The Death of Federalism

Column for week of June 16, 2014

     The government in D.C. is commonly called "the federal
government."  We have federal laws, federal buildings and
federal courts.  What is federal about them, other than the
names?

     A federation is an association of independent entities.  In
the beginning this described "These United States."  And, in the
beginning the USA was referred to as "These United States."

     On separation from Britain each colony became an
independent nation.  These sovereign nations formed a federation
and assigned it certain tasks.  This federation was to serve its
sovereign member nation.  The 13 sovereign states were not
ruled by the federal government they created.

     The original federation proved unsatisfactory to some. 
The U. S. Constitution created a new federation.  Each of the 13
sovereign states voted to join the new federation.

     The constitution creating the new federation clearly stated
that the federal government had only the few powers named in
the Constitution.  All other powers were reserved to the
sovereign states and the people.  This was a true federation.  The
federal government was to serve the states, not rule them.

     Contrast this with state governments, such as Michigan. 
No one I know calls Michigan a federation of counties. 
Counties didn't get together and form the state.  State
government created the counties to serve the purposes of state
government.  Counties have only the powers and privileges
granted by the state.  The counties are essentially administrative
districts of the state.

     Today the states have lost their sovereignty and are now
mere administrative districts of the no longer federal government
in D.C.  We now have a national government ruling the states.

     Any powers and privileges retained by the states are no
more than gifts from the all powerful national government.  The
national government hasn't yet seized control of all functions
once reserved to the sovereign states.  The national government
has only seized the powers the D.C. politicians find most
beneficial to themselves.

     How and when were the sovereign states turned into mere
servants of the federal government they created?   The when part
is easy.  The last vestige of federalism died November 9, 1942. 
That was the day the Supreme Court issued its ruling in Wickard
v. Filburn, 317 U.S. 111.

     Federalism was under siege from its beginning.  The
politicians have always wanted more power.  Wars provide the
greatest opportunities to grab power.  Federalism suffered its
first great losses during the Civil War.  World War I further
expanded the power of the still federal government.  Federalism
was already on the endangered species list before November 9,
1942.

     The subject mater in the Wickard case was quite minor,
11.9 acres of wheat harvested by Ohio farmer Roscoe C. Filburn. 
The government in D.C. had taken unto itself the power to tell
farmers how many acres of wheat they could grow.  That power
supposedly sprang from the Constitutional power to regulate
commerce among the states.

     There was one small fly in the ointment.  Filburn's wheat
never left his farm.  Filburn claimed his wheat had nothing to do
with interstate commerce.  A unanimous Supreme Court ruled
otherwise.

     The court found that if farmer Filburn hadn't grown the
wheat he might have bought wheat to feed his chickens.  Thus,
Filburn's growing of the wheat might have affected interstate
commerce.  That was good enough for the court.

     Under this rational I defy anyone to name even one
action or inaction that might not affect interstate commerce and
thus be subject control by the national government.  Federalism
is dead.  The now national government (call it the nats, not the
feds) is free to usurp any power it wishes from the now
subservient states.

     Occasionally the Supreme Court issues an opinion
inconsistent with Wickard.  There is nothing unusual about the
court issuing inconsistent decisions.  The Court still recognizes
Wickard as the law of the land.  Federalism is still dead.

     Next time:  Why does federalism matter?

aldmccallum@gmail.com
                                 * * * * *
                                  * * * *
                                   * * *
                                    * *
                                     *
Copyright 2014
Albert D. McCallum

Why Is Government Inefficient?

Column for week of June 9, 2014

     Government is generally believed to be inefficient.  It
pays $600 for a screwdriver anyone else can buy for $10.  It
pays many employees far more than does the private sector. 
Also, those employees are rarely over worked.

     I had some personal experience with this a few decades
ago.  I fought boredom in my own ways.  I drew many house
plans.  The department where I worked didn't do houses.  Within
a year I resorted to the ultimate boredom fighter.  I quit.

     People are not inherently inefficient.  Most people seek to
achieve their goals in the  most efficient way possible.  In other
words, get what you want with as little effort as possible.  It has
been said "Laziness is the mother of invention."  There is
nothing wrong with finding an easier way to do something.

     Finding easier ways is the foundation of our prosperity. 
If we still did everything in the old inefficient ways of a mere
hundred years ago we would have but a small fraction of what
we have today.

     In the private sector people prosper by finding efficient
ways to serve others.  The more efficiently we serve others, the
more we get for the time spent serving them.  Making a pair of
shoes in one hour is more profitable than spending two hours
making the shoes.  When earning your living producing for
willing customers, efficiency is vital to your prosperity.

     It is hard to imagine that the inherent nature to be
efficient dies when the individual crosses the line into the
government sector.  So, why are those on the government side so
inefficient?  Not only do they produce inefficiently, much of
their effort is invested in producing things not worth making.

     People are motivated to efficiently produce the things that
benefit them.  Imagine a person who spends his entire day
making paper airplanes he doesn't want and no one will buy. 
What motivation does he have to be efficient?

     It doesn't matter whether he produces 100 great airplanes
or one really bad one.  His goal isn't to improve his efficiency of
production.  His goal is only to make his day as pleasant as
possible.

     Of course, everyone's goal is to make their days as
pleasant as possible.  The individual who is paid more for
producing more can gain satisfaction from efficient production. 
The individual who gains nothing from efficient production has
no reason to be efficient.

     It is the government environment that sucks the
efficiency out of its inhabitants.  Actually it doesn't suck out the
efficiency, it redirects it.  Instead of rewarding efficient
production, government rewards efficient manipulators.  Those
best at manipulating the bosses, the rules, and the voters are
rewarded with higher pay and more power.  As manipulators
their efficiency is second to none.

     Even if government employees want to be efficient, they
usually have no way to measure their efficiency.   Sure, they can
measure the number or new rules they produce or enforce, the
number of reports they write, and the number of accounts they
audit.

     The only way to measure the value of a product is to see
what a willing customer will pay for it.  Most of what
government produces isn't sold to willing customers.  It is paid
for by less than willing taxpayers who seldom even know what
they are paying for.

     It is inevitable that government will always be inefficient
at producing what taxpayers want because the taxpayers aren't in
control.  Taxpayers usually aren't in a position to reward
efficient behavior and punish inefficient behavior.  Government
will be efficient only at producing what politicians, bureaucrats,
and their powerful accomplices want.

     Government always has been and always will be a
conspiracy of the powerful exploiting the weak.  The only
defense the weak have is to keep government as small and weak
as possible.  Powerful government is the most destructive force
on earth.

aldmccallum@gmail.com
                                 * * * * *
                                  * * * *
                                   * * *
                                    * *
                                     *
Copyright 2014
Albert D. McCallum

Does Recycling Make Cents?

Column for week of June 2, 2014

     I hadn't thought much about recycling for some time. 
Then I saw a bag with a message.  "PLEASE REUSE OR
RETURN THIS BAG TO A PARTICIPATING STORE FOR
RECYCLING."  At least the bag wasn't threatening me with
great bodily harm if I didn't honor its request.  It was behaving
in a far more civil manner than former New York mayor
Blomberg.

     Should I heed the bag's plea?   Perhaps the bag was
merely homesick and wanted to hitch a ride home.  Plastic bags
aren't famous for their brilliance.  Is it even possible that
someone put those words in the bag's mouth?  I probably don't
even need to mention that the bag was green.

     Recycling isn't new.  It is older than any of us.  The new
part is coerced recycling.

     I remember paper drives from my early years in grade
school.  The students collected newspapers and magazines to sell
to raise money for various projects.  The junkyard paid about 50
cents for a hundred pounds of newspapers and a little more for
magazines.  Fifty cents then was worth more than five of today's
dollars.

     No one was coerced to participate in recycling.  Everyone
gained by doing it.  Recycling made sense because it made
cents.

     Then someone decided that recycling was virtuous, no
mater what it cost.  It didn't matter to them how much recycling
cost.  At least the cost didn't matter as long as someone else
paid.

     The recyclers might have paid others to bear the  burden
of recycling that didn't make cents.  The joy they gained from
recycling wasn't enough to motivate them to pay for it.  They
were perfectly willing to force others to pay with their time and
money.

     What are the benefits from that green bag returning
home?  That depends on what it does when it gets there.  If it is
reused it saves the making of another bag.  Considering the
potential for the bag to be damaged or contaminated, I doubt that
many stores are going to send the bags on a second mission.

     The remaining options include burn, bury and process
into new bags.  The key question is, How many resources does it
take to reprocess the bag?  If it takes more resources to
reprocess the old bag than it does to make a new one from
scratch, recycling doesn't make cents or sense.  It doesn't take
much scratch to make a bag.

     Resources used in reprocessing include the time, energy
and effort used by the consumer in returning the old bag. 
Considering the small cost of making a new bag from scratch, it
doesn't make cents or sense to invest much effort in recycling
bags.

     Another approach is to eliminate the disposable bags.  A
city in California tried that.  People reused durable bags for
hauling home their food.  One of the side effects was a
noticeable increase in the incidents of food poisoning.  The
reused bags became contaminated and poisoned the food put in
them.

     The resources consumed or destroyed by a single case of
food poisoning would be enough to make many disposable bags. 
Fans of forced recycling fail to consider the total cost and waste
from forced recycling.

     Recycling can make sense.  Free people will figure out
when recycling makes sense and do it.  They won't waste
resources on recycling that doesn't make cents.  Feel good
recycling that wastes resources isn't environmentally friendly.  It
is a senseless waste.  Recycling is one more thing "Do it my
way, or I will hurt you" government shouldn't touch.

aldmccallum@gmail.com
                                 * * * * *
                                  * * * *
                                   * * *
                                    * *
                                     *
Copyright 2014
Albert D. McCallum