WASHINGTON — The other week New York’s Mayor Bloomberg boldly
proclaimed his city’s intention to ban big soft drinks. Kinda,
sorta. The move was both criticized as insufficient and mocked as
nanny government gone wild.
Fans of federalism might say the Mayor’s action illustrates that
state and local governments have the ability to experiment, as our
Founders contemplated. New York can ban big sodas. Meanwhile, the
folks in Missoula, Montana, and Meridien, Mississippi, and
Montgomery County, Maryland, can make their own decisions on the
subject.
On the other hand, fans of the federal government’s current
trajectory would offer a different perspective: what’s really
needed is more federal regulation to address the plethora of
problems caused by the pesky habit Americans have of making their
own decisions. Happily, they could add, the current administration
has made dramatic progress is displacing the patchwork quilt of
individual actions and state and local laws with enlightened
federal guidance.
Here in The Nation’s Only Boom Town, inside the Beltway, our
ruling elites understand the critical point overlooked by Mayor
Bloomberg: every “problem” has a Washington-centered solution. Our
country has many problems. We are told every day of all that needs
to be done, and urgently at that. And all of our problems can be
solved — or at least “addressed” — if we simply acquiesce in more
federal government control over our decisions and our daily
lives.
It is well appreciated here in Washington that there is just
about nothing that should be left to the sound judgment of state
and local officials. Moreover, it is even less likely that there
are issues encountered in daily life for which individuals
should be expected — or even allowed — to take responsibility. At
least not without oversight from extremely well paid, and of course
very well meaning, public servants in the nation’s capital.
Like the water that fish don’t notice, reminders of
this world view surround us constantly here in
Washington. Around the country, the warmth of this enveloping
governmental benevolence is on display on network talk shows
and in assorted op-ed columns every day. Washington experts are
always ready to explain why ordinary people simply must have more
guidance from the federal government if our societal problems are
ever to be solved.
A couple of examples, which illustrate this phenomenon,
arrived in my email within the past few weeks. While I noticed
these two in particular, it is almost certain I overlooked others
of equal or greater concern. After all, things of this sort have
become so ordinary that one hardly notices. And that’s the very
reason we should sit up and pay attention.
Let Us Help You with That Savings Account
First, I received a program announcement from the National
Journal. This federal government-focused publication
advertised a panel discussion on the subject, “Are the Joneses
Keeping Up? Policy Prescriptions for Personal Financial Security.”
Assorted federal officials and Washington insiders were identified
as panelists.
The program description simply assumes it is proper and
desirable that we consider how “Washington” can “promote financial
literacy for middle-market Americans,” and that we should
discuss what federal programs and policies “could help Americans
save, invest and plan for the future.”
Now perhaps contemplation of what “Washington” might do on these
subjects does no harm. But frankly, I wonder. Should we
assume, as the flyer does, that it’s the role of
Washington to “promote financial literacy” for
presumably benighted “middle-market Americans”? And should we
accept, as a starting point for discussion, that it is up to the
federal government to “help” us “save, invest, and plan for the
future”?
A few decades back, parents taught their children to save by
word and example. My folks took me to the local bank
to open a savings account, with all of about ten dollars, when
I was in the second grade. They wanted me to learn to save. In
the final analysis, at least in those days, it was up to me. As I
was raised to do, after school I got a job and earned money, paid
taxes, and saved a little on my own.
In the past, outside the home, promoting financial literacy was
the province of high school teachers, local banks, investment
advisors, churches, and civic organizations. Planning for the
future was a matter of personal responsibility. And investing — at
least, back before that term came to mean what government does when
it spends billions on green energy companies owned by political
supporters of the president — was a means of saving and preparing
for the future.
Now the federal Consumer Financial Protection Bureau is gearing
up to come into your living room and give you a hand.
Thanks, Mom and Dad, We’ll Take It From
Here
More recently, I received an email from the American Bar
Association summarizing a variety of things going on in Congress.
It seems that Senator Barbara Boxer (D-California) has introduced
the National Parent Helpline Act (S. 2293). This bill would
“establish a national, toll-free telephone parent helpline to
provide information and assistance to parents and caregivers of
children to prevent child abuse and strengthen families.”
As supporters of the bill put it: “This vital new national
resource will assist parents with a wide range of issues such as
parenting and positive discipline techniques, effective
communication strategies, stress reduction, personal care and
safety, and provide referrals to community-based prevention
programs, shelters, substance abuse programs, respite care, and
child care.”
spike59| 6.13.12 @ 6:37AM
Ronaldus Magnus had it EXACTLY right:
The nine most terrifying words in the English language are, 'I'm from the government and I'm here to help.'
Brooksifier | 6.13.12 @ 6:39PM
The great irony is the Greatest Generation set up the Welfare State (the Welfare State is what the author is alluding to) in the 1930s.
FDR took the oath of office when Reagan reached the age of 22--
whatever they did later, the Reagan Generation constructed the Welfare State in the first place.
MelvinNC| 6.13.12 @ 7:26AM
One thing for sure as the sun coming up in the morning, Mayor Bloomberg is one world class horses backside.
Why do I have that nagging feeling that this has Michelle Obama's chili cheese fries greasy finger prints all over this. Even Bloomberg wouldn't be as stupid as this to arbitrarily decide upon himself to conduct a draconian edict.
Maybe Jack Nicholson was right in Batman, "What that city needs is an enema."
Louis Jenkins| 6.13.12 @ 9:00AM
Our government with a Parental Help line? In my day, as a child, my parents stuck to the "spare the whip, spoil the child" line of thought. I toed the line, well most of the time. It could have been much worse, kind of like the Spartans raising their childern. The problem is the government sticks it's nose into the business of almost everything. And it protects the rights of almost everything and everyone. A big, really big, nanny state. An enema would be too kind.
Von Mises Jr| 6.13.12 @ 9:39AM
You want to see the government's solution? It is called modern day serfdom: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TzEEgtOFFlM
LindaF | 6.13.12 @ 10:51AM
I do realize that parents can go over the line on discipline. For those FEW parents, there are already solutions - which will address THOSE parents' issues.
For the rest of us, as long as the punishments are reasonable (for the pre-K to elementary crowd, a spanking or long talking-to; for the middle and high school crowd, well, there are always garages and toilets to be cleaned, house arrest, lose of privileges - car, phone, etc.), it's none of the government's business how you raise your child.
WillyP | 6.13.12 @ 6:06PM
If you call the parenting hotline, as a parent, essentially what you would be doing is reporting your self. There will be a knock on your door...
RJ| 6.13.12 @ 10:59PM
To reduce excessive legislation, we should establish a new branch of government with power similar to the presidential veto. This new branch could revoke any legislation that has been in effect for no less than five years if it determines that it does not serve the national interest. If Congress disagreed, it could enact new legislation.
Consistent with the Founders philosophy of distributing power to minimize its abuse, this branch could consist of nine members with the following groups each selecting three members: 1) the House of Representatives voting by state delegation; 2) the State Governors by majority vote; and 3) the President by appointment. By the end of each session of Congress, each group would select one member to serve for a single six-year term. A majority vote by the members would void legislation. To limit improper influence, members would be prohibited from holding local, state or federal office for no less than six years after their term expired.
The idea of a new branch of government is novel and therefore some may see it as contrary to traditional conservatism, but its potential to eliminate excessive legislation is much stronger than any abuse it could create. Since our society is comfortable with a presidential veto before legislation goes into effect, why not have a subsequent opportunity to "veto" legislation after it has an unsatisfactory track record?