘ according to a contracting document provided by CGI to the Washington Examiner.

This is apparently the route chosen by CMS officials in awarding the Obamacare website design contract to CGI. 

Between 2009 and 2013, CMS officials awarded 185 separate task orders to CGI totaling $678 million for work of all kinds, according to, a federal spending database. The Obamacare website design contract was for $93 million.”

Funny - no, more like ‘tragic’ - that the Obama administration seems to be carrying through on what the George W. Bush administration started which is an all-too-familiar and unfortunate pattern.  So, the first major failure is very simple: this should not have been a no-bid contract by any stretch of the imagination.  There was too much at stake.  

Let’s see what else we can find about these contracts.  The Washington Examiner points us in a second direction.

“CGI in Canada also suffered embarrassment in 2011 when it failed to deliver on time for Ontario province's flagship project of a new online medical registry for diabetes patients and treatment providers.  Ontario government officials cancelled the $46.2 million contract after 14 months of delay in September 2012. Ontario officials currently refuse to pay any fees to CGI for the failed IT project.”

Not only do we find a no-bid contract for a project of massive importance, but now we also find that this particular lead company failed to deliver on a similar product in Canada.  Since the contract with our CMS was signed in October of 2011, and the Canadian failure to meet deadlines began around July of 2011, this should have immediately raised a red flag for the U.S. government that something was amiss with this contractor.  An immediate investigation should have been launched as to their competency and their ability to fulfill the CMS contract. 

What else can we find out about this contract and this contractor (or others involved)?

According to the Sunlight Foundation’s website, there were an estimated “dozen or more” companies tasked with actually building the main site.  But Sunlight reviewed contract award information from two websites that follow government contracts -- and -- and found that 47 entities won contracts from HHS and Treasury to “manage support or service the implementation of the Affordable Care Act.”  Some top on-going government contractors show up in the list: Northrop Grumman, Deloitte LLP, SAIC, Inc., General Dynamics, and Booz Allen Hamilton, as well as Rand Corporation and MITRE Corporation.  All but one of the 47 contractors for the  ACA healthcare-related matters had worked for government prior to the passage of the ACA, according to Sunlight (for all 47 contractors and their contract amounts, see

But here’s the really important thought to consider:  some 17 of the ACA private contractors “reported spending more than $128 million on lobbying in 2011 and 2012, while 29 had employees or political action committees or both that contributed $32 million to federal candidates and parties in the same period.”  Is this how business gets done in Washington?  You bet it is!

I can agree that, for some supply items that government needs quickly, it is probably best to have contractors available on a no-bid basis.  Otherwise, and particularly in the cases where the project to be done is as large and varied and complicated as the ACA website, if it has been decided that government cannot handle the project, it is far better to go to open bid so that a “scratch-my-back, I’ll-scratch-yours” perception is avoided.  The Obama administration has failed here to support open bidding, open government, innovation and transparency.  There is no excuse for that, except that every administration does it! 

But, that does not mean that the Republican House of Representatives can be excused for their part in accosting and distorting the ACA for their own purposes.  They now want the resignation or firing of HHS Secretary, Kathleen Sebelius, as the best outcome for this software problem.  Such nonsense.  Her firing would not accomplish a thing, which is, apparently, what Republicans in Congress seek, above all else!

More to the point is for Congress to look again at the waste and abuse involved in out-sourcing and contracting government services and programs to private contractors.

In 2010, Sen. Bernie Sanders of Vermont inserted into the defense bill for that year a provision calling for an analysis of DOD private contracts, as well as ways for the DOD to punish violating contractors who had been disbarred or suspended for misusing taxpayer funds.  Sanders, at the time, pointed to the importance of reining in contractor abuse by saying that the deficit cannot be reduced without looking at the waste, fraud and abuse in the Pentagon’s budget.  In commenting on the published Defense Department report that he had asked for, Sanders said, “With the country running a $14 trillion national debt, my goal is to provide as much transparency as possible about what is happening with taxpayer money.  The sad truth is that virtually all of the major defense department contractors in this country for years have been engaged in fraudulent behavior, while receiving hundreds of billions of dollars in taxpayer money.”

If Republicans are really after deficit and debt reduction, then they must take seriously the need to look at the contracts let to private contractors for this ACA website and accompanying services and systems.  How could the CGI contract balloon to three times its original size, without someone taking notice and calling that company to account?  If oversight is the business of the legislative body, then it is time to focus efforts on waste, fraud and abuse inherent overall in government contracts, and in this one in particular.

ACA itself is not the problem.  Kathleen Sebelius is not the problem.  Barack Obama is not the problem.  Government IT employees are not the problem.  The 5,000 lines of code are not the real problem (they can be fixed).  The real problem is a Congress that has failed again and again to look seriously at the waste of taxpayer dollars, especially involving large and small private corporations that feed at the public trough without being called to account for their poor performance.  Look at the contracts let by Congress to private companies, look at the contracts for the healthcare website and the ACA implementation, and then look beyond that to other departments of government. The private sector must not be allowed to get away with defrauding the United States Government.  It is part of the job of Congress to see that it doesn’t happen, and to fix it when it does!

Any other approach to the performance of this website and its relationship to the ACA will be nothing but a political side-show, and another waste of taxpayer money by a dysfunctional Congress that seems to be incapable of honing in on real problems!

Sunday, October 20, 2013

What Would YOU Do?

During a grassroots Rally to protest government inaction on the government shut-down, I was asked by a TV reporter: what would you do about this issue if you were in Congress?  I responded that it was a very good question, but one that was difficult to answer.  Perhaps I should have said that it is a question that’s been made difficult to answer because of all the shenanigans surrounding this budget debacle.  In fact, the answer that I would have given if there was time, was far too complicated to approach in a brief interview.  So here is an attempt to redeem myself just a bit.

Let me start with a recent occurrence in the House of Representatives.  Available in the House was a piece of legislation (H.J. Res. 59) already approved by the Senate that supported a Continuing Resolution of the federal budget at current levels for a period of time so that a budget deal could be worked on, and the debt ceiling issue attended to.  After the shut-down had entered its second week, Rep. Chris Van Holland (D-Maryland and ranking member of the House Budget Committee) and others, decided to use Rule XXIII 4 to present the Senate-passed Res. 59 under that rule as a matter of privilege.  But the House Rules Committee had previously voted to change that rule for this one specific bill. They added language dictating that any motion "may be offered only by the majority Leader or his designee." They then obtained enough Republican member votes to put that new rule into effect. 

When Democrat Chris Van Holland tried to present H.J. Res. 59 for a vote. Rep. Jason Chaffetz, a Republican from Utah temporarily occupying the Speaker’s chair, denied his motion, based on the new rule in H Res. 368.  Van Holland was outraged and said aloud, “Democracy has been suspended.”  Congressional historians agreed that it was highly unusual for the House to reserve such power solely for the leadership.
For me this means the first thing to be done would be to limit the rule-making power of both houses, either through legislation or by means of constitutional amendment in order to prevent the shut-down of democratic procedures.  Things have gotten so out-of-hand that I would opt to introduce an amendment that would remove the 60-vote majority that has become necessary to pass major legislation in the Senate (because of the filibuster/cloture rules), and then limit both Houses from making any rule that applies solely to one piece of legislation.

Next, as long as I had started down that road, I would introduce other constitutional amendments.  Most important would be to overturn the Citizens United decision of the SCOTUS by denying corporations the ability to be seen as individuals, and forbidding any contributions by other than individuals.

Then I would introduce amendments (or legislation) to:
-- make public financing the accepted method for all elections with possible exception of allowing restricted individual contributions
-- prevent the states from promulgating legislation that restricts voting and allow for voting in many different ways (early voting; online voting; voting at federal or state offices) throughout the country along with setting a national election “weekend” that would keep polls open for two days
--set strict term limits for both Senate and House members, as well as judges;
--prescribe maximum expenditure limits for all elections
--disallow any 3rd party financing
of a candidate or any advertisements for that candidate; --in that connection, submit legislation that would re-instate the equal free-air time for any candidate who has been demeaned personally or had his record distorted by the opposition; a non-partisan citizen commission would be necessary to decide who deserves such free time
--close the revolving door from office-holder to lobbyist after term is complete
--ban all donations and contributions intended to influence legislation and legislators
--ban earmarks
--place ordinary citizens into advisory roles in every branch of government
--permit only non-partisan commissions to re-draw congressional districts every ten years.

Next, I would have a plan for immediate legislation on major issues.  Since I wouldn’t necessarily have a number of terms during which to formulate and offer legislation, I would see to it that a plan was put into effect almost from the first day.  Here are some items I would want to address right away:

Social Security must not be allowed to be attacked by those who want to privatize or disrupt it, so I would propose legislation:

--that would make privatization illegal. 
--to raise the level of taxed income allowed for purposes of SS; include other than wages in that calculation, i.e. interest income and capital gains 
--that would increase benefits because the age of eligibility for full pension has been raised and is still rising.

In the same way, Medicare must be protected against those who would dismantle it.  I would sponsor or co-sponsor legislation that would:
--raise the amount of taxed income for Medicare purposes; no one should be exempted
-- call for annual evaluation of Medicare contracts; of savings from waste & abuse;  of quality care innovations

Medicaid must also be attended to and protected from those who want to devolve its administration to the states.  I would propose the following:
--prevent devolution from occurring
--restore provisions for long-term care
--propose a citizen advisory committee made up exclusively of Medicaid  recipients with powers of evaluation, audit, and making proposals for changes; but responsible to HHS director.
--generally, in relation to health care, propose a single payer system utilizing the best parts of Medicare and Medicaid with a time certain for its implementation; the system would take into account both the UK and Canadian systems

My next area of concern would be support for those issues that President Obama has recently identified:
    -a workable, fair and just budget
    -comprehensive immigration reform
    -a strong farm bill

The next area for concern would be that of programs aimed at helping those living below the Federal Poverty guidelines.  I would propose:
    -creation of jobs and repair and refurbishing of infrastructure
    -increases in food stamps, WIC, and support for child care & transportation
    -restoration of Head Start funding with increases based on evaluation of measurable program outcomes
    -restoration  and increases in scientific research into the causes of childhood and other illnesses as well as environmental causes for illness
    -gun violence control legislation which would expand background checks, eliminate automatic rifles, restrict ammunition clips to at most 10 rounds
    -legislation to address the flaws in the mental health system of this country, such as the inability to share or address violent tendencies in children and youth across disciplines and authorities
    -education reform, starting with the equalization of resources available to school districts which could be accomplished by ending the use of property taxes to fund schools, and substituting a small national education tax based on total income, not just wages.  Those who pay no income taxes would be required to pay this tax through their local  tax office, except that in-kind contributions to schools,  including community service on behalf of a school, could be used as payment (other reforms have been covered in previous Blogs, including the one for September 1, 2013)

Admittedly, this is not only an ambitious agenda, but one which many would call unrealistic.  It is only unrealistic if one holds to the viewpoint that there is nothing amiss with our representative democracy.  The main work of government right now, in the wake of the budget battles taking place in Washington, is not the winning of elections, but the reform of our dysfunctional governing processes.  We must start on the long-term road to reform and renewal, or we shall surely forfeit what has been the best democratic structure for governing that the world has ever seen.  We must repair that structure beginning right away!

Sounds interesting, but what does that mean?  Well, here are a few thoughts:

--I would start by forming an Advisory Council of local constituents who represented a broad cross-section of ordinary citizens to advise me on all matters of legislation and appropriations;  it would meet on a regular basis
--I would set a schedule of visits to local areas and constituencies of my district on a regular basis, to include people living in poverty, groups of concerned citizens, programs and services operating with federal money, and many other citizen groups or organizations such as Business, Labor and Veterans, in order to understand the frustrations, the accomplishments, the needs, and the desires of a broad spectrum of the people of the district.  These visits would not preclude privately held appointments, but would instead open up access to me  and my access to the people.
--I would try to have a system set-up that would meet constituent needs for assistance, but would not simply involve visits to the Congressional offices, but would occur during, and as a result of, my visits to constituencies as well.  My feeling is that congresspersons need to get closer to the people and not burden the people with always having to seek out the congressman.

--I would institute a practice regarding monetary contributions that would put donors on notice that their money does not equal automatic access.  I would have every large donor (under present circumstances they are necessary) sign a memorandum of understanding that would outline how I would use their contribution, and what they could expect from me for donating.  More precisely, I would outline for them the services that any constituent can expect, and make clear that they would not have any special access to me, or any control over what I do based on their contribution

--I would become a “revealer” and a protestor.  Every procedure or activity that I perceived as anti-constitutional, a distortion of facts, or favoritism for one class over another, or the taking of special privileges based on holding of office, I would challenge or reveal, through the usual media channels and by way of social media as well.  Is this counter-productive, given that others‘ support is needed to pass legislation?  Perhaps.  But how else are the people going to know what is actually going on behind the scenes?  Without truth-tellers, we shall find ourselves being ruled by an elite that cares little for our concerns or our issues, and caters only to a small group of people who are like-minded and basically like them in almost every aspect

--I don’t believe in “compromise” as the quintessential strategy for governing or for writing laws.  Compromise is defined as: “a settlement of differences by mutual concessions; an adjustment of conflicting claims or principles by yielding a part of each; arbitration.”  I’d like to start at a different point, and that is from the perspective of problem-solving, in which compromise may play a part, but so does fact-finding and brain-storming and testing solutions and “consensus”.  The latter implies a more active and positive concept of seeking agreement rather than passively assenting to a watered-down version for all involved.  In some cases, it implies the giving up of some strongly held positions in order to join in supporting the consensus of the group. 

--I would not, under any circumstances, put winning of an election above the importance of principles or of meeting the needs of people.  Being of a certain older age, allows one to not care as much about being elected but to care more deeply about being a public servant in a real and demonstrable way.

--I would make sure that legislation was in place to prevent any exemption of congressional members and staff from provisions of laws passed by the Congress.  What’s good for the goose is good for the gander!

--If I were in Congress, I would operate on a problem-solving model that actually has steps that can be followed to a workable conclusion.  And, I would push hard for training in that technique to be a must for all staff  and members, so that the Congress could get about the business of problem-solving and not just of “posturing” in order to win elections.

So, you ask, what is this but just the same old liberal clap-trap?  Well, the first difference is, I would not implement any legislation until I had looked carefully at the problems that exist out there in the real world and try to put them into words that actually describe a real situation.  In other words, I would not simply legislate based on an ideology or personal agenda.  I would use every resource at my disposal to actually study the problems in these areas of concern and try to define them with some specificity based on facts, figures, interviews, and surveys.  So the first difference is the approach to legislation as a solution to a real and well-defined problem.

The second difference would be the way in which possible solutions to the well-defined problem would be collected.  I would seek the input of colleagues and staffers and educators and researchers.  But I would mostly rely on the thoughts and opinions of those most affected by whatever the problems are.  That’s a major difference.  Instead of proposing legislation that never has input from the people most affected by it, I would invert this and get the most information from those who would be most affected!  I’m tired of the tendency of too many legislators to base their legislation on what special interests or rich people or what constituents say on paltry and insignificant “questionnaires” sent out by congress persons in order actually to raise money and to seek pre-arranged agreement with their views.  These questions, and the resulting answers, do not provide enough real information upon which to base a problem statement or a solution to a truly well-defined problem.

Another difference would be in the testing and evaluation of possible solutions.  What used to happen much more than it does today is that legislators often found ways to test out or pilot certain ideas or solutions before a full-blown solution was legislated.  Not a bad idea.  I would return to that concept and try to test out possible solutions before they became law. 

And finally, I don’t see the making of a law or laws as the end of the process of legislating.  I believe in evaluation based on established criteria and expected outcomes from the proposed solutions.  Once a law goes into effect, the Congress usually steps back and lets the Executive branch take over.  If the law doesn’t do what they intended , then they hold hearings and blame the bureaucracy for messing up.  This is time spent wastefully by the Congress.

Instead, problem-solving legislation should have built into it the criteria for evaluation, with reporting scheduled in certain increments, and the expected outcomes or results of a program or service outlined as a matter of course in all such legislation.  The Executive branch should be responsible for reporting their findings back to the Congress so that Congress can then build a better piece of legislation and thus better programs.  And, it wouldn’t hurt for the legislative and executive branches to work together in this endeavor.  My inclination would be to support legislation that called for ordinary citizens to be involved in the evaluation and adjustment stages so that the result would include the concerns of those affected by the legislation and by its unexpected outcomes.

We certainly have a long way to go to arrive at such a point, but that is why a legislative plan and a problem-solving technique are needed.  One can’t waste time and energy playing political games.  All one’s energy must be devoted to rational and reasonable efforts to define problems, to gathering precise information, to testing and implementing solutions that will then be evaluated according to certain criteria.  Sound like some method to my madness?  Yes, there is, and what’s really appalling, is that such a modus operandi is missing from our dysfunctional Congress wrapped up in crippling fights of ideology and politicking.  We need a more rational approach to one of the most important processes in our representative democracy: that of legislating what is tried and tested and found to be most helpful for the greatest number, or most vulnerable segments, of our citizenry. 

Finally, I would have to say that I would set a term limit for myself.  Two terms would bring me to the age of 80.  That’s long enough.  But it would also lend a freer hand to all that one might try to do.  The plans outlined above would be very difficult for someone who is younger and ambitious and looking to make a career of public service (or of what public service could lead to, perhaps).  I think it is a mistake to think of the holding of congressional or senatorial seats as a career.  That is why we need term limits.  Career politicians are the bane of our existence as a representative democracy, for public service can too easily turn to feeding at the public trough, or making a name for oneself, or becoming so self-important that one starts running for the Presidency on a full-time basis even though the citizenry has not given its approval or its consent. 

It comes down to that old adage that we need citizen politicians not career politicians representing us.  Anything else is inconsistent with the nature of the office, which is to represent a constituency for a time and then to return to take one’s place as an experienced representative who can teach and mentor and advise and enable others to be better citizens and better representatives of the people.  The vision of what a representative ought to be has been eroded by systemic flaws that persist to the ultimate degree in our day.  We must go down a different road. 

Thanks to that reporter’s “difficult” question, I’m trying to think this through, and I hope you will as well.