I think the objection is the timing. If the administration truly cared about such things, they'd do them in non-election years. But they seem to save up these things for election years so people feel listened to.
Even if it's not technically worth it, they may do some amount of going after tiny infractions in order to "send a message." Their focus on efficiency or patriotism seems to vary with administrations, and it might be too early to determine how it's going to shake out under the current administration.
Not really, it's unpopular, and therefore a bad idea to have pending before an election if you want to get re-elected. Politicians typically are smart enough to do unpopular things at the beginning of a term.
yeah true. but public memory is short, I'm guessing that the influence/impact of those bills would be lesser if done 4 months before the election, than 1 month before.
I've heard this talking point before, and it's really silly to frame it as shenanigans somehow because of the timing, rather than elected officials enacting popular policies that the voters want.
My point was that they could be doing what people want for the entire duration of their term, rather than in the last few months. To use an analogy, it's like a student getting bad grades all year and then doing a bunch of extra credit assignments when they're worried about failing the class.
It's not surprising. Elected officials care more about getting reelected in the next election than long term effects of their decisions. So they are incentivized to care more about the short term.
The request was made 2 years ago, not during election season. Building good regulations requires research, conversations with stakeholders, and other things which take time.
I don't like when politicians only respond to overwhelming public discontent or desires in an election year. This reclassification is a good thing, absolutely, but it angers me that policymakers wait and treat us like baying kittens eager for a morsel of acknowledgement from our elected leaders.
Thank you for your reply. I don't understand the objection that this is locking government in. Every level of government keeps setting dates then changing them, so I don't see how changing a criteria for a level is worse.
Done. So they're calling out things that could happen, driving the point home by placing them in a timeline. That makes the issue top of mind again for people, potentially spurring them into action - even if just by e.g. making it one of people's considerations in their next election.
Right, but the louder opinions like yours are, and these are the ones that surface most in the public debate and wrapped in some good-for-productivity ideas, the more fuel it adds to the fire of moving everyone back in office.
I think it’s nice in theory, but the dates proposed are beyond the likely political careers of the people proposing them which makes me suspicious. It would also be very easy to keep pushing back the deadline. It’s the kind of policy which costs nothing today, and racks up feel-good points for more than a decade without actually making a plan or doing anything like investing in that future.
If politicians always did the popular things at the beginning of their term they would be far less likely to be voted back in. Unfortunately the news cycle and therefore the voting public has a short memory.
It does suck a bit that the system incentivizes being strategic with the timing of key decisions, but politicians who didn't do so would be hurting their chances of reelection.
reply