Monday, July 1, 2013

The Nature of Politics

    Yet de Jouvenel's teaching also reminds us that resistance to power is always difficult and rare.  Liberal[1] political philosophy asks, "How can naturally free human beings be brought to obey?" but for de Jeuvenel, this is the wrong question.  Political authority is natural, and human beings have a high "propensity to comply."  Political science, consequently, should  be more concerned with the questions, "How do human beings become free?  What prompts them to resist a power which defies law?"
    Freedom and right resistance, de Jeuvenel indicates, derive from a sense of what is fitting, a conviction that some things are unseemly even when commanded by authority or power.  In this view, liberty's proper name is dignity.  Even if we concede that freedom is doing as one wants, it is also true that free people want, and will strive for, control over their own wants.  Human beings are not free if they are merely automatons pursuing desires even if that pursuit is successful.  Freedom presumes the ability to evaluate ends; even more, it requires the kind of courage which enables one to do what is honorable and scorn what is shameful despite the bribes and torments of power.

From the Foreward by Wilson Carey McWilliams to The Nature of Politics: Selected Essays of Bertrand de Jeuvenel.

[1] "Liberal" in this case is used in the original sense, meaning "advocating liberty".  This is still the European sense, but has taken on the opposite meaning in the United States.  The modern U.S. word "libertarian" (small L) is closest in meaning.

I thought it appropriate to excerpt these paragraphs as we approach Independence Day.  Described is not merely the politics practiced among politicians.  It also describes our relationship to our government and how we respond to incentives (positive and negative) designed to shape our behavior.

As I look at our incredibly dysfunctional and astonishingly intrusive Federal Government, I cannot help but wonder if Independence Day is an archaic celebration.  After all, our forebears threw off George III for far less.  We the People have voted for successive governments that have layered the intrusion a little bit every year since the 1930's.  Districts and States have sent back virtually the same representatives and senators year after year, with most of them being captured by the system, perpetuating and expanding it.

We the People have lost control.  We lost it a long time ago.  Now bureaucracy, like a successful fusion reaction, is generating it's own power.  They don't need us any more.  If we cut off any finding, the sky--we are warned--will fall, children will die, unimaginable bad things will happen.  And so our elected officials restore funding, and wonder how to get out of this mess without committing political suicide, and the fusion reaction goes on.

"Resistance to power is always difficult and rare," we read above.  Our Founding Fathers wrote the Declaration of Independence to articulate their resistance.  They hoped that revolution would be rare, but expected it to occur at some point, even for the government that they later designed for the nation they at last founded despite the odds against them.

The power is not merely politicians who would break the law to gain and keep power.  It is also the bureaucracy that gradually strangles the people by regulations--which by law must ensure equal treatment to similarly situated people--that must prescribe everything to an inflexible degree, and penalize any non-compliance with zero-tolerance and a heavy hand.  "Human beings are not free if they are merely automatons pursuing desires even if that pursuit is successful."  We are being made into automatons, by following the increasingly detailed regulations of the government.

"How do human beings become free?  What prompts them to resist a power which defies law?"  Our current Federal Government is so obviously operating beyond the enumerated powers, clearly explained in plain language by the Founding Fathers in speeches and essays as they hoped to persuade people of the several states to approve the Constitution.  Our bureaucracy defies the Constitution.  The President (present and past) orders the bureaucracy to implement actions not authorized by Congress.  Our bureaucracy defies the laws passed by Congress.

How do we become free?  How do we become independent from this power which defies law?

When you know the answer to that and achieve it, you can then say,

Happy Independence Day.

Thursday, January 3, 2013

On the absurdity of the debt ceiling

Around the table last week, we opined that the Republicans should allow the U.S. to go over the fiscal cliff (thereby broadening the tax base) and by supporting any spending bill the President offered, subject only to the debt ceiling.  The thinking was that it would force President Obama to offer real cuts in spending, and hang round his neck the consequences of making spending choices.  Alas, I do not think that the Republicans have a trump card in the debt ceiling, and their efforts to negotiate as if they have it will be painful to watch and fruitless in gaining any significant and necessary spending cuts.

I have come to the conclusion that the debt ceiling is a sham in the way it is implemented.  It is being used to say that spending in excess of the debt limit is unlawful, even if Congress appropriated funds exceeding revenues such that the addition of the deficit to existing debt exceeds the debt limit.  As such, the President is put into the dilemma of choosing to spend appropriated funds (mentioned in the Constitution) in excess of the debt limit (not mentioned in the Constitution, but deriving from a Constitutional power).  In my world, and I suspect in President Obama's, the explicit Constitutional provision trumps derived laws.

The power to issue debt was initially given solely to Congress.  In 1917 and subsequent years, Congress delegated that authority to the Treasury but established a debt ceiling in order to control total borrowing.  Beginning in 1979, the House of Representatives began automatically raising the ceiling by the amount of deficit in each year's budget law. (The Senate has no such rule and must raise the ceiling separately.) [1]

I assert that appropriations funded by deficits implicitly raises the actual debt ceiling.  To artificially cap the limit in law begs for legal conflict.

Most entitlements and a majority of Federal spending are permanently and automatically appropriated.  In 2008, approximately 53% of all Federal spending was automatically appropriated. [2]  With this foundation of automatic appropriations, Congress can appropriate no discretionary spending and still cross the debt ceiling.  Is the President responsible if this happens?  Why then is the President responsible if the government spends discretionary appropriations in excess of the debt limit?  The Constitution does not recognize a difference in appropriations.

I can conclude only that the Congress bears sole responsibility for breach of the debt limit, because they alone can appropriate beyond the debt limit .  But since Congress appropriated the funds according to the Constitution, and since the Constitution is the supreme law of the land, then the debt limit law is inferior and does not control either Congress or the Treasury in spending appropriated funds.

I suspect that President Obama's administration has come to the same conclusion and is now deciding whether and how to apply it when the debt limit is reached.  He said on January 1st of this new year, "I will not have another debate with this Congress over whether or not they should pay the bills that they've already racked up." [3]  For myself, I will agree that he is not responsible for exceeding the debt limit, and that the Treasury should continue to pay the bills the government has obligated itself to pay.  For the rest of the country, there will be a civil war of words and cry of impeachment.

My advice to my countrymen:  Blame Congress.  Tell them to stop automatic appropriations and to hold themselves subject to the debt limit when appropriating funds.  It is stupid to tell the President to Spend but not to Borrow when Spending exceeds Revenue, both of which are under Congress' control.

My second advice to my countrymen: Blame ourselves.  We put the people in office who set up these arrangements, and we haven't removed even the worst offenders.  Part of the reason is in the distributed design of our electoral system (which has very strong merits in other contexts), but most of it is in our failure to only elect honest and effective men and women to office who will adhere to the Constitutional limitations established at our country's founding.  Until we change ourselves for the better, we should expect nothing better from our Congress.