Big Bird and the 47 Percent

Governor Romney’s statement that Big Bird would have to go, may turn out to have the same traction as his earlier discussion of the 47%.   There are a lot of government programs that may be of questionable value, but I don’t think Sesame Street sponsorship falls into this category.  Cancelling funding for PBS spotlights the depth of the Republican commitment to cutting government spending independent of any thoughtful cost-benefit analysis.  

President Romney’s comments about trickle down government stem from the right’s view that the national government role should be limited to national security – where a significant spending boost is promised- and to a limited set of functions required to ensure the effective operation of the private economy.  If people wish greater government involvement-say universal health care- than they should be addressing their concerns to their respective state governments. 

This narrow reading of the Constitution’s mandate for the federal government to “promote the general welfare” may have a philosophical attraction for many, but we are not starting from scratch.  For better or worse, people have come to expect the support of their national government when they are hit by disasters, or are having trouble in feeding, clothing, housing their families as well as obtaining adequate health care.  Until now, Republican and Democratic administrations have adhered to the social contract that has evolved out of President Roosevelt’s response to the devastating effects of the Great Depression.  

Suggesting that States should shoulder the burdens is, at best, naive.   It ignores the potential that stage governments will not choose to pick up the role currently played by Washington.  Just look at the number of States who choose not to expand Medicaid support provided by Obamacare, even though the federal government was picking up 90% of the tab.   Moreover, states do not have and will not be granted the ability to run deficits.  In the worst of times, when government is most needed, States will be forced to cut spending due to reduced tax revenues.

If the states are, in fact, united than perhaps it would be best to have national solutions to national problems.  Do we really want a country where people are treated differently depending on the state they live in?  Do we really want a country where states are loath to establish programs out of fear that the disadvantaged will be encouraged to relocate within state borders?  When our country was founded, moving between states was a life changing event, often requiring weeks if not months of travel.  Today most states are reached within three days of driving.

Big Bird will be safe no matter what.  The fact of the matter is that donations can make up the difference. The same cannot be said for the social contract that has evolved over the last century.    As much as they would like to, the right cannot walk back the clock.  It makes for a good sound bite and has the support of many who do not require federal assistance.  In practice it is impractical and incredibly divisive: the attempt would most certainly lead to a push back led by a populist leader focused on restoring if not expanding the federal safety net at the expense of the 53%.