The Warren Omission

"Ms. Warren is attempting to refute an argument that nobody is making. No Republican, no tea partier, no conservative, argues for absence of government or zero taxes or an end to public services. It's a straw man, easy to knock down but absurd on its face. And it's ironic that her opponent, Senator Brown, is one of the least likely Republicans to make arguments against any government service or existing tax. In any case, she has left out a LOT of information, and here is my report on the Warren Omission."

The Warren Omission

via Big Government by Dave Perkins on 9/23/11

Elizabeth Warren is Scott Brown's worst nightmare.  She is a successful consumer advocate and think-tanker and has lurked around government for her entire life.  She is a champion debater from her school days and is passionate in her (leftist) beliefs.  And she will be running against Brown for the "Ted Kennedy seat" in Massachusetts.


She's already campaigning, and last month made a speech in defense of the "underlying social contract", a speech that has leftist hearts aflame from coast to coast.  Here is her relevant moment:

"There is nobody in this country who got rich on his own.  Nobody.  You built a factory out there — good for you.  But I want to be clear.  You moved your goods to markets on the roads the rest of us paid for.  You hired workers the rest of us paid to educate.  You were safe in your factory because of police forces and fire forces that the rest of us paid for.  You didn't have to worry that marauding bands would come and seize everything at your factory.  Now look.  You built a factory and it turned into something terrific or a great idea.  God bless!  Keep a big hunk of it.  But part of the underlying social contract is that you take a hunk of that and pay forward for the next kid who comes along."

Ms. Warren is attempting to refute an argument that nobody is making.  No Republican, no tea partier, no conservative, argues for absence of government or zero taxes or an end to public services.  It's a straw man, easy to knock down but absurd on its face.  And it's ironic that her opponent, Senator Brown, is one of the least likely Republicans to make arguments against any government service or existing tax.  In any case, she has left out a LOT of information, and here is my report on the Warren Omission.

"You built a factory…. you moved your goods to market on the roads the rest of us paid for."  Roads are primarily a state and county affair.  But on the level of federal funding, this applies; whenever tax money is sent to Washington, a huge chunk of it is skimmed for the expense of government (think 50%), and whatever is left is usually allocated based on politics.  It's about favors owed, favors cultivated.  Federal funding for roads is doubtless the least efficient and most corrupt means of building them, and if that money were left in taxpayer pockets and instead collected by the states and counties for road construction, we'd have more and better roads very quickly, and at less cost to those taxpayers.   The states, after all, actually build them.  The federal government doesn't send construction crews and truckloads of asphalt to each state.

And I remember, back in the 1970s, a dubious federal "enforcement" of the new 55 mph speed limit.  The federal government used its funding in an extortionate manner, telling states they were free to keep the speed limit at 70, but no federal highway funds would go to any state which did so.  They were Mafia tactics, used to abridge state's rights indirectly, without confronting the states in court.

"You hired workers the rest of us paid to educate."  Well, yes and no.  In Texas, our schools are primarily funded by property tax, which does not fall to those who do not own property.  In my home's school district, a huge amount of residents are apartment dwellers, many in the middle or upper middle class.  Their children are educated without cost to the parents.  And on the federal level, the 47% who pay no income tax are also beneficiaries.
Public education is not paid for by "the rest of us", Ms. Warren, but by some of us for the benefit of others.  You cannot simultaneously be in favor of wealth redistribution and make the claim that everyone pays.  And there is no Department of Education in the Constitution; it was created by Jimmy Carter in his last year, a giant pointless expense that mostly duplicates efforts made by the departments of education in the individual states.
"You were safe in your factory because of police forces and fire forces…"  Again, a state, county and city affair.  Insofar as the federal government is concerned with these people, it is primarily to help their unions receive the pay and benefits they are bargaining for (at taxpayer expense), so that the members will recall which party to vote for at election time.   Just like the teachers' unions, come to think of it.  And the public employee unions whose members build the roads.

And finally we arrive at "the underlying social contract".  She calls it "underlying" because it isn't there, rather like the "penumbra" idea which often leads the Supreme Court to discover new rights in the Constitution which are not there.  Jean-Jacques Rousseau put it all on paper in 1762 with "du Contrat Social", which was a major influence on the founding fathers as they fought for independence and worked their way to the Constitutional Convention.  But Rousseau wasn't arguing in favor of wealth redistribution or giant central government or a central command economy or a rapid increase in government debt — or any of the things which provoked the rise of the Tea Party.  Rousseau was attempting to clarify the kind of government structure which would best execute the will of the people, keeping both its effectiveness and its sovereignty intact.   In our Preamble, we are told  that some of the purposes of the government formed by the United States Constitution are to "provide for the common defense" and to "promote the general welfare".  The distinction between provide for and promote is obvious.
There is no "social contract", underlying or otherwise, which obligates government to provide anyone's living.

Why can't Elizabeth Warren defend actual federal services in her speech, instead of defaulting to the ones mostly provided by states, counties and cities?  Could it be that she is not confident the public would respond as warmly to a defense of, say, the Department of Energy?  Obama's energy secretary Steven Chu recently said "we need to figure out how to boost the price of gasoline to the levels in Europe".  Well, the gas prices have already doubled on Obama's watch, so I suppose one could argue the DOE is, at the very least, efficient and goal oriented. Hard to publicly defend, though.

Which is why Elizabeth Warren is slaying a nonexistent dragon here, in a speech I'm sure she'll be repeating often over the next several months.  I hope that someone in the media will begin to address the straw man and will make some effort to truthfully represent constitutional conservatism in the face of her implications.

I also hope for peace, a cure for cancer and a World Cup for the USA soccer team.