SUNSET CLAUSES

I have written before about the utter stupidity of “Sunset Clauses”, which appear to be the modus operandi these days for legislators who want to pass new legislation the easy way, instead of putting more effort into the process to actually pass legislation that lasts. If you will excuse my bluntness, they are just too damn lazy to put in the effort to do it properly.

      First, I should explain what “Sunset Clauses” mean, and why I think it is a stupid and lazy idea. I should add that the use of this “facilitating” concept is not restricted to U.S. legislators. I know it is used by British legislators and, since it is designed to make passing legislation easier, I can safely assume it is used by most legislative democracies throughout the world.

      A “Sunset Clause” in a piece of legislation means that the law that is passed has a time limit. In other words, it becomes null-and-void when the “Sunset Clause” date expires. That means that the law has to be re-enacted, pretty much from scratch, if the legislative body concerned wants to extend it, or amend it. That, in my humble opinion, creates a huge amount of unnecessary “busywork”, which distracts legislators and legislatures from doing what they are supposed to be doing. In the U.S., some law extensions, even ones on which there is bi-partisan agreement, have taken years of legislative time to re-approve – in my opinion a complete waste of time, resources and effort created by not doing their job properly in the first place.

      Why, then, do they do it, and do it on such a pervasive basis?

      There are few laws passed these days that do not have sunset clauses in them. As I said, I can only attribute it to consummate laziness. It’s easier to convince your opponents to go along with a bill if they know it will run out. I would imagine that, in many incidences, the conversation goes along the lines of “If you vote for my piece of legislation, then I’ll vote for yours because we can then both gain the kudos with our constituents without any long-term damage – when the laws expire, the constituents will probably have forgotten who supported them and who opposed them and, besides we can gain even more kudos by supporting the whole thing all over again. We all win except, of course, the people the laws were designed to help, who now have to wait ages for the new law in order to continue to receive their benefits …….. but who really cares about that!?”

      This sounds like a stupidly obvious question but, why not put a bit of extra effort into passing the law in the first place and let it run until it is no longer relevant, and then amend or revoke it if you want to? The amount of time, money and effort that would save would be enormous. AND the benefits of the law would continue without unnecessary interruptions. DUH!! For example, the latest U.S. government shutdown would not have happened if the relevant legislation had had no sunset clause.

      I suppose there is little political gain to be had by revoking, or amending, a law, against fighting publicly to support a new one. Political expediency wins every time.

      I wonder if it’s possible that, given the enormous fuss, political maneuvering, money spent, and disastrous results for a huge section of the American people, that sunset clauses cause, that they could be eliminated, en masse, with one piece of legislation in each legislative body. Pass a law banning “Sunset Clauses” altogether. Now there’s an idea worth pursuing.

      Perhaps my readers could tell be what they think and what we, as the sufferers of “Sunset Clauses”, can do about it?