That is, the longer and more complex a Congressional bill is, the more it will cost in proportion to the benefit it will give.
Michael Lind wrote an article for the Washington Post, "Comprehensive reform is overrated. For real change, Washington must think small", 2010-07-11 and reprinted in the Star Tribune as "Not every problem calls for a sledgehammer", 2010-07-14.
He argues that large bills try to solve too many things at once and gives too many lobbyists too many openings to make it even more complex. And I would say counterproductive. Some bills have gotten so large that few in Congress read them in their entirety. Somebody challenged Senators to read the complete, original Patriot Act before voting. One Senator did and he voted against it. Michele Bachmann couldn't have read the energy bill that she claims bans incandescent bulbs; it only sets energy standards.
One could say that large bills are cases of too many cooks spoiling the broth and too many fingers in the pie.
My own notion is that no bill before Congress should be larger than the original U.S. Constitution. Maybe we should even have a Constitutional amendment on that.
