Ethics and Integrity of Government

My distaste for government in its current bloated form (a State as opposed to a government) should be apparent. Recently, I have characterized our government as a “cornered and wounded animal,” willing to do anything to survive what appears to be an increasingly impossible mess. Some may justify any kind of behavior under survival conditions as acceptable (the ends justifies the means). While I believe that such a defense cannot be sustained, especially where current conditions arose as a result of multi-decades of foolish governmental policy, that issue is a philosophical one beyond the intent of this post.

The Founding Fathers were less than sanguine regarding the potential evils of government. James Madison warned: “All men having power ought to be distrusted to a certain degree.” Also, he stated: “An elective despotism was not the government we fought for; but one in which the powers of government should be so divided and balanced among the several bodies of magistracy as that no one could transcend their legal limits without being effectually checked and restrained by the others.” Jefferson was at least as adamant as Madison regarding needs to constrain government as were most of the other Founding Fathers. Their design was to prevent the massive accumulation of central power that has occurred. The size of government, relative to GDP, would be incredible to most of them.

Albert J. Nock

The deterioration occurred long before today, although recent events have accelerated it to the point where one questions whether the Constitution is any longer meaningful. A similar question can be raised regarding the Rule of Law which has been violated recently almost at will. About 75 years ago, Alfred J. Nock left no doubt of his opinion of government when he penned this assessment: “Taking the State wherever found, striking into its history at any point, one sees no way to differentiate the activities of its founders, administrators and beneficiaries from those of a professional-criminal class.” Most find Nock’s assessment shocking. I no longer do.

As the pressures of survival squeeze tighter in this economic crisis, the government is doing what could not be imagined as short as ten years ago. My reaction has been to view our government as a wounded and cornered animal that will do anything to survive. Yet, Nock’s criticism implied that governments in all times and places behaved that way. A rather simplistic way to investigate Nock’s hypothesis regarding the ethics and integrity of government is to review how it performs under normal, non-threatening conditions. In the case of our own country, that is easy to do, because for most of our history tranquility prevailed. So how does our government behave in such circumstances? Is there evidence of duplicity as a regular course of policy?

Walter Williams thinks so. Dr. Williams is a fearless, sound economist unafraid of exposing lies and hypocrisy. For anyone who believes current promises from the government, the following short article provides some historical information regarding previous promises. These “promises” and “commitments” were made when times were not desperate. They were made in the “normal course of business.”

To listen, click Walter Williams on Washington’s Lies or you can read the text below.

Washington’s Lies
Walter E. Williams
Wednesday, September 02, 2009

President Obama and congressional supporters estimate that his health care plan will cost between $50 and $65 billion a year. Such cost estimates are lies whether they come from a Democratic president and Congress, or a Republican president and Congress. You say, “Williams, you don’t show much trust in the White House and Congress.” Let’s check out their past dishonesty.

At its start, in 1966, Medicare cost $3 billion. The House Ways and Means Committee, along with President Johnson, estimated that Medicare would cost an inflation-adjusted $12 billion by 1990. In 1990, Medicare topped $107 billion. That’s nine times Congress’ prediction. Today’s Medicare tab comes to $420 billion with no signs of leveling off. How much confidence can we have in any cost estimates by the White House or Congress?

Another part of the Medicare lie is found in Section 1801 of the 1965 Medicare Act that reads: “Nothing in this title shall be construed to authorize any federal officer or employee to exercise any supervision or control over the practice of medicine, or the manner in which medical services are provided, or over the selection, tenure, or compensation of any officer, or employee, or any institution, agency or person providing health care services.” Ask your doctor or hospital whether this is true.

Lies and deception are by no means restricted to modern times. During the legislative debate prior to ratification of the 16th Amendment, President Howard Taft and congressional supporters said that only the rich would ever pay federal income taxes. In 1916, only one-half of 1 percent of income earners paid income taxes. Those earning $250,000 a year in today’s dollars paid 1 percent, and those earning $6 million in today’s dollars paid 7 percent. The lie that only the rich would ever pay income taxes was simply a lie to exploit the politics of envy and dupe Americans into ratifying the 16th Amendment.

The proposed tax increases that the White House and Congress are proposing will probably pass. According to the Washington, D.C.-based Tax Foundation, during 2006, roughly 43.4 million tax returns, representing 91 million individuals, had no federal tax liability. That’s out of a total of 136 million federal tax returns. Adding to this figure are 15 million households and individuals who file no tax return at all. Roughly 121 million Americans — or 41 percent of the U.S. population — are completely outside the federal income tax system. These people represent a natural constituency for big-spending politicians. Since they have no federal income tax obligation, what do they care about higher taxes or tax cuts?

Another big congressional lie is Social Security. Here’s what a 1936 government pamphlet on Social Security said: “After the first 3 years — that is to say, beginning in 1940 — you will pay, and your employer will pay, 1.5 cents for each dollar you earn, up to $3,000 a year … beginning in 1943, you will pay 2 cents, and so will your employer, for every dollar you earn for the next 3 years. … And finally, beginning in 1949, twelve years from now, you and your employer will each pay 3 cents on each dollar you earn, up to $3,000 a year.” Here’s Congress’s lying promise: “That is the most you will ever pay.” Let’s repeat that last sentence: “That is the most you will ever pay.” Compare that to today’s reality, including Medicare, which is 7.65 cents on each dollar that you earn up to nearly $107,000, which comes to $8,185.

The Social Security pamphlet closes with another lie: “Beginning November 24, 1936, the United States government will set up a Social Security account for you … The checks will come to you as a right.” First, there’s no Social Security account containing your money, but more importantly, the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled on two occasions that Americans have no legal right to Social Security payments.

We can thank public education for American gullibility.

Copyright © 2009 Salem Web Network. All Rights Reserved.

Staunch defenders of government might claim that the promises/commitments were true when they were made. Others might claim that circumstances caused events to turn out differently. Still others might claim that the well-known ineptness of the public sector created outcomes very different than envisioned. My interpretation is that Albert J. Nock was correct all along.

Note also that Dr. Williams was constrained by space. He could probably present innumerable other examples should someone wish to ask him.

Regardless of your particular position on such matters, it is important to view current promises regarding health care, environmental legislation, taxes, etc. in context of past outcomes.

Share/Save