New York Times columnist David Brooks and Republican Congressman Paul Ryan had an interesting debate at The American Enterprise Institute on the nature of government, possible compromise between Democrats and Republicans on the budget, and what role the government should play under an ideal conservative system. Brooks argued in favor of a limited but energetic government, crafting social policy to help youth and families – a sort of compassionate conservatism designed to foster the values many Americans hold dear. Ryan argued that this doesn’t go far enough. Writes economist Arnold Kling:
I heard Brooks arguing the conservative viewpoint. He wants a government that “builds character,” regardless of its size. He worries that without government help, the underclass will stay unmarried, uneducated, and dependent.
I heard Ryan argue that the most urgent issue is the unsustainable path of government spending. He worries that without action soon, we will head toward a debt crisis of the sort pending in Europe.
This makes sense. And I’m sympathetic to both positions. It reminds me of an extended debate at National Review’s blogs “The Corner” and “Exchequer” recently over whether the tax code should favor families or not. Some writers argued that the tax code should not pit anyone against anyone else, that it should be as fair and simple as possible and that government has no place dictating social policy vis-a-vis the tax code. Others arguedthat due to the realities facing families and the difficulty and expense – and necessity – of raising children in any society, that subsidizing parents to encourage the growth of families ought to be a conservative goal. Again, these are both understandable and sympathetic positions. The tax code really does pit Americans against one another; yet families really do subsidize childless Americans by bearing and rearing children.
Writing in The Weekly Standard, Matt Continneti makes an important observation:
I think we need to distinguish between a government that finances long-term investment and a government that finances present consumption. Hamilton, the Whigs, Lincoln, and TR sought to improve American infrastructure and level the playing field so that young men of talent could overturn entrenched market incumbents. Growth was the result. Yet the American welfare state, as presently composed, is devoted almost entirely to consumption in the form of Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, and interest on the debt. The money spent on education, R&D, and infrastructure is a pittance by comparison. The one place where we actually do massively invest in (global) public goods is defense. But of course that’s where everyone wants to cut.
We need to deemphasize consumption and focus on investment.
I would quibble a bit with this construction. I think a more useful idea is a focus on production rather than merely investment. Quite frankly we don’t want government too involved in investing in the future outside a few narrow areas such as infrastructure. R&D is much better handled by private enterprise, for instance. And education is a fine place to spend money, but the obstacles public education faces in this country are not simply due to a lack of funding, but rather to a lack of vision and choice, and the stranglehold anti-reform special interest groups and teachers’ unions hold over the system.
Government should be limited in order to do two things: create as organic a society as possible, and to create asociety of producers rather than consumers. This means leaving as much choice in the hands of Americans as possible. We can have safety net programs, but those programs would better harness the ingenuity and resilience of the American public by giving Americans choice – whether that is school choice, or choice of insurance provider. Once we begin to limit choices of ordinary Americans by placing their autonomy in the hands of big corporations or powerful labor unions we’re in trouble.
An energetic government of the type Brooks describes, then, must be energetic in the sense that it works to protect individual Americans from coercion by providing Americans with as much liberty as possible. Sometimes this means spending money on roads so people can drive to work, or giving low-income workers vouchers so they can purchase health care from whatever insurance company they choose, or chartering schools to foster school choice. Sometimes it means stepping in to knock down oppressive local or state laws – think of desegregation, for instance; or busting unions or writing laws to protect people against unsafe work practices. The government has a role to play, but it should be as limited as possible in picking favorites, working more at safeguarding institutions, American lives, and a free economy.
I’m more agnostic on the tax code. I am certainly aware that playing favorites here can cause more harm than good, but we run real risks making the tax burden too great on working families. Should America fall beneath the birth rate of replacement, I worry the whole house of cards might come tumbling down.
David Brooks follows all of this up with a good column on the need to – one way or another – begin the process of tax reform, touting the Wyden-Gregg plan as a good starting point. I tend to agree. Then again, I tend to think we should avoid making the perfect the enemy of the good. At least most of the time.
