How the States Committed Suicide

RealClearPolicy ^ | December 13th 2013 | Paul Moreno

[Jacquerie]

The 17th consolidated government in Washington, and the 16th funded it. Twin evils.

[Political Junkie Too]

They're both law reviews. Which one, the Oregon or Cleveland?

-PJ

[Jacquerie]

The one in pdf.

[Political Junkie Too]

Actually, the first two bullets have separate PDFs that repeat some themes. The first one (Oregon) is probably a simpler read.

I like how it discusses how the 17th amendment made special interest groups more powerful because the direct election of Senators increased their tenure (the likelihood of being reelected), which resulted in the greater chance that their promises would be kept because special interests could rely on their being there from term to term.

The seniority system made the "promise" of senior senators worth more than others, so the longer one was there the greater that their promises had value to the special interests.

-PJ

[Jacquerie]

All so true. I read each one time and bookmarked for study.

As they are wont to do, liberals exaggerated the problems with a senate of the states. A hundred years of experience with the 17th proves the Framers got it right.

[x]

State politicians then and now are more creatures of their parties, rather than representatives of some state identity, so they go along with what their party wants, not what some Platonic idea of the state would demand. When you vote, are you really putting your state's interest above that of the country or your own party or group?

State legislators also aren't to keen on taking responsibility if it means they may have to take the blame when things go wrong. Of course the federal income tax has a lot to do with that -- much more than direct election of senators. When states controlled the purse strings (Articles of Confederation), states could be quite assertive. When the federal government had independent but limited means of finance, state governments still showed some independence, but since the federal income tax came in, state legislators have been content to get money from the feds and avoid taking the blame for increasing state taxes on their constituents.

And direct election? Before 1913, senators were rarely considered presidential material. They weren't really where the power was. As the name suggests, they were elder statesmen, rewarded for their loyalty, who didn't rock the boat. Since 1913, the senate's become a more powerful place. It holds it's own against other branches of government, and a US Senate seat become something for local politicians to aspire to.

Since then, dozens of senators have run for president. Few won, but that never stopped others from running. State governments are indeed less powerful than they were in the 19th century, but if your state's senator makes it to the White House, your state gets more federal goodies. Even if it's largely an honor the prestige can be translated into real advantages for your state's politicians and elites, and that's another reason why state legislators like direct election of senators.

[highball]

I’ll go you one better - it began with the Assumption Act of 1790, when the federal government took over state debts.

That gave Washington control over the purse strings, and ensured that the states would always be subordinate.