Steve Chapman
URL:http://www.townhall.com/columnists/stevechapman/
November 25, 2002
Republicans feed the growth of big government
Life in Washington has changed a lot since Nov. 5. President Bush has a new mandate to govern, Republicans are about to take over the Senate, and Democrats are surrendering on one issue after another. So remind me: What was so terrible about gridlock?
Somewhere, years ago, I got the notion that the Republican Party stood for free markets and limited government. So now I feel like Humphrey Bogart's Rick, who, when asked what brought him to Casablanca, says, "My health. I came to Casablanca for the waters." Replies Capt. Renault, "Waters? What waters? We're in the desert!" Says Rick, "I was misinformed."
The first thing the GOP did with its newfound power was push through big new plans for Uncle Sam. They promptly won approval of a terrorism insurance program and a new Department of Homeland Security. The results are 1) to saddle taxpayers with a responsibility traditionally left to the private sector and 2) to establish a mammoth new federal bureaucracy with a special claim on the nation's resources.
None of this is truly surprising. It was clear, during the 2000 campaign, that George W. Bush was about as likely to roll back government as he was to appoint Barbra Streisand secretary of defense. Where Newt Gingrich and his colleagues had talked about eliminating Cabinet departments, Bush couldn't seem to think of a single significant federal program we could possibly live without.
The terrorism insurance bill shows his lack of faith in the adaptability of capitalism. After Sept. 11, commercial insurers decided they had to charge a lot more for coverage of large buildings against attacks -- or stop offering it altogether. This was upsetting to owners who feared they might be targeted by terrorists but didn't want to pay more to insure against that possibility. So they came up with a solution: Bring in the government.
But some types of risk, such as acts of war, have always been excluded from coverage, and the economy has managed to function just fine anyway. Not only that, but in recent months, insurance has grown steadily more available and premiums have fallen. "Prices are high but generally affordable for all but the highest risks," reported the Consumer Federation of America in August. "The private sector is winning the battle with terrorism."
Regrettably, no one in Washington was rooting for the private sector. It should have been given a fair chance to show whether it could handle the problem without interference from Washington. Government insurance programs, after all, are notorious for undercharging, subsidizing risky behavior, and burning through vast sums of taxpayer money.
If huge skyscrapers in major cities are uninsurable by private companies, or insurable only at high cost, that's not because the insurance market doesn't work. It's because the world has changed. It's also a signal that some huge skyscrapers no longer make economic sense, and that businesses should disperse to less inviting targets. But federal intervention will discourage such rational adjustments.
The Department of Homeland Security is another hasty and ill-considered response to our new realities. The administration insists the government will function better if we merge 22 different federal agencies with responsibilities in that area. Maybe it will in the long run -- but the nature of the challenge gives new resonance to John Maynard Keynes' comment: "In the long run, we're all dead."
This amounts to the biggest reorganization of the federal government in more than 50 years, and it promises to be a time-consuming and distracting job. Undertaking it in the middle of a war on terrorism is like installing a sprinkler system in your house while it's on fire.
Comptroller General David Walker, who heads Congress' General Accounting Office, recently told The Washington Post, "The idea that this is going to be a homogeneous, well-oiled machine in one day, one month, one year after the 'merger' happens or the department is born is just totally unrealistic."
Creating it now will complicate the immediate task of foiling the people who are trying to kill us -- which could cost lives. The last major reorganization, in 1947, combined the War Department and the Navy Department to create the Department of Defense. But no one was foolish enough to try that during World War II.
Sooner or later, the new department is also likely to mean a heavier load on taxpayers. Why? Because all the anti-terrorism agencies will be able to lobby with a single voice for bigger budgets. And because few people in Washington will want to be seen as voting against the war on terror.
By now, it's clear that this war will only serve to enlarge our overgrown government. Don't expect Republicans to stand in the way.
©2002 Creators Syndicate, Inc. |
