If you’re looking for a last-minute stocking stuffer for the Congress-watcher in your life (or for yourself), look no further than A Better Congress: Change the Rules, Change the Results.

The book is written by a congressional insider who knows how the system works—and how people work within the system. Author Joseph Gibson served as a top staffer on the House Judiciary Committee (disclosure: we were colleagues for a time), in the personal office of a prominent member of Congress, and in the U.S. Department of Justice.

Gibson’s story is about people, and the opening chapters offer insights into what kind of people run for Congress and what life is like for them when they arrive. There isn’t a lot of room for new ideas from new members of Congress—and there isn’t much time or reason to work on serious legislating. Members of Congress are fawned over in what Gibson refers to as “the bubble” of Washington, D.C. They quickly lose touch with the people who sent them and the ideas they wanted to promote.

The book explains why members of Congress spend so much time producing symbolic legislation like resolutions honoring “National Frozen Food Week” and post office renamings. Over a third of the laws the 110th Congress produced honored some person or group and did nothing else, Gibson notes.

How do good priorities go bad? Gibson has the story: Almost every disease has a nonprofit organization dedicated to its cure, for example, and our representatives in Congress get more from supporting spending for them than defending other priorities or even insisting on a comprehensive approach to medical research. The result is more spending on everything.

“This problem repeats itself in a wide variety of other areas,” writes Gibson. “Everyone’s actions make sense from an individual perspective, but collectively they do not make sense for the public at large.”

Gibson has a number of proposals meant to improve the quality of Congress’ work, mostly by improving the incentives our representatives in Congress face. For the most part they are modest ideas—but even modest changes will require fierce battle to achieve.

There are several, including shortening legislative sessions and reducing the role and influence of staff. Gibson examines the Senate’s filibuster rules gently. Limiting the number and length of bills is another idea he floats to focus legislators’ attention and debates.

One of the more interesting and bold is the idea of creating a new Committee on Repeals in the House and Senate. Right now, Congress operates as a one-way ratchet, constantly creating new programs without reviewing or terminating old ones. Committees pushing for repeal could chock up desired “achievements” for members of Congress without adding to the already massive size and scope of the federal government. Gibson’s thinking here is sophisticated, and his familiarity with congressional procedure shines through, as he describes the way secondary referral of bills to repeal programs might be handled.

One of few quibbles I have with the book—it would feel irresponsible to give an unrestrained endorsement—is Gibson’s assumption that Congress would be more difficult to manage if its numbers were increased. House members today represent triple the number of people they did when the size of Congress was last adjusted. Fewer people per representative would likely make members of Congress more accountable to their constituents, improving Congress in the ways that matter.

This is a discussion you can participate in thanks to the uncomplicated style of Gibson’s writings and ideas. The author writes about democracy as a thing for everyone to participate in, not as an academic exercise or professional enterprise. So pick up a copy of A Better Congress and bring yourself into the debate about how Congress can change to serve you better.