So the venerable polling outfit Rasmussen just released a report today about the relative temperature of prospective Illinois voters. Illinois is our home, and is our focus as we bring our message of balanced government to the people. Read more »
The Responsibility Question
On Monday I was a guest at the Southland Chamber of Commerce luncheon, which featured a debate for the office of Illinois Treasurer between Robin Kelly and Dan Rutherford.
A great question came from the audience which highlights the difference between the candidates in this race, but also is a larger example of the problem that we have in America. Read more »
On Units of Government
Illinois is home for me, I’m a native, born and raised. It’s a beautiful state, rich in resources, with a great history and some of the best people you’d ever want to meet.
The Land of Lincoln
One thing that there isn’t a lot of pride in is the number of units of government Illinois has. We’re tops in the country. As of the 2002 census, Illinois had 6,904 units of government, beating Pennsylvania who had 5,032 units of government. Please, Pennsylvania. If you want to continue to come in second place, keep up that level of effort.
We’ve had some problems, as you can imagine, with all these units of government. The DuPage Water Commission is one such unit of government, which has an up, and now decidedly down, history.
An audit of that unit of government has uncovered negligence and a lack of oversight. And, sadly sounding familiar, a case of missing money. Now, there is talk of the county government absorbing this unit of government and making it a department in the county.
While I’m an advocate of pushing government responsibility closer to the people, this move by the General Assembly and the county doesn’t bother me. Given the responsibilities of the Water Commission, the county is the right home for the responsibilities of the Commission.
I’ve been talking a lot about what I’m calling the “Principle of Proximity” recently. This Principle states that the government that is closer to the people is more accountable and more participatory. For this reason, I have advocated and will continue to advocate for a proper re-allocation of responsibilities in the smaller (closer to the individual) spheres of government. Consolidation of authority, responsibility, and power hasn’t worked well in the general sense.
One of the key questions we have to ask ourselves in analyzing units of government is this: whose responsibility should it be? If the duties of a Water Commission are indeed necessary, it should be acknowledged that there are exceptions to every rule, and in this case, consolidating this responsibility in the next larger sphere of government actually makes sense.
Putting the Big in Big Government
So the federal government employs an all-time high of 2.15 million people. This largest-ever federal payroll will grow by 153,000 people in 2010.
The Administration indicates that this will drop in 2011 as temporary census workers will reduce headcount by 80,000. Of the 2.15 million, 1.43 million are civilian (non-military) workers. Remarkably, this figure does not include Postal employees.
In a balanced government scenario, the lion’s share of these government employees would work in the states. There, they would be closer to their benefactors, where bureaucracy could be checked by common sense and watchdog taxpayers.
As a frame of reference, 2.15 million people is roughly the population of Houston, Texas.
When Bad Government Gets Worse
One of the key ideas I try and communicate in both writing and speaking is that there are all types of government, and the most important government – self-government – is the least practiced. Distant, external government has no business getting involved in areas that are best administered closest to the people. This is what “Balanced Government” is all about.
Yet, we proceed down a dangerous path, immune, it seems, to the warning signs around us. This story today notes that there is a proposal for expanding the FHA: a Depression-era holdover that defies reason by growing in importance as we move further away from the Depression.
The most noteworthy part of the article (emphasis mine):
The plan would be a massive expansion of the Federal Housing Administration, the Depression-era mortgage insurer. FHA would take on $300 billion in new loans for as many as 1 million distressed homeowners, most of whom otherwise wouldn’t qualify for a government-backed loan.
Taxpayer dollars would be at risk should borrowers default on their new mortgages.
So, most of the homeowners in question wouldn’t qualify for a government-backed loan; yet, they’d be getting one. On top of this, defaults – when they occur – will be borne largely by the American taxpayer. Translated loosely, if you’re not getting one of these loans, you’re acting as the bank with your tax dollars (and no, you don’t get a vote in the credit committee). If we hit a recession and people default? That’s no longer the problem of Bank of America, or Wells Fargo, or Indymac Bank. Now it becomes the problem of the American taxpayer.
The complicated scheme gets worse, but the details aren’t the important point. The important point is that the federal government has no business bailing people out of private contracts they entered into in good faith. Even if one could imagine a scenario whereby having “the government” void a perfectly legal contractual agreement seems like a good idea (and I cannot), there’s absolutely no basis for having that sphere of government be the one that’s furthest away from the people. Hard hit real estate markets – such as Miami or Detroit – will be supported by people from all over the country. Their lack of caution, greed-driven speculation or simple indifference to obligations and lack of respect for contracts shall be subsidized by productive persons who manage their affairs properly and respect the law.
The bill is H.R. 5830: if by some chance you’re calling your representative, you might voice your displeasure specifically with this legislation.
And lest you think imbalance is confined to the realm of bad economics masquerading as “compassion”, there’s this story today about No Child Left Behind. It appears that the federal government is rolling out more laws to regulate the way States – and by extension, parents – educate their children.
To be perfectly clear, Mr. Madison wrote in Federalist #45:
The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce; with which last the power of taxation will, for the most part, be connected.
The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the State. The operations of the federal government will be most extensive and important in times of war and danger; those of the State governments, in times of peace and security. As the former periods will probably bear a small proportion to the latter, the State governments will here enjoy another advantage over the federal government.
To Madison’s list I would add only: administration of the courts.
Amazing, then, that we’ve sunk to the condition we’re in. Will liberty be lost, crowded out by the ever-greater expansion of external government, simply because people aren’t educated on the proper role of the federal government? Or will we once again hold accountable ourselves, our neighbors, and our government?
The Tenth Amendment reads: “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.” The guidlines are there; the justification has been made; all we’re required to do is learn it and insist on compliance by those we send to represent us.