The flag of the District of Columbia and the American flag. (Jonathan Newton/The Washington Post)

The D.C. Council, having relegated the mission of executive-branch oversight to a back seat, has become a legislative laboratory for the left — with the resultant costs to be borne by District taxpayers.

Let us pause, draw nigh to council chambers and listen to the scream of protest:

“Vigorous oversight of D.C. government operations is essential to our being. ’Tis a duty we cherish above all.”

Rather than actively overseeing the operation of city programs and services, our legislators seem bent on taking revenge upon what they apparently regard as a scourge of the earth: D.C. business.

Of course, that’s not the way council members would put it. They fancy themselves providers of social justice and economic security and defenders against the rich and powerful.

They point with pride toward their legislative gems: a paid family-leave plan and the recently passed minimum-wage bill.

In truth, the “good” in these measures comes in the elevation of the council’s self-image as a progressive national leader.

Consider:

● The paid family-leave plan provides 11 weeks off, with up to 90 percent pay — the most generous such law in the land;

● The $15 hourly minimum wage will be among the highest minimum wages in the nation by the end of the decade.

Yeah, our council is No. 1.

“This is a win for society,” enthused council member David Grosso (I-At Large) about the family-leave plan. Oh really?

This much is certain: Architects of progressive ideas in think tanks are celebrating victories scored in their legislative laboratory, the D.C. Council.

Of course, having willing lab workers such as Council Chairman Phil Mendelson (D), Grosso and Elissa Silverman (I-At Large) facilitates the experiments.

District residents aren’t the chief beneficiaries, however.

Under the family-leave plan, which the council is expected to adopt next week, most benefits would go to residents outside the city, because the legislation calls for coverage of all workers in the city regardless of where they live.

Who’s affected?

Of the 531,999 people who work in the District in the private sector or are self-employed, only about 196,000 live in the city, according to Mayor Muriel E. Bowser’s (D) communications director, Kevin Harris. The overwhelming majority — 336,173, or 63 percent — live in Maryland or Virginia.

Incidentally, those 336,173 nonresident workers also do not pay the District a cent of tax on income earned in the city because the Home Rule Act bans a commuter tax.

So how will the council pay for this generous commuter gift? Money in the government account from which family-leave funds will be drawn must come from somewhere. It will be raised through an increase in payroll taxes imposed on D.C. businesses.

“A win for society”? Grosso, tell that to businesses and consumers.

The same concern about benefits and equity was raised in connection with the minimum-wage boost.

Again, the winners?

They are the 55 percent of the District’s minimum-wage workers who live outside the city. They get the raise, and their wages are protected from D.C. taxation.

Oddly enough, Bowser supported the minimum-wage increase. Facing similar circumstances in the paid family-leave plan, however, Bowser reversed course.

“This is about fairness,” she complained in a statement about increasing the employer-paid payroll taxes to fund the plan. “If we are going to raise a quarter of a billion dollars in new taxes each year, then D.C. families should be the primary beneficiaries.”

I’ll try to say this nicely: Consistency in D.C. executive-branch decision-making remains in short supply.

Which gets us back to where this column started: the council’s penchant for progressive initiatives pursued at the expense of keeping a close eye on the government Examples? End the tax on tampons (Psst. What about the tax on shoes?); increase the number of plants a marijuana cultivation center can grow; help the terminally ill kill themselves; force employers to schedule work at least 14 days in advance.

As for knowing whether the D.C. government is operating efficiently, effectively and economically, better to ask a rock.

Even when legislative oversight is attempted, as in council member Mary M. Cheh’s (D-Ward 3) investigation into allegations of favoritism in city contracting, efforts come off klutzy. Imagine, as in Cheh’s case, scheduling a public hearing but closing it to the public.

Sad, because the District needs an investigation into contracting practices that favor insiders and campaign contributors. Look no further than the Office of the Chief Financial Officer’s destruction of courageous whistleblower Eric W. Payne. It was a dastardly act performed before the very eyes of council member Jack Evans (D-Ward 2), the finance committee chairman.

But carry on, council navel-gazers.

A decision has not been reached, but a new sheriff — the next U.S. attorney — may be coming to town. If so, he is going to be recruited by Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-Ala.), who may be attorney general when the sheriff’s name is sent to the White House. And the sheriff is going to be a Donald Trump nominee.

Should this come to pass, the District could be in for a world of hurt.

Ah, but letting folks kill themselves was a really, really big win.