I'm hoping this topic doesn't get closed because it's too vague or missing a debate point. I don't seem to have much luck with that on this debate forum. But here goes:

I think part of the dissatisfaction people have with policies and laws enacted by our government is the lack foresight or rather the "reaction to" as opposed to the "anticipation of" societal ills. This is what has led me a smaller government position: not because I don't believe that it's theoretically possible for a large government to do the right thing but because empirically the government has not been accountable for its actions. It passes law after law without analyzing the consequences of such. That said, here is my proposal.

In order to enact a policy (law or otherwise), a government body must do two things:

1. Enumerate a set of criteria by which the policy can be determined to be a success after it is implemented. That is, if it pretends to fix a problem, does it fix it? If it makes a prediction about the positive outcome after enaction, does it in fact do so?

2. Enumerate a set of criteria by which the policy can be determined to be a failure. Moreover, if the law meets one or more failure condition, then it must immediately go out of effect.

Do you agree or disagree with this idea? Do you forsee problems with having this implemented?

I agree with your concern in principle, but I dont' believe that the solution is very practical. What works to one person is hopelessly broken to another. Just look at welfare, military spending, social security, as well as government agencies. I doubt that you could come to a consensus as to what needs fixed or what should go in a highly partisan, bitter atmosphere. Perhaps every law should be reviewed for a straight up or down vote after five years?

Actually, I was thinking that whoever proposes the law/policy must also enumerate the criteria for success and failure of that law/policy. Obviously, for the law to be passed most everyone would to agree on the criteria for success and failure. In my mind, this would hold everyone accountable.

I was thinking about embedded sunset provisions as well. Every law has a time-out. It must be re-approved for it to continue. This might create a lot more work.

Edited to add: if the law/policy can't enumerate criteria for success and failure, then it cannot become a law.

I think you could make predictions and make a "progress" chart, much as schools have to reach yearly annual progress (AYP) percentages. Maybe if a program helps distribute funds to people within 10 percentage points of what was predicted, it can be judged as being valuable. Maybe this is more practical than I First thougth. The key, is to give enough leeway for programs that hit "near" the mark.

The real problem with this is that it adds an additional level of bureacracy to measure the results and that most bills do not fit into such easily categorized criteria.

I think it would be a good idea to add milestones to measure the success of certain bills (not all). For example, let's say there is a bill for helping the homeless. Would it be better to say that the aim of the bill is to decrease homeless by x%, or just leave it unsaid what the goal of the bill is?

In general, the problem is that most legislation does not address problems so directly (at least at the federal level). For the most part, the Federal government gives money to others to do its work and accomplish its goals. It is hard to measure the results and force anyone to take responsibility in these cases.

Very good point Amlord. When it comes to AYP for schools, a targeted percentage is the goal for the year, with the targeted percentage increasing per year. You allow for up to two years of missing the mark and after that, sanctions, getting rid of staff, or setting up a charter school are in order. Likewise, if a program misses the percentage points(as independently proven through a government agency or maverick contractor service) then you have the bill come up for re-authorization.