Government emergency
Paul Jacob
Sunday, February 15, 2009
It’s not exactly new, but using the word “emergency” to justify political
action — particularly new spending or new taxation — has emerged as the default
rhetorical (and legal) trick of the modern politician.
Back on the campaign trail, candidate Barack Obama promised transparency in the
legislative process. President Obama, on the other hand, now says that he will
sign his new super-duper Keynesian “stimulus” bill on Monday, without benefit
of transparency. He has pushed it through Congress without first publishing it
online for the promised five days of citizen review. (Of course, not a single
congressman has read the 11,000-page bill, either.)
Why must we not look before we leap? We are in a crisis, that’s why, an
“emergency.”
But of course, it would take bigger brains than the president has in his trust
— or we have on tap on this spheroid we call Earth — to demonstrate why the
spending is needed a mere five days earlier than his transparency promise would
allow. Five days won’t add an appreciable kick to any alleged stimulus.
And hey: Five days late could mean a workweek’s delay in paying the bill for
all the “stimulus” . . . three centuries from now.
Economic historian Robert Higgs, in his brilliant book Crisis and Leviathan,
developed what he calls “the ratchet theory of government growth.” He notes
that government spending tends to spike upwards in times of crisis, when people
panic, or when spending may actually be necessary (such as after Pearl Harbor),
but once the crisis is over, spending rarely subsides back to the pre-crisis
levels. Spending does not fall below the last click of the political ratchet.
Thus we know how Big Government emerges: Through emergencies, real or
perceived.
Or, as it often the case, trumped up.
Too cynical?
No, of course not. There’s so much evidence for this theory of government
growth that really, I could just stop right here and be done with it.
But let’s briefly consider the evidence not at the national level, but closer
to home, in the states.
Politicians in the state of Maine provide today’s most instructive example. To
tell the story, though, I’ll start with the citizenry
.
Not too long ago a Maine citizens group with a hard-to-forget name, “Fed Up
With Taxes,” petitioned to put a legislated tax, the Dirigo Drink Tax, to a
referendum vote. The tax was earmarked to fund the state’s “Dirigo Health
Program” by targeting a consumer group — drinkers of malt liquor, wine, and
soft drinks — whose habits “have a negative influence on health.” Last
November, Maine voters went to the polls and repealed the tax.
Now, such rebelliousness really enrages some politicians. Forgetting that the
United States began as a tax revolt, they hate it when the people get involved
in politics and actually cut taxes. It upsets their spending plans.
So, what to do?
Hobble the citizen petitioning process, of course. In Maine’s case, they are
“blessed” with the presence of Representative Mark Bryant, who came to the
establishment’s rescue with a bill requiring all people who gather petitions to
be registered to vote.
We’ve heard this story before. A number of states have set up regulations,
putting up higher and higher hurdles to the petitioning process. My own recent
scuffle with the state of Oklahoma (though not its citizens) comes to mind.
Mr. Bryant may or may not be aware how tricky this all is. The United States
Constitution mentions a right of the people to petition the government, and
judges have been striking down state legislative attempts to make petitioning
harder.
What makes Bryant’s little foray into unconstitutional liberticide interesting
is the way he formulated it.
He calls his bill “an emergency.”
I’ve mocked this elsewhere. There’s no emergency in Maine . . . just citizens
going about doing their business as citizens. There’s certainly no crisis,
except in the confidence citizens place (less and less each day) in their
so-called representatives.
And Bryant’s bill exacerbates that crisis. So why this talk of “emergency”?
Well, look elsewhere. In cities, states, and counties around the country,
politicians use the word “emergency” to avoid subjecting their laws to citizen
oversight, input, and possible repeal.
In Lewis and Clark County, Montana, county bigwigs used the cover of
“emergency” to ignore established rules for public comment on proposed zoning
changes.
In Oregon, another “zoning emergency” was invoked to prohibit any development
within spitting distance of the old Oregon Trail. It turns out that most Oregon
legislation receives the imprimatur of “emergency,” just to avoid giving
citizens even the slightest opportunity to challenge the law by citizen
referendum.
Washington State’s Supreme Court ruled that the state’s legislature may suspend
citizen-voted law whenever it wants, so long as it is specified on grounds of
“the immediate preservation of the public peace . . . and its existing public
institutions.”
These examples are from but one corner of the country. The problem is pervasive
nationwide. Look at legislation in your state. Or city, or county. You will
find regular abuse of the term “emergency.”
American government today plays the part of the Great and Powerful Oz, an old
man hidden behind a curtain trying to scare a little girl. If he booms out the
word “emergency” often enough, he hopes we won’t look behind the curtain.
It’s the job of the citizen to yap like Toto. And tear the curtain to shreds.
Copyright © 2009 Salem Web Network. All Rights Reserved
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
This is a Free Speech forum. The owner of this list assumes no responsibility
for the intellectual or emotional maturity of its members. If you do not like
what is being said here, filter it to trash, ignore it or leave. If you leave,
learn how to do this for yourself. If you do not, you will be here forever.
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
