The Legislation Possibilities Curve

The time available for legislation in a congressional session is limited. Because time is limited, it is very valuable and should be used to solve the nation's most important and pressing problems. When legislators decide to focus on a particular problem and use up that valuable time, there is an opportunity cost in terms of all the other important problems that do not get the attention they need.

We are already at point B. We could move to point A and fully focus our attention and resources on our most important issues. But as today's radio address made clear, the President has decided to reduce the time spent on important problems fom P₀ to P₁ by moving to point C and focusing the nation's legislative and other resources (newspapers, pundits , analysts, the public, etc.) on gay marriage instead. Update: Thinking this over a little more, I assumed the opportunity cost is "important problems," but maybe the alternative is even worse policy. If so, then having legislators spin their wheels without accomplishing anything would be a positive outcome.

Correction: I inferred in an earlier post, since corrected, as well as in an earlier version of this one that the nickname "opie" applied to a particular individual. It does not. I was mistaken. My sincere apologies.

Comments

[yartrebo]

Interesting. I've seen arguments like this advanced before in prose, but it's nice to see a slightly (and only slightly) more mathematical approach to this topic.

[Emmanuel]

LOL, most of your readers (myself included) would not think of gay marriage as an important problem. But, that's from our perspective.

What if you were a GOP strategist like Povespierre? Focusing on important issues only highlights the poor job the administration is doing on them. So instead, throwing more "red meat" to the faithful such as by building walls along the US-Mexico border or by proposing homosexual-bashing legislation are (perhaps desperate) ways of shoring up the base before the midterm election.

From their POV, minimizing rather than maximizing legislation possibilities is the objective of the whole exercise.

[Emmanuel]

Oops, I meant "Rovespierre" as I like to call the Prez's chief strategist.

[pgl]

I suspect this FMA proposal is designed to insure the rightwing base comes out in Nov. so the GOP can hold onto the Congress. That way they get to pass all sorts of BAD legislation come 2007. Kevin Drum, however, notes this stunt may not work the way Karl Rove hopes.

[donna]

But if gays can marry, then people could marry dogs! Or more people! Or... whatever.

They got nothin', so now its fags and flags. Republicans are idiots, and this is what they've come to for all their effort of forty years.

[johnchx]

Emaneul wrote: "'Rovespierre' as I like to call the Prez's chief strategist."

Priceless!

[tomboy]

That is one possibilities curve I never thought I would see.

I wonder what the total cost of a week in congress is. Add up all the salaries of congressmen, aides, staffers, security, janitors, etc. Then add in 1/2 the total money spent every other year on congressional campaigns by the candidates, DNC, RNC, special interests, etc. Throw in free advertising on behalf of partisan radio talkers. Maybe even add the opportunity cost of citizens voting every other year. Add in the incredible number of costs I'm omitting and forgetting. Divide by number of weeks congress is in session per year.

It must be a big number. I'm glad they're choosing to use it so wisely.

[calmo]

Will Rove still be in business after the long days of summer (and possibly the visitation of several hurricanes) are over? Will the Dow be perculating along at 12,000+ or sinking below 10,000?
Will this Bolten (do you believe Rove is still not an important consult here esp even in the Card replacement?) make-over in the WH, amount to anything more than a desperate and ineffectual effort to rescue sinking polls?
Possibly desperate and successful depending on the media's complicity --as always.

[Devang]

I don't understand what the variability might be on the Y-axis, though perhaps donna eluded to it:

But if gays can marry, then people could marry dogs! Or more people! Or... whatever.

Congressional time spent on a subject should be on the Y-axis :)

[tomboy]

Devang,

I think you're misreading what the curve is.

Maybe this will help.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Production_possibility_frontier

[Devang]

ah... ty tomboy.

[Devang]

well... That shows I probably slept through the one macro-economics class I took while getting an engineering degree.

Yet, I strangely find myself reading a blog named Economist's View more than any other blog :)

[paul]

Gay Marriage: Evidence from Europe?
http://truckandbarter.com/mt/archives/2006/06/gay_marriage_ev.html

[Richard]

Doesn't this tacitly assume that the population can reach a consensus about the ordering of problems? If respondents cannot reach ordinal agreement, then such a curve does not make much sense (well, it does from each individual's perspective, but I always thought that economics was a social science, weighing social possibilities.