Passing Laws; E. Banfield

Why the rush? Why the deception? Why the private dinners and the off-the-record ac cord? As noted by Philip Meranto, public opinion polls show that the "passage of the Education Act of 1965 was not the result of increased public support for federal aid," adding that "if the 1964 and 1965 polls were at all reflective of public attitudes, less than half of the adult population approved of the action taken." A Gallup poll conducted January 28-February 2, 1965, found that only 49 percent agreed that the federal government should pay more of the costs of supporting public schools.4 Conclusion Intentional misrepresentation by govern ment officials undergirded passage of both the National Defense Education Act of 1958 and the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965. With the NDEA, the bill's ostensible justification was the "Sputnik crisis"; with the ESEA, it was the "war on poverty. " But those fanning public appre hension about the Sputnik crisis did not believe it was a crisis, just as those promot ing the ESEA as an antipoverty measure understood that it would disproportionately benefit the wealthy. It matters little how many come to understand the truth now: the bills became law; they altered U.S.

institutions; and in due time they inerad icably changed public perceptions of the accepted (and hence acceptable) role of government. D 1. Regarding the complex reasons for President Dwight Eisenhower's support of the NDEA, see Robert A. Divine, The Sputnik Challenge (New York: Oxford University Press, 1993), pp. 4-5, 31, 35-39, 41. 2. Quotations of public officialshere and elsewhere in this article are from contemporaneous public documents such as the relevant House and Senate hearings and committee reports. For details, see Charlotte Twight, "Federal Control Over Education: Crisis, Deception, and Institutional Change" (1994). 3. John Brademas, The Politics of Education: Conflict and Consensus on Capitol Hill (Norman, Okla.: University of Oklahoma Press, 1987), p. 16. 4. PhilipMeranto, The Politics ofFederal Aid to Education in 1965: A Study in Political Innovation (Syracuse, N.Y.: Syracuse University Press, 1967), pp. 42-50, at p. 46; Dr.

George H. Gallup, The Gallup Poll: Public Opinion 1935-1971, Vol. 3 (New York: Random House, 1972), p. 1928. PassingLaws: Is Governing That Simple? by Eric-Charles Banfield A sk Americans what "governing" means, and you'll evoke a wide variety of answers. A common response is that governing should mean protecting Ameri can liberty and property. But administration Mr. Banfield is owner of Banfield Analytical Services in Westmont, Illinois, specializing in writing, speaking, and analysis of financial, economic, and publicpolicy issues. Copyright © 1994 by Banfield Analytical Services. officials and Congressmen in Washington, D.C., have a different idea. To them, gov erning simply means passing legislation. The more legislation, the better they're doing their job. It's a simplistic view. But politicians go to great lengths to defend it. It doesn't matter, it seems, what the legislation is. It doesn't matter that none of the politicians willever read the entire piece of legislation they pass. Nor that, as is often 706 THE FREEMAN • DECEMBER 1994 the case, the law isn't even completely written yet. It doesn't matter that there are so many volumes of legislation that every single American is guilty of ignorance of the law (no excuse, of course).

And it doesn't matter whether or not the legislationpassed is reallygoodfor all Amer ican taxpayers and consumers. Indeed, in most cases, the legislation harms most citi zens, through higher taxes and mandated costs, while lavishing huge benefits upon a particular group or special interest. None of that matters. To many politicians, any legislationthat gets passed is good. That concept-that simply passing a law is good governing-is familiar to many folks. For example, every year or so, by October 1, Congress must approve a new budget for the government's fiscal year. Also, by year-end the government has al ready reached its legal debt limit; Congress must also approve an increase in that limit. That way it can borrow more money to finance its ever-increasing spending. But some Congressmen don't like the details of the budget, or they propose raising the debt limit to a different level. They squabble over the particulars of the bill, delaying its passage. Amid the gridlock, a chorus of politicians from all sides cries that "We must come to a budget agreement so the American people understand that WE CAN GOVERN." Politicians grandstand that failing to agree to a budget or to pass some law is a "failure" of government.

"Americans will lose faith in our ability to govern" is a common refrain. No Government? Politicians defend that idea by enhancing the drama with scare tactics. For example, without a budget, the government cannot operate. Politicians warn that if the govern ment cannot function, "vital services that protect Americans" will be shut down. Some politicians even try to scare the public by telling the media that things like school milk programs or children's vaccines or "the safety of our streets" will be threatened. Blurring the distinction between the government sector and the market sector, pol iticians warn that "The country will be at a standstill." That's not true, of course. The rest of the country will continue operating just fine. But the drama reinforces the pol iticians' point: they must keep passing more legislation, or else cities will crumble and America will fall. Simply, Congress believes that the more legislation it passes, the better it is doing for "America." That's their job, isn't it?

The Other Option But surely things aren't that simple. Many citizens and voters are comingto realize that government has passed far too many pieces of legislation. Americans could dearly stand a comprehensive repeal of most of the legislation and regulations passed in the last 30 or 60 years. Indeed, many believe the country would operate a lot better without all that legislation, and all the regulations that flow from it. A few basic laws against murder, theft, assault, rape, arson, and fraud are sufficientto protect American lives and property. To end that "legislating-is-governing" mentality, perhaps we can persuade Con gressmen to consider another option. Maybe good governing-at least occasion ally-means passing no legislation. Or, better, a wise· legislator might try con sidering the advice of many economists and policy analysts. Try correcting the prob lem at hand by repealing existing regula tions that caused it. It's always better to remove existing restraints than add new ones.

Politicians could gain points with voters by pointing out how many new laws they killed by arguing against new legislation. Facing voters back in the home district, the elected official could pitch: "I saved con sumers in my district $100 million dollars by repealing twelve pieces of onerous and harmful legislation. I prevented the silent but deadly destruction of thousands of jobs by repealing a dozen harmful regulations." The crowd cheers. Our lives are simpler. And governing is good again. 0 Correction, Please Baseball Strikes Out: Who's to Blame? by Mark Skousen "It is quite amazing that America's pastime is exempt from the rules of supply and demand ... Thetime has come for Washington to act. Remove baseball's antitrust exemption now." -Business Week editorial September 26, 1994 A ccording to Business Week, the reason the World Series was canceled in 1994 is simple: baseball is a government sanc tioned-cartel. Remove baseball's immunity from market forces and the Cleveland Indi ans might well be playing in their first World Series since 1954. Sounds convincing, but why blame only the owners? The players' union is exempt from antitrust, too.