Posted on 04/28/2003 11:26:22 AM PDT by hsmomx3
Have you ever noticed that when someone says that a government service or program is for the common good, it is rarely good for you or your family? In most cases, you end up footing the bill for someone else's benefit.
There are thousands of examples. Listed below are some of them.
- Millions of taxpayers pay for a light-rail system that they will never use, because it is supposedly for the common good.
- Tourists pay a special stadium tax on rental cars and hotel rooms for stadiums that they will never use, because it is supposedly for the common good.
- Citizens who enjoy bowling and stock car races are forced to subsidize art museums for hoity-toity arts patrons, because it is supposedly for the common good.
- Parents who homeschool their kids or send them to private schools are forced to pay public school taxes, because it is supposedly for the common good.
- Young workers have 15 percent of their wages taken to pay the Social Security and Medicare benefits of retirees, because it is supposedly for the common good.
In each of these cases, one thing is clear: Those who receive other people's money are more likely to say it is for the common good than those who have their money taken. Less clear is the meaning of "the common good," although the lack of a definition has not stopped politicians, the press and the public from invoking the term to justify government expenditures of all kinds.
So what is the common good? The true common good can be determined by asking five questions. The questions are listed below, followed by examples and explanations. The more "yes" answers, the more the program or service is for the common good. Conversely, the more "no" answers, the less the program or service is for the common good.
1. WILL THE GOVERNMENT PROGRAM OR SERVICE BENEFIT ALL OR MOST CITIZENS?
The answer is yes for such services as national defense and law enforcement. The answer is no for thousands of other services. Light rail is an example of the latter.
Light rail directly benefits only the one percent or so of citizens who ride the trains. Light-rail advocates say that it benefits the 99 percent who do not ride the trains, because light rail significantly reduces traffic and pollution. They are wrong. Light rail does not significantly reduce traffic and pollution.
What about public education? Since 90 percent of students attend government schools, the answer is yes. But as you will see later, the answer to other questions is no with respect to public education.
2. IS THE PROGRAM OR SERVICE A NECESSARY AND EFFECTIVE USE OF PUBLIC MONEY?
Let's answer the question for light rail and roads.
The answer is no for light rail. It is the most expensive, inflexible and time-consuming form of transportation. It also gets the smallest bang for the buck.
The answer is yes for roads. Unless goods and emergency services are going to be delivered on the backs of Sherpas or donkeys on narrow paths, a society needs roads. Moreover, no one has yet invented a more effective way of moving millions of automobiles, which are the preferred form of transportation for 98 percent of citizens, who want the comfort, speed and flexibility that cars provide.
What about social welfare programs? Are they a necessary and effective use of public money? Liberals would say yes, pointing out that the programs help all citizens in the long run by ameliorating the conditions that cause crime and other social dysfunction. Conservatives would say no, pointing out that welfare dependency is the primary cause of out-of-wedlock births and single-parent families, which, in turn, are the primary causes of crime and other social dysfunction.
What about public education? Like social welfare, the answers are split. While few people take the position that publicly funded, compulsory education is not good for society, many people say that government schools are not effective in delivering the education and should not be a monopolistic provider.
So what should be done when the there are both yes and no answers to one of the five questions? For sure, a decision should not be made based on the answers to only one question. The other four questions should be answered before deciding if a program or service is for the common good.
3. IS THE USER'S COST PROPORTIONAL TO THE USER'S BENEFIT?
Returning to the example of light rail and roads, the answer is once again no for light rail and yes for roads.
Riders of light rail pay only a fraction of the cost of the ride in fares. Most of the cost is borne by nonusers through taxes. Roads are the opposite, since close to 100 percent of their cost is paid by drivers through gas taxes, license fees and sales taxes on cars.
Incidentally, light-rail subsidies amount to more than pocket change. I have calculated that someone who rides a typical light-rail system over a 25-year career will receive about $100,000 in subsidies from non-riders.
To take another example, the answer is yes for city water, because users pay for the water they use. They do not pay for their neighbor's water.
And to take a final example, the answer is no for public schools, because most parents pay only a fraction of the cost of the education for their children. For instance, a middle-class family of four children in Arizona will receive an education benefit of approximately $336,000 but pay only about $75,000 in education taxes over a lifetime.
4. IS IT SOMETHING THAT THE GOVERNMENT HAS TO PROVIDE, BECAUSE THE PRIVATE SECTOR WILL NOT OR CANNOT PROVIDE IT?
For-profit companies are not going to provide services that are uneconomic and cannot turn a profit. Moreover, they are not going to provide a service in which nonpaying users can get a free ride at the expense of paying users. Take the hypothetical example of citywide police services being privatized. Unless a private business had the power to force all citizens to pay for the service, some citizens would not pay for the service but would still get the benefits of the service.
Private security guards and systems are different, because security companies can pick and choose their customers and ensure that non-customers do not get free protection at the expense of paying customers.
Private toll roads are also different. With them, a business has control over pricing and the ability to keep freeloaders from using the system.
Nonprofit organizations and individuals are another matter. There are plenty of examples where they can provide services currently provided by the government, even though there is no profit in it for them. For example, social welfare can be provided by private charities and mutual aid organizations. Also, parochial schools do an excellent job of educating children.
5. IS IT AUTHORIZED BY THE U.S. CONSTITUTION?
There is not space in this article for a scholarly discussion of the Constitution, but one constitutional subject does merit a mention here: the general welfare clause of the Constitution.
There is considerable debate among constitutional scholars as to whether Hamilton's or Jefferson's meaning of the clause is the correct interpretation. But it is clear that neither Hamilton, Jefferson nor the other Founders would have ever intended for today's federal welfare programs to be authorized by the clause. It also is clear that federal spending on local services like light rail and public education is not authorized by the clause. (The commerce clause also does not authorize federal spending on light rail, because city transit systems have nothing to do with interstate commerce.)
To summarize, the following five questions should be asked to determine if a government service or program is for the common good:
1. Will the government program or service benefit all or most citizens?
2. Is the program or service a necessary and effective use of public money?
3. Is the user's cost proportional to the user's benefit?
4. Is it something that the government must provide, because the private sector will not or cannot provide it?
5. Is it authorized by the U.S. Constitution?
In conclusion, if politicians were required to answer these questions before voting for a new government program, there would be a lot fewer government programs. But there would be a lot more common good.
___________
Mr. Cantoni is an author, columnist and founder of Honest Americans Against legal Theft (HAALT).
I hadn't realized Dole said that, good for him. That "takes a village to raise a child" phrase of hers has always sent chills running down my spine. It definitely puts the Hitler in Hitlery.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.