Reaction to “Unbreaking America: A NEW Short Film about Solving the Corruption Crisis”

Reaction to “Unbreaking America: A NEW Short Film about Solving the Corruption Crisis” online at https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=62&v=TfQij4aQq1k

The film asserts that a study has shown that the likelihood of a law being enacted is not dependent upon the percentage of American who support the enactment of the law. That is, with either low public support or high public support, the likelihood of a proposal being enacted into law is about the same. This is attributed to the excessive influence of money in politics After describing some of the problems in the U.S., the film advocates the following:

·         Stop gerrymandering

·          Ranked Choice Voting

·         Automatic voter registration

·         Overhaul lobbying and ethics laws

·         Transparent political spending

·         Voter tax vouchers for political contribution

What many conservatives worry about is the erosion of the checks and balances written into our U.S. Constitution. The reality is that the majority of the younger generation and those that come into our country illegally (or legally but do not seek citizenship and the citizenship education that that requires) do not fully understand the need for the checks and balances that make our country a republic with representatives elected by the people (i.e.. a "representative democracy"). 

What Mitt Romney was referring to in his much attacked (and very misunderstood) comment about the "47% are dependent on government" was that it is dangerous in a pure democracy to have more than a majority either (a) receiving government benefits or (b) employees of the government who all seek the continuation and expansion of the benefits being received. Without any check and balance on that desire to take from those that have to give to those that might have less, you have a "Robin Hood" society. And, as Margaret Thatcher is quoted as saying, "The problem with socialism is that eventually you run out of other people's money." And, with the perception among many that the U.S. is a pure democracy, the danger is real. 

This is especially true when it is likely that the vast majority of Americans receive some kind of special treatment or benefit from the federal government, whether it be tax breaks (mortgage interest or state and local tax deductions), permitting laws that protect industries from competition (e.g., licensing of barbers and hairdressers), ability to extract favorable wages and benefits from employers (e.g., public sector union provisions), entitlements (e.g., social security) or outright subsidies, all of which are the result of and protected by special interest groups through lobbying and donations to political campaigns. (What economists call "rent seeking".)

I am left with a visceral negative reaction to government transfers of income from producers to non-producers in our society. Perhaps this stems to how I felt when listening to the audio tape of  Ayn Rand's "Atlas Shrugged" years ago. Obviously that was a novel and the transfers in the story were taken to extreme, but the point is still valid. That is, if you destroy (or even lessen) the incentives to work, save and invest, the economic consequences are not good. (Now, that does not mean I am against all help to those less fortunate, but as an economist, I believe you must always consider how the government program affects the incentives to work, save and invest. The programs should be designed as "hand ups" rather than "hand outs". Creating a state of dependency is not compassionate.)

But the consequences of a pure democracy go beyond economics. If the majority can take from the minority, or if a majority can limit the rights of the minority, that is as much tyranny as in a dictatorship. Thus the emphasis of literate Republicans on the U.S. being a "republic", rather than a "democracy". And, it is the checks and balances, along with the Bill of Rights, that limit the power of the government and secure individual liberties. But to the dismay of conservatives, those protections have been so eroded that they do not have the power that the Founding Fathers envisioned.

How does this relate to the video?

• Many feel that the end justifies the means. That is, to protect from further erosion of the checks and balances that protect our individual liberties (from the viewpoint of Republicans) or to increase the power of the "rainbow coalition" to promote the cause of "social justice" (from the viewpoint of the Democrats), gerrymandering can be justified, And, the thinking goes, "When the other party has the chance to do it, they do, so why shouldn't we?" I am not arguing that this is right, just that this thinking exists. Obviously, intentionally drawing the district lines to favor your own political party does not meet one of Rotary's "4 way test", i.e., "Is it fair to all concerned?"
  
  The truth is that both the Republican and Democratic parties have been guilty of gerrymandering. It is mostly a Democratic party issue today due to the Republican wave of 2010 which put Republicans in control of both the legislative and executive branches of the state governments in many states, just in time to do the redistricting based on the 2010 census. But it can and has worked both ways. But, with the self-selection of where one resides which results in concentrations of ethnicity in the big city cores vs. suburbs and rural areas, purely geometrically shaped district would still result in many of the districts being "safe districts" for one of the parties. To create balanced, "competitive" districts would require districts to be shaped like pieces of a pie, with the point in the center of the major cities. That would not make sense as it would straddle many jurisdictions and communities which would violate one of the rules that redistricting is supposed to obey.
• Similarly, opposition to automatic voter registration is justified as it is seen simply as a Democrat tactic to get more of the people who would tend to favor the Democrats voting. Republicans realize that the county's demographics are not on our side, so this does not bode well for maintaining our Republic. Ben Franklin said when asked what form of government had been formed, "A republic, if we can keep it." We sense the republic nature of our government is slipping dangerously away.
• Again, "voter tax vouchers for political contributions" is seen as favoring Democrats due to demographics, and thus will be opposed by most Republicans. To the extent that Democrats receive a greater amount of campaign financing from "small contributions", this would suggest that such a provision would favor Democrats. However, to the extent we have the $3 Presidential Election Fund contribution option on our federal tax returns, we have a step in that direction, but limited to those who file tax returns. 
• I see Ranked Choice Voting as not obviously favoring either Republican or the Democratic party, but rather as a threat to the power structures of each of the parties. Thus, it is likely to be opposed by those in power. I am open to learning more about this system, as not thoroughly knowledgeable about it.
• "Overhaul lobbying and ethics laws" has a good sound to it, but the devil is in the details. We do have excessive "rent seeking" (i.e., special interest groups of all stripes seeking benefits or special consideration of one sort or another from local, state and federal governments). This is the legalized bribery of our system and is corrosive. Corruption distorts the free market system of price signals, and thus results in sub optimal economic performance. Many African countries are prime examples of this.
• "Transparent political spending" has a lot to like. There was an important court case that came out against that because requiring the originator of an opinion piece to disclose his/her identity would discourage sharing unpopular opinions, and thus would "put a chill on the free expression of speech". But, on balance, I think transparency is a good thing.

Bottom lines, 

• I think the statement that 83% of Republicans would support the entire package is WAY oversold.
• The video has a Democratic party slant as well when it talks about the financial power exerted by the "billionaires". The entire emphasis of this attack has been the billionaires from the right and corporations. Little consideration is given to the power of the money from the left (e.g., Hollywood actors) or by the labor unions. As the target of a vicious attack from labor unions in my (successful) 2010 State Representative campaign in Michigan using lies and half truths, I feel particularly sensitive to this oversight.