Eager for Change
I’ve talked previously about the need to resist the current Trumpian chaos and lawlessness. I’ve also urged that some of the current Administration’s underlying concerns are valid and that there are some nuggets of useful policy amid the muck of its rhetoric and nihilistic actions. Going back to the “good old days” of 2024 is simplistic and bad policy, even if it were feasible. Except….
One characteristic of institutions is their resilience to change. That’s much praised by those who want to preserve the status quo (i.e., usually conservatives, but most Democrats and democrats today). Assuming we come out of the current chaos in 2029, that same institutional inertia will allow much of the damage to continue to harm individuals, the country, and the world for years to come. So, it’s worthwhile to think about how to roll things back as aggressively as possible.
Here's one (outside the box) idea of how to do it: The Emergency Action and Government Efficacy Restoration (EAGER) Act of 2029.
The basic idea is to get Congress (presumably Democratic-controlled) to suspend some of the usual rules so that the new Administration can repair things as promptly as possible while Congress considers new models and approaches to address the issues and problems (both long-standing and recently engendered). There are several aspects of the normal institutionalized process that will likely delay getting necessary remedies deployed to actually affect people’s lives. First, appointing the senior and mid-level executives to write and implement changes to policies and programs will take months. After all, hardly anyone will be left from these ranks. Senior folks need Senate confirmation and then they need to hire the mid-level folks. Second, the Administrative Procedures Act (“APA”) requires lengthy rule-drafting processes and the prospect of multi-year litigation. Together, this means that few new policies could be in place much before 2031.
To remedy these concerns, the EAGER Act would authorize the appointment of interim officials without Senate confirmation and the expedited hiring of mid-level folks. Such officials would (a la “recess appointments”) be in office for no more than two years. For an added degree of comfort, the pool for such appointments could be limited to those who (for normally confirmable posts) had previously been confirmed by the Senate for some senior position or (for lower slots) previously held a comparable level Government position.
The Act would also authorize the implementation of regulations without normal APA processes, so long as they were interim (expired within 2-3 years) or were previously in place. Regulations enacted since 2025 could, similarly, be revoked. Accommodation would need to be made for the inevitable delays of reviewing legislation, although most of those concerns are actually statutory in nature and could, by law, be waived and much judicial review avoided.
There are those who will protest that the short-circuiting of traditional controls on Executive Branch actions is dangerous, unconstitutional, and demonstrative of the same disregard for the “rule of law” which has brought us to the present crisis. These are significant and real concerns. The EAGER Act can certainly be closely designed to minimize these and ensure constitutional compliance, as I have suggested. On the other hand, the continuation of the damage likely to occur while Congress takes its usual time to design and enact legislation, not to mention the processes of administrative implementation, seems to outweigh those concerns. Those who see the current situation as a uniquely dangerous time for this country should not shirk at drastic remedies, especially where (as here) they are carefully crafted and their exceptional nature is acknowledged.
In addition, EAGER supporters can expressly articulate that the nature of our government and political culture is built on trust, that they have trust in the incoming Administration, and that the recent undermining of that trust by HWSNBN should not poison the confidence Americans should have in their government. Indeed, beyond the substantive benefits of accelerating policy repair and change, this cultural commitment would help on its own terms. In contrast, layering on additional constraints—a predictable reaction to what has been going on lately—would merely extend the bureaucratic and overly legalistic mentality which has already made it difficult to resolve a wide range of our current policy problems.
All of these extraordinary steps could accelerate the process of damage control, demonstrate immediate responsiveness to public concerns (important from a political perspective), and set the stage for the development and deployment of new policies across a range of areas (listed in the recent posting) which the country sorely needs.
Along a similar line, a coherent and focused Democratic Congressional leadership (now there’s something to imagine!) might well avoid getting tied up in all the minutiae of the necessary substantive legislative changes by enacting—promptly and simply—a set of policy directions that would provide guidance to the executive branch and set the parameters of more detailed legislative actions to follow. This would have the benefit of demonstrating to both domestic and international audiences the reversal of direction (and style). New tax schedules, carbon markets, civil rights and due process, minimum wage and AI responses, parameters for health care and social support all could be sketched out to help the country reposition itself for the longer term task of creating a new era.
The damage caused by the current administration won’t be remedied within the term of the next one. As a country, we were already behind the curve in addressing the pressing problems of the age even before the last election. Dealing with them, with the damage repair, AND with the new set of emerging issues (e.g., AI’s impact on labor markets and education) will require more governmental genius than we have any right (or experience) to expect. By 2029, we will need (well-considered) extraordinary measures to have any shot at handling them. EAGER is one way to improve the odds.
I’ve talked previously about the need to resist the current Trumpian chaos and lawlessness. I’ve also urged that some of the current Administration’s underlying concerns are valid and that there are some nuggets of useful policy amid the muck of its rhetoric and nihilistic actions. Going back to the “good old days” of 2024 is simplistic and bad policy, even if it were feasible. Except….
One characteristic of institutions is their resilience to change. That’s much praised by those who want to preserve the status quo (i.e., usually conservatives, but most Democrats and democrats today). Assuming we come out of the current chaos in 2029, that same institutional inertia will allow much of the damage to continue to harm individuals, the country, and the world for years to come. So, it’s worthwhile to think about how to roll things back as aggressively as possible.
Here's one (outside the box) idea of how to do it: The Emergency Action and Government Efficacy Restoration (EAGER) Act of 2029.
The basic idea is to get Congress (presumably Democratic-controlled) to suspend some of the usual rules so that the new Administration can repair things as promptly as possible while Congress considers new models and approaches to address the issues and problems (both long-standing and recently engendered). There are several aspects of the normal institutionalized process that will likely delay getting necessary remedies deployed to actually affect people’s lives. First, appointing the senior and mid-level executives to write and implement changes to policies and programs will take months. After all, hardly anyone will be left from these ranks. Senior folks need Senate confirmation and then they need to hire the mid-level folks. Second, the Administrative Procedures Act (“APA”) requires lengthy rule-drafting processes and the prospect of multi-year litigation. Together, this means that few new policies could be in place much before 2031.
To remedy these concerns, the EAGER Act would authorize the appointment of interim officials without Senate confirmation and the expedited hiring of mid-level folks. Such officials would (a la “recess appointments”) be in office for no more than two years. For an added degree of comfort, the pool for such appointments could be limited to those who (for normally confirmable posts) had previously been confirmed by the Senate for some senior position or (for lower slots) previously held a comparable level Government position.
The Act would also authorize the implementation of regulations without normal APA processes, so long as they were interim (expired within 2-3 years) or were previously in place. Regulations enacted since 2025 could, similarly, be revoked. Accommodation would need to be made for the inevitable delays of reviewing legislation, although most of those concerns are actually statutory in nature and could, by law, be waived and much judicial review avoided.
There are those who will protest that the short-circuiting of traditional controls on Executive Branch actions is dangerous, unconstitutional, and demonstrative of the same disregard for the “rule of law” which has brought us to the present crisis. These are significant and real concerns. The EAGER Act can certainly be closely designed to minimize these and ensure constitutional compliance, as I have suggested. On the other hand, the continuation of the damage likely to occur while Congress takes its usual time to design and enact legislation, not to mention the processes of administrative implementation, seems to outweigh those concerns. Those who see the current situation as a uniquely dangerous time for this country should not shirk at drastic remedies, especially where (as here) they are carefully crafted and their exceptional nature is acknowledged.
In addition, EAGER supporters can expressly articulate that the nature of our government and political culture is built on trust, that they have trust in the incoming Administration, and that the recent undermining of that trust by HWSNBN should not poison the confidence Americans should have in their government. Indeed, beyond the substantive benefits of accelerating policy repair and change, this cultural commitment would help on its own terms. In contrast, layering on additional constraints—a predictable reaction to what has been going on lately—would merely extend the bureaucratic and overly legalistic mentality which has already made it difficult to resolve a wide range of our current policy problems.
All of these extraordinary steps could accelerate the process of damage control, demonstrate immediate responsiveness to public concerns (important from a political perspective), and set the stage for the development and deployment of new policies across a range of areas (listed in the recent posting) which the country sorely needs.
Along a similar line, a coherent and focused Democratic Congressional leadership (now there’s something to imagine!) might well avoid getting tied up in all the minutiae of the necessary substantive legislative changes by enacting—promptly and simply—a set of policy directions that would provide guidance to the executive branch and set the parameters of more detailed legislative actions to follow. This would have the benefit of demonstrating to both domestic and international audiences the reversal of direction (and style). New tax schedules, carbon markets, civil rights and due process, minimum wage and AI responses, parameters for health care and social support all could be sketched out to help the country reposition itself for the longer term task of creating a new era.
The damage caused by the current administration won’t be remedied within the term of the next one. As a country, we were already behind the curve in addressing the pressing problems of the age even before the last election. Dealing with them, with the damage repair, AND with the new set of emerging issues (e.g., AI’s impact on labor markets and education) will require more governmental genius than we have any right (or experience) to expect. By 2029, we will need (well-considered) extraordinary measures to have any shot at handling them. EAGER is one way to improve the odds.
RSS Feed