Subsidiarity is an organizing principle stating that a matter ought to be handled by the smallest, lowest, or least centralized authority capable of addressing that matter effectively.It is a theory, honored sometimes in the breach.
The concept, if not the word, came up in this last Monday's debate between the two Republicans running for the right to represent the Party in the November election against Democrat Congresswoman Niki Tsongas. The way it was presented by Mr Tom Weaver was that his opponent, Mr Jon Golnik, was for small government, while he, Tom Weaver, was for limited government. While some might dismiss this as a distinction without a difference, I think it is not and it is an issue that needs to be teased out by reporters, bloggers and citizens.
That said, I am not sure Mr Golnik just wants to shrink the budget. However Mr Weaver is the one who called attention to the point at the debate.
At the same time, Congresswoman Tsongas does not come across as a small government advocate. That said, her late husband, Senator Paul Tsongas, was a deficit hawk.
I believe that subsidiarity is imprinted on us at birth. Has anyone not heard a pre-school child say, "I'd rather do it myself." But, this is at war with the ideal of helping others make better decisions, which appears under the concept of "nudge".
I am a "rather do it myself" kind of person. That means that once in a while I need to step back and let others do it their way. The term "perfect is the enemy of good enough" usually means to stop wasting time and money on making something better than it needs to be. I think that it can also be applied to how government works. Under our federal system there can be a tendency to establish a single federal standard, so that Mississippi does it the same way as Massachusetts. We should pick those areas where this is the case, lest we destroy the incubator that is our federal system and tamp down the ability of local government to explore and find better ways of doing this or that. Some things are not open to local development, such as those areas covered by our Bill of Rights. Other things are, such as local control of education. It helps commerce to have a national standard for truck safety, but not so much to have a national standard for the size of lots for private homes.
Regards — Cliff
5 comments:
I appreciate the thoughts, but still cannot clearly distinguish "small" from "limited". We need examples.
In that regard, let me pose an issue that can well cross the line (and back again) between the federal and state governments. That is major disaster relief. In some respects the federal government acts as an umbrella insurer spreading the risk, so that states that are directly affected by disaster can count on assitance from the country as a whole. I believe people agree with that arrangement for the most part.
But what if a state has lax building regulations, and therefore incur an unnecessary cost risk within their state. When a major hurricane hits that state, should the rest of us bail out those who build million dollar vacation homes on barrier islands?
So if the federal government is to be the insurer of last resort, we should expect to have the federal government have some "limited" influence on the regulations within a state.
And we could extend that discussion to many issues, such as the Medicaid payments to nursing homes for the so-called indigent.
Rather than a blanket ideology to define the role of the federal government, it would be worth having the discussion on each area of involvement before concluding what is the best arrangement.
I spend a little time at the debates, Weaver speaks from the heart and Golnic seems scripted is what one observer put in my ear.
Introducing confusing words to political speak will not help America
John McDonough in Lovely Lowell Massachusetts USA
I like JoeS' point, and I know all too well the pain of being hit with an absurd, involuntary flood insurance plan. Somehow, because I'm near a canal in Lowell, 12 stories up, I'm insuring someone in North Carolina with a house on the beach.
Huh?
In this case, I don't feel good about FEMA using the backs of Massachusetts taxpayers to take care of problems elsewhere...I would love to see limitations.
As to the education example, back when I was just starting to pay attention to politics, and back when I believed that Democrats were the "good" guys and Republicans the opposite, I wondered how Bob Dole could oppose something like the federal Department of Education.
Now, a few years older and wiser, I can see the point he was making back in 1996...it's not that he doesn't like education, or schools, or students, it's just that he would rather see those issues handled at a lower level.
I really like that idea of the more local, the better. At our city budget hearings, we scrutizine the pay of people who barely make incomes above the WIC threshold for a family, but if all people knew how many people on the federal side were pulling in "sweet spot" salaries (I'll define sweet spot as anything between 70k and 130k) in exchange for very little accountability, they would be shocked.
The lower the level, the bigger the microscope (and the brighter the light attached to it!)
The problem with Greg's "microscope" metaphor is that it accounts for a standardized microscope. One that views an issue in Nebraska the same as the one used in New Hampshire.
But, the microscope is actually the various filters that the minds of the community apply.
Sorry, as a nation, we are not served well by kids learning that man and dinosaurs walked together because that's what some Texas school board wants.
Sure.Sure. It makes sense that Texas should be able to have latitude on focus.Do they think the need more vocational training vs. Bachelors of Arts? That is appropriate.
But, when Weaver talks about local control, I hear him wanting to facilitate local bigotires. No thanks.
To Joe's first question, I think a distinction might be made between reducing the size of the Department of Education and eliminating it. Both have the effect of pushing education back to the States, but the first leaves some bureaucratic oversight in Washington, but without a principle upon which to hang how far the agency may go, except by the size of its budget and perhaps a tangle of federal rules. The second says that this is not the business of the Federal Government and Washington should just butt out.
Re John McD's point, I plan on having a blog post on that soon. Confusing words don't help unless they can be "reminted" and made part of the vocabulary. (And, I would like to agree with McD in that the new system to prevent spamming is preventing posting of comments.)
As for Greg's point about flood insurance, I thought that the Feds had already taken some steps to reduce payouts for homes build in areas subject to frequent hurricanes. But, we can get in trouble if the States are not pulling their weight. The Governor of Louisiana waited too long to ask those pesky people in DC for help during Katrina. What was going through her mind?
On to Jack, I am not sure we can root out local bigotry. Nor local perceptions of what is needed in Education. And, these things vary over time. At one time California thought education should be available to all regardless of cost (and the washout rate at Cal State Long Beach, end of first semester, Freshman year, was about 50%). Today California higher education is expensive. The State lost focus. But, if Cow Lick State College out on the Great Plains is $1,000 per semester, with few majors, should UMass Lowell be $1,000 a semester?
As for man and dinosaurs having walked the earth together, I suspect that is a bit of a self-limiting issue. Few who hold that view and are also PhD biologists let that view interfere with their work in the lab, unless the dinosaur happens to walk through said lab. Those who are electricians and hold those views still understand that with enough current, 120 Volts can hurt you. Besides, in most states you can scare up a Federal Judge who will claim it is a violation of the First Amendment.
Regards — Cliff
Post a Comment