MENU

Reason.com

Free Minds & Free Markets

Mitch McConnell Says Caring About Legislative Process is For Losers. He’s Wrong.

Rushing a bill to a vote makes for messy legislation that comes apart over time.

Tom Williams/CQ Roll Call/NewscomTom Williams/CQ Roll Call/NewscomEarly in the morning on Saturday, after Senate Republicans passed major tax legislation on a party-line vote, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell took a question about the speed with which the bill had been passed.

The final text of the bill, which ran nearly 500 pages, had been released just a few hours before the vote, and included pages that were crammed with handwritten notes at the margins, and portions of legislative text crossed out in pen. Last-minute deals were struck with several GOP senators throughout the day, and those changes as well as others had been hastily added into the bill.

What did McConnell think of some of the process concerns that Democrats had raised in objection to the bill? McConnell's response was to dismiss the worriers as losers: "You complain about process when you're losing."

What McConnell was saying, essentially, was that process doesn't matter. It's a common idea in Washington, especially amongst those who hold power. It's also wrong.

In a narrow sense, McConnell's declaration is demonstrably true. Democrats griped about the messy process on the GOP tax bill as they were heading towards a loss. Similarly, under President Obama, Republicans complained bitterly about the process that Democrats used to pass the health care bill. On the night of a crucial vote for that bill, John Boehner delivered a fiery rant about the murky process by which the bill was drafted and passed: "Look at how this bill was written. Can you say it was done openly? With transparency and accountability? Without backroom deals struck behind closed doors hidden from the people? Hell no you can't!"

The Obamacare debate was an example of McConnell's principle at work: Republicans complained about process, and they lost.

At the same time, Democrats have spent the last seven and a half years fighting to uphold Obamacare in part because of the legislative process that was used to pass it: House Democrats had to accept a flawed Senate bill that was originally expected to be heavily revised before becoming law. But that text ended up having numerous errors, glitches, and unintended effects that have helped make implementation difficult and have contributed to the instability of the law.

The conventional political wisdom, meanwhile, is that voters don't care about process. Procedural issues are too arcane for most to follow, and largely irrelevant. What voters care about are policy results. To some extent, that's as it should be: Most voters don't need to keep up with the intricacies of the Byrd rule or the minutia of legislative markups and committee votes.

But elected officials in Congress aren't most voters. And it is their responsibility to ensure that the processes by which they craft and pass laws meet certain standards. Doing so protects the public from poorly written legislation, and, at least in theory, it protects the integrity of the legislative process.

Following the passage of Obamacare in 2010, that is what Republicans said they would do after winning back majority control of the House. Republicans called for a 72-hour rule that would make bills available to read for three days before a vote.

That was in the House, not the Senate, but the underlying idea Republicans were pushing was that majority parties should not rush hastily crafted legislation to a vote before giving both the public and elected officials time to read the final text, to examine it for unintended errors as well as unforeseen consequences. That is not what happened in the Senate last weekend.

Instead, Senate Republicans rushed a vote on a bill that even they had not read in full. And it is clear that, independent of the merits of the overall policy scheme, the actual legislation is a mess. "The more you read, the more you go, 'Holy crap, what's this?'" Greg Jenner, who served in the Treasury Department under President George W. Bush told Politico. "We will be dealing with unintended consequences for months to come because the bill is moving too fast."

In the same article, another tax expert warns that a provision meant to stop tax avoidance related to business losses would, in its current form, probably just end up creating a disincentive for individuals to start companies. On Twitter, NYU public policy professor Lily Batchelder noted ethat a provision dealing with the corporate alternative minimum tax appears to be written in a way that would tax corporations far more than estimates suggested.

Tax policy is complex, and writing legislation designed to rework the intricate and often confusingly messy structure of the tax code as it already exists is a challenge under the best circumstances. Understanding the full effects of even seemingly straightforward tax policy changes takes time, because of the variety of financial arrangements that are involved, and because of the multiple ways that tax provisions are linked. By rushing the bill to a late-night vote, Republicans effectively ensured that the legislative text would be riddled with errors, ambiguity, internal contradictions, and unintended consequences.

Republicans still have an opportunity to fix the most glaring and obvious glitches during the process of merging the House and Senate bills. But even that effort looks as if it may be put on an accelerated timeline as well. The risk of introducing new errors, or not finding glitches that already exist, remains heightened.

A slower and more deliberative process might have carried with it more short-term political risks for Republicans, since it would have provided more time for opponents to criticize the bill. But it likely would have avoided some of the most obvious flaws and missteps with the current legislation, and might have helped the bill more stable and successful in the long run. And that is why it's not just losers who should care about process: Better process makes for better laws—and can help political winners secure even bigger victories.

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • Diane Reynolds (Paul.)||

    "You complain about process when you're losing."

    He's correct. Why do you think libertarians can't stand the process?

  • Diane Reynolds (Paul.)||

    Legalese it man!

  • Hugh Akston||

    I assume that's a beagle bred with a pekingese?

  • Citizen X - #6||

    While a lab watches.

  • Ron||

    I will say this, based on what I've seen sometimes you have to stop the process or the legislative body will just continue to ratify, modify for eternity and get nothing done. sometimes you have to say stop here and clean up later. that said there is also no real reason to rush anything.

  • Agammamon||

    If you can't make it 'clean' before a vote - and you can't afford to take the time to let everyone voting read the damn thing to start with - then you're trying to pull some shady shit. No exceptions.

    There is, literally, nothing the modern day legislature could possibly vote on that can't wait an arbitrary amount of more time in order to get it cleaned up properly.

    This bill is an example of that. Obamacare was an example of that. The AUMF is an example of that. All that stuff would have benefited us all greatly if it was still in the pipeline to be voted on.

  • Citizen X - #6||

    Something something laws and sausages.

  • Citizen X - #6||

    If Bismarck knew Crusty, the quote would be about laws and Crusty.

  • Mithrandir||

    Well they had to pass something, anything. I have a feeling the Republicans are going to get killed in the midterms due to their inability to pass much significant legislation.

    Then again, the Dems aren't really looking that strong either.

  • MarkLastname||

    We can take consolation in the fact that one of them is going to lose.

  • Mitsima||

    I believe what he was trying to say was, "We have to pass the bill to see what's in it."

  • Sevo is my bitch||

    No, he is precisely correct.

    What he is showing is a small preview of what Drumpf will show over the next 6-8 months.

    Adhering to norms only favors those who are willing to break them. Your opponents say "thank you" when you stick to them, nobly, and they do not

  • Stormy Dragon||

    The GOP is all aboard on the Road to Serfdom apparently.

  • Stormy Dragon||

    Apparently the Senate's tax bill actually raises corporate taxes due to a goof in one of those last minute scrawled in the margin edits:

    Senate Republicans made a last-minute change to their tax bill that could cause significant problems for companies

    Originally, the Senate bill proposed to repeal the corporate AMT, but Senate Republicans added it back in at the last minute to generate revenue for other priorities. The Wall Street Journal's Richard Rubin, who first noticed the change, noted that by keeping the corporate AMT, the bill would undermine key credits that help drive innovation.

    The AMT is designed to prevent businesses from taking so many credits and deductions that they pay no tax. So a business computes what they owe under the normal system and under the AMT. Then, they pay the higher amount.

    The corporate AMT was rarely used in previous years because it was set at 20%, well under the 35% corporate rate. But, with the corporate rate dropping to 20% under the bill, companies would be forced into using it. A company paying under the AMT is not allowed to take the research and development credit.
  • Diane Reynolds (Paul.)||

    So are we back on board or still agin it?

  • Stormy Dragon||

    I'm still against it, but now I'm also amused.

  • MarkLastname||

    If you oppose lowering corporate taxes, why oppose it now then?

  • Robert Arvanitis||

    "Deliberation carries risks for Republicans..."
    Umm, no. Delay carries risks for America.
    Any hesitation at this moment gives Democrats more opportunities to pursue their dirigiste agenda.
    We're hacking at at monster and imperfect beats more cancerous growth

  • mpercy||

    Don't we expect that many of these issues would get addressed in the committee meetings to reconcile the House and Senate versions?

  • mjs_28s||

    Sign....so both parties are Nancy Pelosi.

    "we have to pass the bill so we can see what is in the bill."

  • Tony||

    No, Republicans are far worse and hypocrites on top of it. But that's been true for everything for a long time.

  • Tony||

    Except the ACA actually did have transparency and a year-long process. Plenty of time to read all the words even if there were a lot of them. False equivalence gives slimy Republican message people tiny little boners.

  • MarkLastname||

    I see your apoplexy hasn't let up.

  • Bra Ket||

  • NotAnotherSkippy||

    Summarize the informational content of a Suderman piece? I agree.

  • AngelaM||

    It would appear that the blowback from this victory could cost several Republicans in Cal. and NY their seats.

  • Azathoth!!||

    Except that the provisions of this bill have been the subject of countless articles, media blitzes and leftist polemics for months now..

    The final version--the one with last minute compromises written in as the process was nearing the final vote is the actual standard. It's how bills REALLY look.

    It's what the ACA looked like when Dems passed it in the middle of the night--only the notes truly WERE from one side.

    And it's STILL not really 'done'.

    Now the two bills will be reconciled (for 'reconciled' read 'read and finalized') before being sent to the president.

    The only 'final' thing about this bill is that it means that yes, Trump will be signing a tax reform bill.

  • Joanne Marinelli||

    Concern over procedural issues seems to contravene libertarian concerns with both the expanse and dependence on federal power, and, by implication, Reason's editors pick and choose which statutory processes they ballyhoo? It isn't that I don't comprehend libertarians live in the real world, but Suderman seems merely to be picking an argument with a GOP which can neither digest Trump nor govern towards effective, compassionate, reduction. And that is any political periodical.

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online