In the midst of a recent comment the author revealed a fundamental assumption that he and I don’t share that clearly explains why we have differing views on government:
Federal mandates are about the only power the government has to prevent a race to the bottom. . . THE only way to get some states to do what needs to be done is to simply mandate it. The race to the bottom has got to end.
I should start by saying that federal mandates truly are the only power that government has to prevent a race to the bottom – also that I don’t think such mandates are sufficient to prevent such a race (in other words government is powerless to stop that race). After exploring the assumptions that serve as the foundation for that statement about a race to the bottom I quickly concluded that I could not accept that view of the world for myself.
The view that government must use federal mandates to prevent a race to the bottom seems to be built on the belief of Thomas Hobbes that people are basically selfish and evil. People who act as Hobbes expects will naturally engage in a race to the bottom on any issue. It is possible to believe that states will engage in a race to the bottom while still thinking the people are not basically selfish but to hold that combination of beliefs requires a belief that politics is basically corrupt and that it is mainly those who would engage in a race to the bottom who hold public office.
[quote]The really damning aspect of that view of government is how it is self contradictory. It provides a perfect catch-22 because if all people are basically selfish then a government run by men cannot be trusted to prevent a race to the bottom. Even if it is only the selfish who are in power how is it possible to believe that selfish people are controlling the state governments and would send them in a race to the bottom and yet believe that by some force of magic the federal government is not also filled with this same type of selfish, short-sighted individual? I don’t understand how a person can believe that individuals are constantly working against the good of society while arguing that individuals in government are somehow made with a higher level of morality giving them a better sense for the good of society. Even harder to comprehend is the suggestion that there is some fundamental difference between those who hold federal office and those who hold state office – especially where the suggestion is that those holding federal office have a better sense of what is good for the state than those holding state office.
The alternative, as best expressed by Jean-Jacques Rousseau is that men are basically good. Basically good is not the same as absolutely good so there is still a need to have government operating in society, making sure that the worst of people are not allowed to freely plunder from the rest of people and providing structure in matters that are not issues of right or wrong, such as establishing weights and measures and defining what side of the street to drive on. Translated into the arena of government this view suggests that anytime government does things beyond what it is meant to do it is much more likely to be impeding a race to the top than it is to be preventing a race to the bottom. Those who believe in the basic goodness of their fellow men should be naturally cautious about inserting government into all facets of life, even if they believe that those holding public office are acting on the best of intentions for the good of society.
I don’t really follow your argument here. Perhaps my definition of a race to the top/bottom differs from yours. I have tended to view those terms in an economic context – a race to the bottom being pursuit of policies that result in impoverishing the majority of citizens in one way or another. The race-to-the-bottom policies are supported by politicians who either truly believe those policies ought to have a different effect (ignoring evidence to the contrary), those who feel it is politically expedient to pursue those policies, and those who are responding to quasi-bribery or other corrupt influences.
The federal government has had to mandate action in the states in some cases for noble causes – desegregation and voting rights, for example. In other cases, they have imposed “solutions” that don’t work and then failed to fund them leaving states with the burden of paying for a mandated program that will not accomplish its goals (NCLB for example).
When we think of politicians, we must remember the adage “Power corrupts”. Particularly in a political system that requires a candidate to raise huge amounts of money each election cycle to be competitive, we are foolish to imagine that honesty and good intentions for society are the key drivers for action in the halls of Congress or the White House. It seems to me that our main goal should be removing the corrupting influence of money rather than simply restricting the role of government. There is no role small enough for a corrupt government, but an honest government is the ally of the people.
Based on your comment here I think our definitions of a race to the top/bottom are fairly similar. I certainly did not mean to suggest that the Federal Government should never mandate any action on the part of states – but those noble cases you cited are the exception while NCLB type mandates tend to be the rule for what and how the Federal government tends to mandate things.
I think that your reference to “power corrupts” is very apt and confirms my position that we have no reason to believe that the federal government will generally be better suited to deal with problems than the state or local governments. Of course there will be exceptions, but the larger and more intrusive the federal government is the more power it draws to itself and the more power it has the more likely it is to corrupt good people in government and to draw already corrupt people to participate – that’s reason number one for keeping strict limits on the power of government.
I can see how you might think that I had a rosy view of the motives of elected officials – perhaps I can clarify my view. I recognize the corrupting influence of power which is one of the reasons I prefer to kick out any incumbent who has been in Washington for a while (assuming they have a challenger who seems capable of doing the job) and also why I favor term limits for all federal offices (wouldn’t hurt at the state level either). On the other hand, I believe that only a very select minority of elected officials are maliciously taking bribes and seeking legislation that they know is detrimental to society while benefiting their benefactors. If we recognize that they are not evil or rotten then we can recall them without having to get angry at them. I can’t recall a single elected official that I have personally met and not liked as a person – and yet there are many that I disagree with and would like to see replaced.
Anyone who believes that people are fundamentally flawed in general, or believe that power corrupts and government is riddled with bribery and corruption cannot logically argue that government can or should be expected to prevent a race tot he bottom – after all, the only tools the government has are what they take from society (not saying that they never should, only that taking more to do more is not always a good idea). It’s like a game of Jenga – they can build the tower taller if they are willing to take two pieces from the lower levels rather than limiting themselves to taking the middle piece of each level. That taller tower however is much less stable and durable than the tower where they leave the outer structure intact for the entire height of the stack.
It is critical that we examine the fundamental assumptions of political leaders, political parties, and political philosophies. I have had many disagreements in political discussions that were the result of differences of fundamental assumptions. You can’t have a coherent discussion about health care reform until you understand your own assumptions about human nature and government.
I keep hearing commentators lament that conservatives only listen to conservative news and opinion outlets and that liberals do the same. But I wonder if liberals and conservatives tend to listen to people who share their basic assumptions. What is the point of reading a column written by someone who has a different view of human nature that shapes everything that he or she says? You know in advance that you are going to disagree with everything the columnist says and that you won’t be persuaded.
The funny thing about that – I read an article months ago that reported research showing that conservatives were more likely than liberals to read the viewpoints of people they did not agree with (that may be because there is more to read).
I find that it is very helpful to pay attention to those who do not share my outlook so long as they are able to articulate their position rather than just attacking those they disagree with – it rounds out my thinking immensely and teaches me things I might not otherwise learn.
I agree that it’s important to hear opposing viewpoints. But if one person in an argument values liberty as the highest value and the other person values equality as the highest political value, they aren’t likely to make much progress. They can talk all day about the merits of NCLB or overhauling the tax system, but they assign value differently. That doesn’t mean that there is no value in the dialog, just that they aren’t going to persuade each other.
It’s true that dialog is not always productive. Sometimes it is better to listen/read without responding.
The point of reading or listening to the views of those with a different world view is that it is essential to our ability to govern ourselves that we remain capable of courteous and open discourse with those who views differ, even radically, from our own. The fragmentation of our news and opinion sources leaves us with two different sets of “facts” on most important issues. We not only are confronted with opinions arising from different views of human nature, but those opinions are based on an aggregation of “facts”, all of which come from biased sources.
Those on the left and right can often not agree about the basic facts on health insurance, Afghanistan, bank bailouts, unemployment or any other serious issue. Often the real facts are completely missing from the media discussion because they are too controversial or paint powerful people in a bad light. Although my political views are on the left end of the spectrum, I am eager to engage in dialog with responsible conservatives who share a love of this country and a desire to work for a better life for themselves and their children. Without that dialog we will be unable to regain a functioning government.
I could not agree more. If we cannot be open to a variety of opinions the only thing that is guaranteed is that we will be misinformed on virtually every issue.
David, sorry to reach out this way. Could you call me at 801-867-1704?
Thanks,
Rob Miller
“The view that government must use federal mandates to prevent a race to the bottom seems to be built on the belief of Thomas Hobbes that people are basically selfish and evil.”
I see it more as an amoral issue, neither good or evil just the natural result of competitive behavior. Corruption may play a role in the behavior but I don’t buy for a minute that it is the cause.
The States compete with each other for business, population, Culture, etc. The most common sold solution to increasing business and economy is of course tax cuts to business interests or other incentives to bring an additional business activity. This makes a lot of sense on the local/regional scale of a state. Their are exceptions to this of course where a state is large enough to support economic activity without incentives, California, New York, etc. In states that are large enough the ability to increase economic activity through tax benefit is minimal and the solution becomes social programs, and other projects. Their is also an increased negative impact from social problems in places with high population density’s further tilting this tax benefit vs. social program benefit scale.
Many rural republican states don’t get or see the same benefit from federally mandated programs as do urban democrat states. If Utah could take the $1.7 Billion dollars it spends yearly on medicaid and do something else with it the state itself business and economic wise would likely do better through at the expense of the nation as a whole. If only California had a program for delivering health care to the poor, then all the poor would move to California and bankrupt the system. If only New York provided free public education then their system would be flooded and go bankrupt.
Their are environmental Issues as well, What one state does effects the states around it. If California throw out all environmental regulations for air quality on their eastern border area the quality of air in Nevada and Utah would plummet and Utah and Nevada would be paying for California’s behavior indirectly.
The biggest problem with Federally mandated programs are not the programs themselves but the poor model under which the Federal Government pays the states to run them. Rural Republican states despise these programs and rightfully so as they rarely get the same benefit from them that Urban Democrat states get. The Federal Government needs to give additional aid to rural states that are disproportionally burdened by Federally Mandated programs.
The also leads to the problem that is common among Republicans in that their is a disconnect between taxation and the social programs, but perhaps that is an argument for another day =p.
Hobbes was a theologian and used religious language, but we can take the religiously tinged language away and say that he two views are that men are either noble (seeking for more than simply their own immediate interest) or base (seeking only their personal and usually immediate interest).
Your analysis of state competition ignores the possibility that state lawmakers discover the truth that endless tax cuts eventually become obviously destructive to the state as a whole – competition or not – and then they would go on to find the appropriate level of taxation etc. to maintain their respective states without federal intervention such as we have now. I think everybody knows that you can’t bring businesses without people and you can’t bring many people without some quality of life.
You note the fundamental differences between the economic and social position of states like California vs states like Utah – I think that is proof that the federal government should not try to normalize everything between states. Let Utah compete with it’s natural resources for people, businesses and capital and let California compete with it’s resources. There is no rule that they should be equal (except some federal rules). On the other hand you make an absurd assertion that if California were the only state to offer health care to the poor all the poor would move there. Think about it, the poor are the least able to just move to a new place to abuse the system. That argument is founded on the same premise as the argument of those who say that anyone in D.C. who does not like the fact that they have no voting representation in Congress should just move somewhere else.
I think fear of a race to the bottom only comes when people fail to understand how much incentive to innovate and succeed comes from the reality that failure is an option – performing without a safety net changes the way people operate. We have constructed so many safety nets that that the whole nation has become careless.
The problem can be seen much easier from an international perspective, illegal immigration from Mexico and south America is often occurring not just for the economic purpose(job money etc) and for access to American services for the poor.
The border between states is much less difficult to cross then the border between country’s. The transportability of problems is an observable effect. Right here in Utah their are schools that have had outbreaks of Mumps and whooping cough due to a combination of illegal immigrate children not getting vaccines and to a lesser extent those who are religiously opposed, Mumps tends to mutate in the process of infection and jump to those that have been immunized.
The transportability of problems is magnified by economic difference, You don’t see Mexicans clamoring to illegally immigrate to Cuba they want to go to the places of economic/social benefit. This same effect would be happening between the states if their was not some level of Federal intervention.
Now their are a few limited non Federal ways states can run social programs, By placing barriers to entry into these programs. Higher education typically has 2 different tuition levels in the United States In-state and Out-of-state. Taken to K-12 can you image how the level of education in this Nation would suffer if you moved to a new state and your child’s elementary wanted you to pay $5,000-$6,000 out of pocket per year for your first 3-4years living in that state? If you have 2-3 kids and make around the median wage(40K) their is no way to could afford to educate all of them, Perhaps you can just send your first son to school and you can just marry off your daughters(hmm this is starting to sound a bit third world).
“I think fear of a race to the bottom only comes when people fail to understand how much incentive to innovate and succeed comes from the reality that failure is an option – performing without a safety net changes the way people operate. We have constructed so many safety nets that that the whole nation has become careless.”
That’s a far to simplistic view. Does Failure mean that ones children should not get an education or get treatments that save them from third world diseases? Is Death an acceptable result of job failure due to loss of health benefits? How far does your definition of failure go?
Failure generally should be equal in size to what is lost or risked and be applied to the thing that caused the failure, Working class Joe really hasn’t put forth the risk of being subjected to failure that extreme. And if his company goes out of business it’s unlikely that it is his fault. Shouldn’t the people in charge(CEO,management) be the ones that suffer from their failure?
Reading Ronald’s comment above reminded me of Fed Up with Federalism, an article I read yesterday. Perhaps the problem is the system itself. The author makes the point “When investment, production, and consumption are all in decline, the only way to keep the economy from shrinking is for the federal government to deficit spend and create a stimulus. But while the federal government pours money in, the state and local governments, which cannot deficit spend, see their tax revenue shrinking, so they cut spending, raise taxes, or both — taking money out of the economy. America’s distinct brand of federalism inherently impedes an economic recovery.”
This get backs to the original premise. Some see the maintenance of the federalist status quo as sacrosanct and others have no problem rethinking the entire plan if it is no longer delivering the benefits for which the republic was founded.
The author of Fed Up with Federalism has bought into the faulty but widely held assumption that an economic contraction is inherently bad. Of course a recession hurts in the short term, and there are no guarantees of a long term benefit, but growth for its own sake is not inherently good. Economic bubbles are an example of growth for the sake of growth, they have no foundation. Growth is good when it is founded on solid fundamentals like increased productivity and increased goods.
Good point David. The idea that we can have continuous economic growth with no end in sight is a tragic flaw of modern capitalism. Now we have arrived at a point where we simply don’t produce that many useful goods and our productivity gains are realized through layoffs that force the remaining workers to increase their pace.
While economic contraction is inevitable, it is not inevitable that the suffering caused by that contraction should be borne only by those at the bottom of the economic ladder or that the people of one state should suffer while those in another do not. At a time of economic contraction, I believe government at some level must intervene to cushion the blow. It is a time when a social safety net is vitally important, when we need to create meaningful jobs that produce the goods we will need to lay the groundwork for a strong economy. Wasting money on giveaways to bankrupt financial institutions and military adventurism will only make matters worse.
In our current political system, the states are largely impotent to provide this assistance since increasing taxes, even if wise, would be political suicide. We are left with the Federal government. If Obama’s entire stimulus package had been simply handed to state governments, allocated by population, it would probably have accomplished a great deal more than it has.
I could not agree more that “wasting money on giveaways to bankrupt financial institutions and military adventurism will only make matters worse.”
While I agree that it is not inevitable that those at the bottom of the economic ladder should exclusively suffer the effects of an economic contraction or that one state should suffer while another does not I think we need to challenge a few assumptions. In a large corporation it is true that those at the top can feel virtually no effect when they choose to lay people off in the company whether out of necessity or to squeeze more profits out of the reduced workforce. On the other hand, in smaller companies that is simply not the case. Small business owners ore very often not in the lower economic classes and yet the small business owners I have known (and in some cases worked for) generally feel a great deal of economic pain even before their employees do as they take losses and reduced incomes in an effort to keep people employed. I worked for a small company once that laid off 3/2 of their employees during a nasty downturn – I was among the 2/3. I got another job and incurred some debt, but the owners of the company took losses, second mortgages, and I don’t even know what else trying to survive and keep the company afloat financially (they succeeded).
As for states, why should one state be required to feel the economic pain simply because another state is in financial trouble? Admittedly I don’t think that any state should be left to flounder on its own, but one state having a boom or a bust in isolation is extremely rare.
I can tell that this is going to be enough for its own post so visit today’s post to see more of that I think on this subject.
Agreed David, and a good reason why we should not make policy decisions affecting business using the assumption that small business and large corporations will respond in similar ways.