Restructuring government communication synergy may prove to be a negative likelihood
Dan Brawner
February 14, 2008
It should be noted that, at this point in time, one should be cognizant of the fact that certain federal agencies notably, but not of necessity confined to the Internal Revenue Service, routinely employ contractual communication instruments whose potential elucidation has been pre-empted by the fact that a normal human being can´t figure out what the heck they´re talking about!
Legalese has always been part of the law. Call it tradition, the need for precision, job security for lawyers or just "cool factor". But even garden variety law is weighed down with "wherefores" and "hithertos" –not to mention "prima facies" and "corpus delicti´s". And if the law is made for citizens and not the other way around, it ought to be understandable. Enter Rep. Bruce Braley of Waterloo, Iowa.
Rep. Braley is fed up with confusing, convoluted forms from federal agencies like the IRS and the Veterans Administration. So he has introduced the "Plain Language in Government Communications Act" that would force the government to speak our own language for once. Braley told the Associated Press, "It would fundamentally change the way the federal government communicates with its citizens."
In fact, plain talk from Washington might be a shock to our system. We´ve grown accustomed to hearing such linguistic luminaries as the former Federal Reserve Chairman, Alan Greenspan pile it deeper and higher whenever something bad is about to happen. Check out this classic Greenspanism: " It is a tricky problem to find the particular calibration in timing that would be appropriate to stem the acceleration in risk premiums created by falling incomes without prematurely aborting the decline in the inflation-generated risk premiums." In other words, "I don´t know why people are going broke either."
The Bush administration has refined this kind of double-speak into an art form. We remember Bush´s Orwellian-sounding programs such as the "Clear Skies" initiative that invited an increase in industrial air pollution and "Healthy Forests" that paved the way for more logging of protected wilderness.
Vice-Chair of the Center for Plain Language, Annetta Cheek testified in 2006 before the House Government Reform Committee´s Subcommittee on Regulatory Affairs, advocating for plain language in government. She gave this example of legalese from a Department of Justice regulation, "No payment shall be made to (or on the behalf of) more than one individual on the basis of being the public safety officer´s parent as his mother, or on that basis as his father." In other words, "Cops get one mom and one dad. We´re only paying for one of each."
We live in a labyrinth of misdirected language. Used cars are "pre-owned". A person didn´t die on the operating table. The hospital had a "negative patient care outcome." Your company stock isn´t hemorrhaging money, it´s only a "non-performing asset" that provides "negative contributions to profit." Feel better?
Rep. Braley, himself an experienced attorney, argues that understandable language in government regulations means that citizens will be more likely to comply with them. Imagine an IRS form that is simple and understandable and explains just where your money is going and why...which is the reason Braley´s bill is doomed.
Legalese has always been part of the law. Call it tradition, the need for precision, job security for lawyers or just "cool factor". But even garden variety law is weighed down with "wherefores" and "hithertos" –not to mention "prima facies" and "corpus delicti´s". And if the law is made for citizens and not the other way around, it ought to be understandable. Enter Rep. Bruce Braley of Waterloo, Iowa.
Rep. Braley is fed up with confusing, convoluted forms from federal agencies like the IRS and the Veterans Administration. So he has introduced the "Plain Language in Government Communications Act" that would force the government to speak our own language for once. Braley told the Associated Press, "It would fundamentally change the way the federal government communicates with its citizens."
In fact, plain talk from Washington might be a shock to our system. We´ve grown accustomed to hearing such linguistic luminaries as the former Federal Reserve Chairman, Alan Greenspan pile it deeper and higher whenever something bad is about to happen. Check out this classic Greenspanism: " It is a tricky problem to find the particular calibration in timing that would be appropriate to stem the acceleration in risk premiums created by falling incomes without prematurely aborting the decline in the inflation-generated risk premiums." In other words, "I don´t know why people are going broke either."
The Bush administration has refined this kind of double-speak into an art form. We remember Bush´s Orwellian-sounding programs such as the "Clear Skies" initiative that invited an increase in industrial air pollution and "Healthy Forests" that paved the way for more logging of protected wilderness.
Vice-Chair of the Center for Plain Language, Annetta Cheek testified in 2006 before the House Government Reform Committee´s Subcommittee on Regulatory Affairs, advocating for plain language in government. She gave this example of legalese from a Department of Justice regulation, "No payment shall be made to (or on the behalf of) more than one individual on the basis of being the public safety officer´s parent as his mother, or on that basis as his father." In other words, "Cops get one mom and one dad. We´re only paying for one of each."
We live in a labyrinth of misdirected language. Used cars are "pre-owned". A person didn´t die on the operating table. The hospital had a "negative patient care outcome." Your company stock isn´t hemorrhaging money, it´s only a "non-performing asset" that provides "negative contributions to profit." Feel better?
Rep. Braley, himself an experienced attorney, argues that understandable language in government regulations means that citizens will be more likely to comply with them. Imagine an IRS form that is simple and understandable and explains just where your money is going and why...which is the reason Braley´s bill is doomed.
Print
Email
