🇺🇸 Doomscroll News

Tag: accountability

  • The Autopen Republic: An Exposé on Legislative Negligence

    The Autopen Republic: An Exposé on Legislative Negligence

    The assertion that “no one has ever read an entire bill before voting on it” rings with a cynical truth that many Americans feel deep in their bones. It’s a damning indictment of a broken system. This isn’t about lofty ideals or the complexities of modern governance; it’s about a fundamental failure of duty. We demand proof of review, a guarantee that our laws are not passed by autopilot. The era of excuses is over.

    By the Numbers: A Crisis of Volume and Verbiage

    The sheer scale of legislation has become a convenient shield for lawmakers. But a look at the data reveals a problem that has spiraled out of control.

    • The Longest Bill: The record for the longest bill ever passed goes to the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2021. At an obscene 5,593 pages, it was a behemoth spending bill combining COVID-19 relief with a $1.4 trillion omnibus package. To expect any single human to read, comprehend, and critically analyze this mountain of text before voting is a physical and cognitive impossibility. It was signed into law by President Trump on December 27, 2020, after passing both houses of Congress with large bipartisan majorities just days earlier.
    • The Shortest Bill: In stark contrast, some legislation can be very brief. In 2017, a bill was introduced in the House with a single sentence: “The Environmental Protection Agency shall terminate on December 31, 2018.” While this bill did not pass, it demonstrates that brevity can be a tool for radical change.
    • The “Average” Bill – A Rising Tide of Text: The very concept of an “average” bill is misleading, but the trend is undeniable. In the 1947-48 session, the average law was just 2.5 pages. Today, that average has ballooned to nearly 18 pages. More complex legislation often exceeds 1,000 pages. The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA) in 2010, for example, clocked in at over 2,500 pages.
    (more…)

  • The MADC ‘Defense Pact’: A Playbook for Evading Accountability

    Universities, nudged by faculty groups and unions primarily within the Big Ten, are floating a plan for a “Mutual Academic Defense Compact” (MADC). The idea is to create an alliance where member schools pool resources to defend each other against what they term “political attacks.” While presented as a shield for academic freedom and institutional autonomy, the MADC looks more like a coordinated strategy to sidestep accountability to elected governments, taxpayers, and the public, particularly regarding controversial programs and policies.

    Breaking Down the Goals: A Pattern of Evasion

    Examining the stated aims reveals a consistent thread of trying to avoid oversight and consequences:

    1. “Collective Defense”: This isn’t about protection in the usual sense. It’s about creating a shared war chest—funded by tuition, endowments, or potentially taxpayer money—to fight back against governmental investigations, audits, or legislative actions. It’s a mechanism designed explicitly to resist accountability measures imposed by elected bodies.
    2. “Resisting Political Interference”: This frequently serves as code for resisting laws, regulations, and oversight that university administrations or faculty dislike. It suggests an attempt to operate outside the normal democratic process where institutions are subject to political (i.e., governmental) direction, especially public universities. Shielding specific research agendas or programs, like contested DEI initiatives, from scrutiny under the guise of fighting “interference” is a direct dodge of public and governmental accountability.
    3. “Protect Academic Freedom”: While crucial, this principle can be misused. In the context of the MADC, there’s a risk it becomes a justification for insulating specific, often left-leaning, ideological viewpoints or controversial scholarship from legitimate criticism and external review, thereby evading intellectual and public accountability.
    4. “Support Vulnerable Communities / Uphold DEI”: The push to use pact resources to defend DEI programs is particularly telling. These programs face significant legal challenges and public criticism as discriminatory, promoting division, and chilling speech. The MADC aims to provide a financial and legal shield to prevent these programs from facing accountability through courts or legislatures, essentially using collective power to protect contested initiatives from consequences.
    5. “Mitigate Financial Pressure”: This goal is perhaps the most blatant attempt to avoid accountability. If a university faces funding cuts due to legislative decisions, declining enrollment, or public disapproval of its policies, the MADC seeks to use funds from other (potentially out-of-state) universities to cushion the blow. This undermines the basic principle that institutions should be accountable for the consequences of their actions and policies, including financial ones.
    (more…)

  • Okay, Let’s Actually Fix Immigration: Apps, Accountability, and Opportunity

    So, the U.S. has this ongoing challenge with lots of people crossing the border illegally. We need to get a handle on it, but we also want America to stay strong, prosperous, and basically open to folks who want to be here the right way. People act like this is rocket science, but honestly? A practical fix using tech we already have isn’t that far-fetched.

    Using Apps for Smarter Immigration (It’s Just Common Sense)

    Apps can help manage the whole immigration process, keep track of people, and make communication way easier. This isn’t about slamming the door shut; it’s about having a system that actually works and is fair.

    Two Lanes: Handling Things Fairly but Firmly

    The main idea here is to treat people differently based on their record:

    1. Folks Just Looking for a Shot (Non-Violent): Let’s be real, a lot of people come here illegally just wanting a better life. That drive is kind of what America’s built on, right? If someone hasn’t committed violent crimes, let’s be decent about it.

    * Get the Paperwork Started: Let them start the *legal* application process, maybe even while they’re still here. If it looks like they’ll probably get approved anyway, why go through the whole drama and expense of deporting them just to have them apply from outside? Let technology help manage their case.

    * Managed Transition (If Deportation is Necessary): Okay, if deportation is required by the rules for non-violent folks, the process itself needs to be respectful. Crucially, this isn’t about just ‘dumping’ them and forgetting about it. The U.S. still has a responsibility to manage this transition properly. The idea is to handle their departure in a way that still keeps the possibility of legal return clearly defined and accessible. We should leverage technology (like that app we talked about) to provide them with clear information before and after departure on exactly how they can apply legally from abroad and track requirements. Think of it as respectfully managing their exit while keeping the lines open and providing the tools for a legal comeback if they qualify down the road. We need to keep tabs on their potential re-application status through the system. And importantly, even after they’ve left, there needs to be a dedicated 1-800 emergency hotline they can call if they face a serious crisis overseas. This provides a crucial safety net.

    (more…)