I agreeto Idea Mandatory Exit Strategy
Voting is Disabled

8 votes

I disagree

Rank2727

Idea#558

This idea is active.
Legal & Policy Challenges »

Mandatory Exit Strategy

Why Is This Idea Important?: It is good business to plan ahead prior to taking action and to analyze each possible scenario before enacting a plan. Every prudent business decision ever made has assessed its assumptions, planned for contingencies, and implemented best practices in accordance with the plan. Failure is immediately addressed and offending items are eradicated according to plan without any further recourse or wasted time. Bills that are past often do not consider the long term repercussions or outline the original life-span or intention and can lead to drastically harmful consequences, leaving legislators little to no choice but to deal with the effects in a very inefficient manner. Consider the implications of this requirement in outlining how Social security would have been paid for in a decreasing population prior to passing, or what would the effective course of action have been in Iraq when WMD's were not found. How would this measure have affected the TARP program when righteous calls to legislators fell on deaf ears? This initiative requires lawmakers as well as laws to be held accountable to their words and actions in a way never before considered in representative government. It also clearly articulates the intentions of legislation in a format that is understandable to the American people. There will no longer be ambiguity in the effect of legislation due to abuse of language or complicated wording. It forces prudent and deliberate action on the behalf of the American people that is in the spirit of our founders.

My idea is to require any major or minor initiative or bill in congress to outline a minimum of two exit strategies. As any bill exits committee and enters open debate, it must articulate how its effects are intended to work and what mitigation strategies will be used to ensure it maintains its rightful purpose. Each bill will delineate a time frame for objective completion and address optimum as well as adverse scenarios. This initiative will also minimize deception and abuse of the system by outlining appropriate steps to take in these cases.

Tags:

Submitted by zauberer44 4 years ago

Vote Activity Show

(latest 20 votes)

Similar Ideas Show

Comments (3)

  1. writer

    As in war, for example.

    4 years ago
    0
    0
  2. zauberer44 Idea Submitter

    Exactly, this or something similar would require politicians to fully consider the ramifications of their actions prior to legislating and remove the ambiguity of intention that currently exists in the American legal system.

    By taking things full-circle, we as constituents would have unprecedented clarity in the intention of legislation; or at the very least be more capable of identifying incendiary interests and abuses.

    Fundamentally, there is no true way to ultimately hold one accountable to circumstances, as they often change; but a stop-gap measure such as this would add another layer of checks and balances to the system and act as a barometer by which to measure effectiveness, honesty, and the integrity of acting parties. Americans would have a clear definition of explained consequences and debate over effectiveness could be productive by framing it in the context of previously decided strategy.

    No more, "he said, she said" or "I didn't know that's what they meant". Just the matter of fact, in writing, and on the books intention of the legislation to frame the relevant discussion and remove personal ambitions and hidden agendas from discussion.

    Every decision government ever makes would be affected by this type of requirement and it is no wonder that this suggestion will come up against heavy opposition. Think about how Congress would have to justify providing subsidies to industry and define the interested parties, methods of measurement, and how the program will come to completion.

    No longer would archaic and irrelevant legislation be allowed to affect others past it's intended purpose. No longer would politicians be allowed to confuse and deceive voters in order to conceal (even honest) personal mistakes, special-interest involvement, or illegal discretionary actions.

    3 years ago
    0
    0
  3. zauberer44 Idea Submitter

    It would also remove a political component to legislating by allowing for opposing agendas to be accounted for.

    While sponsors of a bill would describe their intended purpose, the opposition would have more incentive to pass the legislation if it knew that adverse scenarios were accounted for and adequately addressed in the legislation. Consider the Universal Health care initiative. While all sides say one thing or another, in reality the primary legitimate opposition is that large bureaucratic government will stifle industry and innovation. This type of requirement would force legislators to consider in writing the implications of actions and any stop-gap measures to address those concerns.

    Of course it would add a significant amount of deliberation to the front end, by requiring our representatives to truly think through their decision (which they SHOULD do anyway), but in the long run it would save immeasurable time and resources in retroactively debating where blame is applied and the original intended course of action.

    3 years ago
    0
    0