Maybe We Really Do Want Government to Make the Decisions

This post was written for the Commonweal Institute Progressive Op-Ed Program. I am a Fellow with the Commonweal Institute.

Do we really want government making decisions? I hear the same question repeated a number of different ways: "Do we really want government making decisions about our health care?" "Do we really want government deciding how banks should be run?" "Do we want government making decisions on whether drug companies can release new products?" "Do we want government telling businesses what they can and can't do?"

The immediate, emotional reaction is, "Of course not!" But what happens when these questions are examined more closely?

Health care reform is in the news so let's look at decision-making in health care first. Currently insurance companies make decisions about our health care - not government, not doctors, and certainly not us. They make these decisions based on whether a procedure or drug will be expensive. But "companies" don't make decisions, people do - not to maximize benefits to the patient but for their own financial gain.

What about decision-making around how banks do business? Since the 1980s more and more banking rules have been relaxed at the behest of a few who stood to make fortunes. Credit card interest rates reached as high as 30%. Huge bets were made on credit default swaps, bad mortgages and other banking products. Deregulation led first to the "Savings and Loan Crisis" and then the recent financial crisis and resulting bailouts. The decisions in these companies were made by a few for personal gain at the expense of the stability of the entire economy.

What about drug companies? There are complaints that the government "holds back" drug companies from releasing new products. But the recent deaths caused by Vioxx, Baycol and other drugs showed that the government was on the right track by requiring sufficient testing and reporting. The pressure to sell these and other unsafe drugs came from a few people who stood to gain fortunes.

What about "burdensome" government regulation of business in general? We all remember what happened when regulations were lifted on companies like Enron. Employees lost their retirement savings. Investors were tricked out of millions. People and businesses were scammed into paying very high prices for electricity. Again, these problems happened because a few people stood to make fortunes so they got government to deregulate rules protecting the rest of us but that stood in their way.

With these and other examples in mind, let's look at what the purpose of our government is supposed to be. According to our Constitution government is literally, "We, the People," banded together to "promote the general welfare" which means we watch out for and take care of each other. The Constitution's promise to "secure the blessings of liberty" means that we will enjoy the stability of the rule of law instead of being subjected to the whims of the rich and powerful.

Before deciding whether or not government should make decisions let's look at the alternative. Not enough consideration is given to the real question: if We, the People don't make decisions, then who does? As we saw in the examples above, the "corporate" decisions that were made in the absence of government rules always favored a few wealthy people. Sometimes, as in the case of Enron, they even destroyed their own corporations while collecting large sums for themselves.

History shows that in the absence of a strong government decisions will always be made by those with the most money and power. In today's society this means that people in the biggest corporations will be making the decisions, always for their own benefit and at the expense of the rest of us.

Unfortunate things always happen when the interests of a few people are placed ahead of the rules. In a functioning, democratic society, government is about establishing and enforcing rules that are set up to protect all of us on the basis of one-person-one-vote and not one-dollar-one-vote. Today's alternative to government decision-making is the biggest corporations making decisions instead.

Royalty, dynasty, inheritance, corporatocracy, whatever you want to call it, there are always a few people who have gathered most of the wealth and power to themselves, and then set up systems designed to keep it that way. The United States government was designed to enable We, the People to make the decisions rather than just the wealthy and the powerful.

So when you hear people ask if we really want government making the decisions, they are really asking if you want to have your own say over your own affairs, instead of some rich CEO. The answer should be "Heck, Yes!

This article was produced as part of Commonweal Institute's Progressive Op-Ed Program

Follow Dave Johnson on Twitter: www.twitter.com/dcjohnson

Comments

[PlanetKansas]

Your constitutional theory is correct, but the flaw is that votes and power can be bought with money.

This was well stated in the book "What's the Matter with Kansas?" where voters consistantly vote against their own best interests.

[Philclock]

No we don't; that's what the town halls are all about.

[weatherwaxx]

People need to get more involved in government, and STAY more involved.

If we, the people, do not communicate with our elected representatives, if we sit back and wait for somebody to do what we want them to do, then we will inevitably be out-shouted by the big-money corporations who pay people to push THEIR agenda on OUR country.

Democracy isn't a spectator sport.

[mjtaylor22]

u took the words out of my mouth
govt is supposed to be for the people by the people, not by a small fraction of society, no matter how much money they have.
the media is controlled by a small frctionof our society esp now.

we voted in dems in super majority so they could condust sweeping change.
somehow too many for got this message but they will be reminded if they keep sitting on their hands and allowing the repugnants to control the debate.
if the dems keep folowing the repugnant lead they will be jsut where the repugnants wnt them
ou t of power once again cause they didn't grow a pair

[Gorsegrower]

The best arrangement is to have deciions made by everbody who wants to participate.

All the other setups have fatal flaws. Democracy is the answer, let's start practicing it.

[Mr Art]

I believe government should be making decisions on what the Constitution directly states they should be making decisions on. Nowhere does it state that the federal government needs to be making decisions about healthcare. "Promote the general welfare" is not about healthcare. Stop looking at how the words are currently defined and research how the words were defined when they were written.

When "We, the People" are truly represented by honest individuals, then I agree that government should make decisions. But the current government appears to be making decisions to benefit everyone except the individual. So at this point in time, I say no! The government needs to get out of my healthcare decision making until it grows up and stops playing games with the People.

[Tkevan]

Part of the problem is they are passing law without understanding what it will mean. John Conyers said he wouldn't read the bill because he wouldn't know what it meant even AFTER he read it. Pitifull.
i.e. On July 21, 2008, Congress passed H.R. 6331, the Medicare Improvements for Patients and Providers Act (MIPPA). This capped the payments to DME providers after 36 months to a maintenence fee and no rental on the actual O2 equipment provided for patients who use oxygen in their homes. This was supposed to save money, because the equipment was supposed to be 'paid for' within that 36 months, but not transfered to the patients ownership, but kept by the DME provider who does maintenence and provides tanks.

Sounds good, right? After 36 months, the Government pays only for 02 delivery (about $70 for the delivery) and a fee every 6 months for maintenence (about $50 every 6 months).

Except. The delivery is only once per month. High O2 users could have as many as 40 or 50 cylinders stored in their house.
Portable O2 concentrators or Trans-filling stations are covered by the $50 per 6 months maintenence fee. As a DME provider, why would I supply a portable O2 concentrator, if I will loose money on doing it? Sorry patient, you will be toting a cylinder instead of a concentrator.
Some won't understand the previous paragraph, but it means a limit on the mobility of the patient.

[pm247]

Let me get this straight...

You don't trust the government because many in Congress are bought off by corporate lobbyists. So your solution is just let the corporations, who HIRE the LOBBYISTS, do whatever they want without Congress getting involved. Is that about it?

How's that Kool Aid taste, anyway?

[mjtaylor22]

in order to make a more perfect union, and a majority of americans wnat and need help

[weatherwaxx]

The Supreme Court has ruled that "to promote the general welfare" DOES include medical issues. This was decided over a lawsuit concerning medicare.

The Constitution gives the Supreme Court the right to make this decision.

Therefore, yes, this is constitutional. I would venture to say that the Supreme Court and President Obama, who taught Constitutional Law, do in fact know more about the subject than you do.

[Sean 6399]

Nonsense.

The supreme court has a long history of overreaching and legislating from the bench. The court has no authority to make a declaration that "general welfare" means free medical care for everyone. Totally absurd.

Much like their declaration that abortion is Constitutionally protected. Just pure absurdity. A bunch of robed shmucks making rulings based purely on their gut feelings with no attachment to law whatsoever.

[Tkevan]

You would do well to read US v. Butler, 1932.

[pajoly]

The blog presupposes the two are distinct, when it sure seems to many of us that our major corporations have become, or are damned near to becoming, our defacto government.

[weatherwaxx]

Which this reform would help to correct. One step at a time.

Healthcare reform, then kick out the d@mned corporate lobbyists.

[Sean 6399]

Corporate lobbyists are writing your precious 1000+ page reform bill, dummy.

[Azazello]

You've nailed it Mr. Johnson. It's Big Biz. or Big Gov., take your pick. One is for- profit and has every incentive to screw you to death, the other is non-profit and is able to provide public services at cost. One is accountable to the public through elections, the other accountable to shareholders only.

[mjtaylor22]

so true
co sign

[tompoe]

As we move towards electronic medical records, which is better? Before you react, consider this. With human clinical trials, the FDA cannot monitor the trials, but can only see the results after the data is massaged by the computers at the company. Thinking about recalls?

OK. Now, would you rather have the government controlling who looks at your medical records, or the drug companies and health insurers, under the guise of market "studies"?

[Pyrum]

I'd rather have no one, including the government, have access to my medical records. Hardly matters though, I refuse to see doctors on any regular basis, so I have almost no medical records.

[Rogan]

I guess you must be smarter than the rest of us tend to be... I don't know, I read your comment, and my first thought is, gee, this guy must be hell of smart.

[weatherwaxx]

You're fortunate that you were not born with a chronic medical condition; I know folks who would not have survived childhood if they avoided doctors. Your solution doesn't work for everyone.

[Pyrum]

I would agree with you if the federal government were kept as small as possible and most of the decisions were in the hands of the officials elected on the state and local levels, but it's far too difficult for "We, the People" to influence a large, distant centralized government. No, we do NOT want the folks on the federal level, who are often more influenced by special interests than they are by their constituents, to be making those decisions!

[Cautious]

It's even more difficult for us to influence large, distant, opaque corporations who are doing god-knows-what in secrecy.

Would you just have us thrown to the wolves?

[oaktownadam]

at least we have a choice about which businesses to patronize. We have no such choice in government.

[Sean 6399]

99% of the phone calls to Sen Diane Feinstein's office were opposed to the TARP plan.

Feinstein voted for it anyway.

How's that for distant and opaque?

[Jannsmoor]

Let me see if I understand your logic. Government is controlled by special interests, so we don't want government making decisions. Then who? The only other choice is to have the special interests make the decisions directly. This makes no sense.
What we really need to do is take control of our government. Take corporations completely out of the public arena. No lobbying and no campaign contributions. Only real live human beings should be involved in the political arena.

[Cautious]

Word.

[Dave Johnson - Huffpost Blogger]

Yes!

[oaktownadam]

Look at the converse:

Why do you think giving the government more power will lower the influence of "special interests"? By increasing the amount of influence government has in picking winners and losers, you increase the incentives to manipulate the levers of government in your own interest.

You do realize that by removing corporations from the public arena, you're also taking "think tanks" like the Commonweal Institute out, too? Not to mention places like the ACLU, and ThinkProgr­ess.....At least then we wouldn't have to listen to drivel like this from their paid "fellows".

And by forcing campaign contributions to come from "real live human beings", you encourage actions like that of United HealthCare, which liberals are upset at for asking their employees to show up to town halls and make political donations. Those are real live humans, after all.

No, restricting free speech isn't the answer; disclosure is. Let the sun shine in on the smokey back rooms where deals are made.

[MeddlingMonk]

Absolutely spot on. The "special interests" are the very corporations that are allowed to run wild when regulation is weakened...which is of course their objective in acting as a "special interest". Those on the far right reserve the term "special interests" for citizens' groups (like the dreaded MoveOn.org and ACORN; horrors!); but what could be more "special" than corporations which should not have any political rights? Since corporations do not posses citizenship and cannot vote, they should have no say or influence on government. And the only way that can be accomplished is if government is strong enough to keep the corporations down. We the people can vote politicians in and out of office. We are unable to do the same with corporate officials. It is clearly in our interest to have a strong government, not one "small enough to be drowned in a bathtub".

[Pyrum]

In a free market system, I have the choice of giving our business to the corporation who make the best decisions, and I need have nothing to do with the others. I live in a Congressional district with a Congressperson who treats her constituents like dirt, but she keeps getting reelected because the district is heavily democratic and the voters see her as a "lesser of two evils." I work very hard every election season for her opponent, but it's not getting me anywhere, I have no choice of who's representing me in Congress. I suppose I could move...

[mjtaylor22]

we the people just wiped out the repugnant party in house senate and executive office.
i callthat control.
now thsi tv debate twisting is exactly that.