RALEIGH – Harry Truman won his improbable 1948 re-election victory over Tom Dewey by running against a “do-nothing Congress.” Today, some pundits believe that John McCain ought to target the ineffectual Democratic Congress as part of an effort to rebrand his party and upend Barack Obama.
But in North Carolina, here’s hoping that we’ll have a do-nothing – or, at least, a do-little – General Assembly in 2008. There are both institutional and circumstantial arguments.
In even-number years, the state legislature meets for its “short session.” In odd-numbered years, lawmakers come to Raleigh in late January and leave sometime in the summer. The following year, they arrive in May. That second session was designed primarily so that the legislature could adjust the two-year state budget to account for changes in revenue collections and service needs. For most of its history, North Carolina did fine without annual legislative sessions. Some states still do without them, including Texas, Nevada, and Oregon. In other states, such as Virginia, Georgia, and Indiana, the short session is fixed by law to last just a few weeks.
North Carolina lawmakers like to think they are full to the brim with lots of good ideas that no one ever thought of, ideas that ought to be implemented as soon as possible. In reality, very few of the bills they file become law – and even fewer deserve to become law. The quality of legislation is often at war with the quantity of legislation. The use of state coercion necessarily creates unintended consequences. Lawmakers should reserve enough time for debate so that these consequences will not also be unanticipated. And because most bills reduce the freedom of North Carolinians, either by taking away their earnings or restricting their choices, it would be in the public interest to limit opportunities for such mischief-making.
A more-compelling reason for prudential inaction during the 2008 legislative session is that Gov. Mike Easley and several other key state officials are about to leave office after lengthy tenures. I certainly agree that there are major policy issues deserving of legislative action, such as mental health reform and the state’s traffic-congestion woes, but it makes sense to allow the next governor to help shape those policy responses, given that he or she will be tasked with the job of carrying them out.
In my view, it would be best if the NC Senate quickly submitted its own 2008-09 budget plan and started negotiations with the House over a compromise. The goal should be to adjourn the session shortly after the start of the fiscal year on July 1. Let lawmakers go home and campaign for re-election. Let competitive races for governor, lieutenant governor, state treasurer, and other offices give North Carolina voters the opportunity to grapple with the big issues facing the state and offer guidance to policymakers about costs, benefits, and tradeoffs.
In the long run, I continue to believe that North Carolina should reform the legislative process to set firm limits on the length of sessions – including a brief stay in Raleigh, six weeks tops, during even-numbered years – as well as limits on the amount of bills that can be filed, the amount of terms lawmakers can serve in either chamber, and the amount of regulation state agencies can impose without specific legislative approval.
Our state isn’t suffering from too little government action. Its economic health and the liberty of its citizens are hampered by too much government action of the wrong sort. We need less legislation and more cogitation.
Hood is president of the John Locke Foundation.