Reuters reports today that The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals in Virginia is hearing arguments about whether or not a state (Virginia) may challenge the constitutionality of a federal law. As you might imagine, there is a balanced government position on this matter. What we’re really getting at in the health care debate is this: how far can the government of Washington D.C. reach into the lives of Americans? Read more »
Let’s discuss: Obama calls Ryan’s plan un-American
Hubris is excessive pride or self-confidence; or, in one word, arrogance. Like art, you know it when you see it. The President’s speech of the 13th contained enough to go around, but one comment merits special attention. In his speech, he called Rep. Paul Ryan’s budget proposal un-American. Read more »
Billions Spent; Millions Underserved
President Obama asked Congress yesterday for $1.35 billion of additional funding for education, extending a grant program to the States. Taken from the Washington Times:
The $787 billion economic stimulus program Obama signed into law soon after taking office included $4.3 billion in competitive grants for states, nicknamed the “Race to the Top” fund. States must amend education laws and policies to compete for a share of the money.
The Education Department is expected to announce its first of two rounds of awards in April. More than 30 states were expected to apply by Tuesday’s deadline.
Obama will ask lawmakers for another $1.35 billion so that states not chosen in either award round will have a chance to compete for money, according to the officials, who spoke anonymously Monday because the president had not announced his plans.
This all sounds rather innocent, on a superficial level. States merely improve their education and get money from Washington. An artful spin on this might even be that Washington is encouraging competition among the States; who could object to that? There are a couple problems with this view, however: one problem is the effects of such policies and one problem is the sustainability of such policies.
The Department of Education’s budget for 2009 is a remarkable $64.9 billion. I won’t make the argument in this space that the education system in the United States is a complete failure. While a whole host of data could be drawn upon to make that argument (such as college completion rates remaining essentially unchanged, an indication of how well-prepared students are upon graduation), that’s not the issue for now. The question we have to ask is this: should the federal government be in the business of education?
The Federalist Papers
I generally consult James Madison when questions of propriety and responsibilities among the spheres of government come up. Not surprisingly, in the entirety of the Federalist Papers, not a word is made about what level of government should be responsible for education. Which is not to say that Madison didn’t have an opinion on the matter, as he notes in Fed #39:
In this relation, then, the proposed government [contemplated by the new Constitution] cannot be deemed a national one; since its jurisdiction extends to certain enumerated objects only, and leaves to the several States a residuary and inviolable sovereignty over all other objects.
It’s a recurring theme in the Federalist Papers, if you’ve taken the time to read them. The Constitution that was to be ratified required explanation about what it authorized the federal government to do, and just as importantly, what it didn’t authorize the federal government to do. Of course, Fed #45 also notes:
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.
Perhaps another time we could recount the reasons for our arrival at this point. Certainly there are multiple causes for our ailment. One can point to the progressive left agenda dating back to the New Deal as one such cause. A general apathy about the purpose of government is another. Given time, a book could probably be written detailing each step along the way to today’s environment in which the most distant spheres of government are the most “important” and intrusive.
What we can conclude is that an entire re-ordering of the roles and responsibilities of each sphere of government is necessary. Our current trajectory – ever more centralized, ever more intrusive, ever more unresponsive – is fiscally unsustainable and has the seeds of future failure sown in it. The operative question we must ask in relation to government actions or programs is this: whose responsibility is it? Just as we must do for ourselves that which only we can rightly do, so too should States do for themselves that which only what they rightly should be doing. Abdicating our responsibility and allowing the larger sphere of government to do for us what reason and experience dictate we must do for ourselves may seem innocent enough, but it ever shall be the first chapter in the story of tyranny.
The Tenth Amendment
“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.”
This is the entirety of the Tenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, and the last of the ten amendments referred to as the Bill of Rights. Thankfully, there are people left in the Union who understand the importance of the Tenth Amendment, and some of them are acting on it.
Oklahoma, under the leadership of Representative Charles Key reasserted the rights of the States pursuant to the 10th Amendment. New Hampshire will soon vote on another such measure.
I’ve discussed Federalist 45 extensively on this site and others, but the facts are indisputable: the Founders intended a federal government limited to certain responsibilities, with most responsibility for the domestic matters of American citizens belonging to the States (as delegated to them by those same citizens). This is the entire basis for our system of government. Recent history proves that imbalance – an overly intrusive federal sphere – isn’t working. Let’s support measures like this as we find them as a means of ensuring the continuity, not to mention the solvency, of the Union.
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.