Trouble with metrics is the gaming; let me write the performance standards and I will exceed all expectations every year. That said, metrics are good, but very hard to come up with and legislative bodies generally don’t know enough about programs to come up with useful metrics. As an example, I was always given arbitration win/loss record as a metric. Well, silly legislator, I have total control over that; if I dont’ think I will win, I just settle it and don’t go. In my business metrics like union demand cost versus contract cost or settlement cost mean something, though even that can be gamed. Likewise, settlement cost versus arbitration or litigation loss cost is somewhat meaningful, but there are good reasons to take on a case that you might lose or even expect to lose just so you can chose the grounds for the loss or set something up for another case.

I like your “budget bill” comment and I would a provision for every program/department… a sunset provision. And I would require metrics (although they can be bastardized, I’m well aware) for review of the effectiveness of the program. Make the damn “lawmakers” put in writing specifics of what the program/department will accomplish in a fixed time frame (five years would be the max) and then measure them against those metrics. It might not kill off everything, but it would certainly point out what a bunch of idiot we’ve got running things in the political centers.

Downside is clever bill writers can come up with page long titles so some pet project can come under the title, but long, complex titles are a dead giveaway. Add to that a rule that budget bills cannot fund new programs but rather may only fund operations of programs authorized by other legislation.

Trouble is, real reforms like this are dull stuff that doesn’t soundbite real well for the moron, excuse me, moderate, voters.

I am for any type of limit, whether it is a time limit or a numerical limit on what can be brought during the session.

The public is invited to bring tar & feathers.