In Praise of Train Wrecks; D. Bandow

One of the reigning principles in Wash ington for the past half century has been that government must play a pervasive role in managing our complex society. Of course, there have been disagreements on marginal questions-should spending on a particular program rise two or ten percent?-which have regularly generated histrionics on Cap itol Hill. But disputes about the basic role of the state have been rare. Despite mass public dissatisfaction in recent years, pres idents and legislators of both parties have kept alive hundreds of federal zombies, agencies and programs that have long out lived their purposes, assuming they ever did fulfill a legitimate need. Even some supposed conservative critics of Washing ton long accepted the status quo with barely a whimper of protest, choosing instead to help raise taxes to fund an endless soup-line for Washington's well-heeled interests. In recent years proposals for old-style pork barrel programs have been advanced in the name of "investments," like an expensive public employment program under the guise of "national service."

The federal government currently conMr. Bandow is a Senior Fellow at the Cato Institute and the author o/The Politics of Envy: Statism as Theology (Transaction). sumes $1.6 trillion worth of national wealth, which is far too much. Yet every major proposed balanced budget plan will signifi cantly increase that number. After decades worth of similar initiatives, it should be obvious that budget "reform' '-small, in cremental changes and slight cuts in growth rates of federal outlays-is no answer. Rather, policymakers need to end pro grams, lots of them. And the only way to do that is to decide that some functions do not belong with the government. The best way to enforce serious cuts, in the face of con tinued resistance by important members of both parties, would be to welcome a "train wreck. " Defenders of the status quo would then face a choice: either accept the end of at least a few programs, or shut down the government, killing every federal agency.

Of course, members of the Washington establishment quail at the thought of defund ing Uncle Sam. Whatever would helpless citizens do? Typical is the American Fed eration of Government Employees (AFGE), which warns against "attempts to slash important government programs" that "threaten to diminish the scope of services the American public demands and expects." AFGE President John Sturdivant cites the potential horrors: "The protection of the eld erly and the environment, the disabled and downtrodden, the safety of our food, prod ucts, transportation and workers and count less other responsibilities of the federal government would be severely disrupted under proposals to eliminate jobs and pro grams. " His words echo along the Potomac. There's no doubt all of these goals are 769 770 THE FREEMAN • DECEMBER 1995 important. But why the near-universal as sumption that such goals can only be ac complished by the federal government?

Consider protection of the elderly. Uncle Sam does little to guarantee seniors' phys ical safety-that is a responsibility of local police. Washington does provide Social Se curity and Medicare, but these programs are hurtling towards insolvency, threatening to drag the entire federal budget down with them. Moreover, they discourage individual saving for retirement and purchase of long term health care insurance, creating mass dependency by the aged. Genuine "protec tion of the elderly" requires rethinking, not reaffirming, government's role. This failure to confront basic principles is also captured by the comments of columnist Mike Causey, who covers the federal gov ernment. He criticized one writer who asked who would notice a shutdown: "He is known to eat food (Agriculture Department) and drink water (Environmental Protection Agency), among other things. He also drives (Department of Transportation) and some times takes prescription drugs (Food and Drug Administration).Ifthere were a govern ment shutdown, he would be among the first to know-and to demand that those useless bureaucrats resume taking care of him."

But all of these examples prove the op posite point. In none of these areas is the government' 'taking care" of people. Amer icans ate food before the Department of Agriculture; this agency simultaneously wastes taxpayer funds and drives up prices. Farmers paid to grow rice in the California desert, not average citizens, would be upset if the Department disappeared. Clean water has also been available for years without the EPA. Federal regulatory dictates in this area have been unduly cumbersome and expensive, exhibiting the usual flaws , of national management of local problems. Private companies, localities, and states all constructed roads before the cr,eationof the Department of Transportation in 1966. Why should taxpayers send money to Washing ton for Congress to parcel out, based on political clout, to fund local projects? And the FDA does not help provide drugs. Rather, it works overtime to prevent people, even those who are dying, from acquiring needed pharmaceuticals. In fact, thousands of people have suffered and died from delays caused by unnecessary federal rules when the very same safe substances were avail able in other industrialized nations.

None of this is to suggest that cutting spending won't cause genuine hardship among employees dedicated to fulfilling their missions, however inappropriate. "I don't feel as confident right now," admitted a Labor Department employee who helps manage the Department's Davis-Bacon pro gram. "I've been in the government 24 years and never lost a day of pay, but this year seems to be different." And it should be. Again, it is time to ask basic questions about the role of govern ment. The Davis-Bacon Act is Uncle Sam at his worst, mandating union-scale wages in construction projects receiving federal money. That not only costs taxpayers more; it also prevents lesser-skilled and often mi nority labor from competing for govern mentfunded projects. In fact, as a new study from the Center for the Study of American Business relates, the law was originally passed earlier this century for the explicit purpose of barring blacks from com peting with whites for work. Congress should eliminate the program and, yes, em ployees running the program should have to find work that doesn't harm the public.

Instead of fearing a budget train wreck, people should welcome it. It is time to ask the sort of question rarely considered in Washington: do we wish to remain a free society? Uncle Sam is too expansive and expensive. Yet over the years would-be revolutionaries in the nation's capital have found out how hard it is to kill even the smallest program, like federal tea-tasting. So shut down Washington. Then people will realize that they don't need the Department of Agriculture for food, the EPA for water, the DOT for roads, and the FDA for phar maceuticals. Then people will better under stand the value of freedom. D THEFREEMAN IDEASON L1BERlV No Thanks, Uncle Sam by Elizabeth Larson T oday's businesswoman needs affirma tive action like a fish needs a bicycle. With two important developments in the affirmative-action battle this past summer the Supreme Court's decision in Adarand v. Pena and the vote by the University of California Board of Regents to discontinue affirmative-action policies for student ad missions-an optimist might assume this last universal barrier to women's advance ment in the workplace is finally about to topple. Yet victories over policies that are not just misguided but morally wrong must be won at the intellectual level as well as the practical.