I just finished reading Brian Sullivan’s Reform battles rollback as Romney pledges to repeal Obama's financial regulations regarding the differences between Romney and Obama on the financial services regulations known as Dodd-Frank and Sarbanes-Oxley. Sullivan’s piece is mostly what you would expect from a mainstream media outlet.
It’s a topical check list of “On the one hand Romney wants, on the other hand Obama says…” that is just a series of campaign infomercials disguised as balanced analysis.
(Please see my personal plea at the end of this article for USA Cares this Memorial Day- and please... give generously)
And it illustrates what’s really wrong with the battle over policy issues today, especially in Washington.
Because what’s more important than the “he said, she said” narrative that tries to balance campaign talking points, is the question: Does legislation that comes out of Congress work as it was supposed to work? It seems to be a question singularly lacking when proposing legislation in Washington, D.C.
That’s because unfortunately, the answer to the question is often- maybe even usually- “no.” And the bigger the piece of legislation, the more divorced it becomes from delivering results.
Obamacare won’t lower costs; No Child Left Behind won’t makes schools better; Cap and Trade won’t give you “the moment when the rise of the oceans began to slow and our planet began to heal;” and Dodd-Frank hasn’t made our financial system any sounder than it was before.
In fact, Dodd-Frank has actually made the process worse, like the other examples I cited above.
That’s because guys like Barney Frank and Chris Dodd are more interested in wielding a lead pipe when it comes to legislation than they are in actually solving problems. The lead pipe is very useful when it comes to raising money.
Solving problems? Nobody in D.C. pays for that.