An American Tradition

America has a long tradition of practicing the notion of “he who pays the fiddler, calls the tune.” One of the most significant ways in which this tradition has been applied is the belief that where taxpayer funds are used, the taxpayer (e.g. the government) has a say-so in howthe monies are to be spent. But partially because money, once mixed with other funds is indistinguishable, and partially because the government has numerous unique points of leverage and power, it takes only a modest amount of money for the government to take on a principle role in the direction of the affairs of the recipients.

Two recent events have led to some new applications of “tune-calling” which challenge some of our historic notions of the limits of government intervention. First, the bailouts of the banks and auto industry that began last fall have led to numerous calls from politicians, the media and the public to modify the behaviors of these firms. Large bonuses, now funded by the public, are being criticized. Salary caps for executives are being prescribed. Corporate jets and spending on professional sports has come under review since it is now “on the public dime”. Even such mundane matters as redecorating the executive suite have become subject to public scrutiny now that they are being financed by “us”.

And second, a woman in California has just given birth to octuplets, adding eight more children to her previous six, for a total of fourteen. All of these children were conceived through invitro fertilization at public expense, since the woman has no husband and no income. The significant costs of delivering and caring for the fragile newborns is also a matter for public funding which has resulted in the predictable outcries. And the further consideration that this test-tube family will forever be on the dole has incited many to call for interventions and new restrictions. Moral outrage, arguments for common sense, a call for limits on the number of embryos all are boiling into the public arena. Some have even argued that if the mother eventually profits from media promotions of her family that she should remit these monies to offset the expenses that she has caused the state of California.

As we hasten down this road of public financing of commercial activities and public health, it might be good to look ahead at the eventual implications of inviting the public camel into our tent. If Uncle Sam is going to be a major stockholder in the domestic auto industry, is it not reasonable to expect that he will be able to determine what kind of cars are to be produced, how far they can be driven and how much they will be sold for? If our Uncle is to become our banker, is it not reasonable to expect that he will be able to determine who can borrow, how much can be borrowed and the terms of credit that we receive? If national health care is the logical expansion of our current patchwork of public health care funding, is it not reasonable to expect that the Public will be able to determine limits on invitro fertilizations, whether or not a pregnancy is “viable”, and ultimately the number of children a mother can deliver?

We used to laugh at the Soviet-era Yugos as the folly of centralized planning and the product of non-capitalist societies that were too poor to deliver quality consumer goods to the masses. We nodded our heads silently when we heard of China’s “one child policy” as something appropriate for a society that lacked the resources and skills to feed itself. And, still today, we look at nations like Cuba, North Korea and numerous African countries and recognize that their poverty is a direct result of their failure to create a positive system of self-government. It is certainly easier to see the speck in our neighbor’s eye than it is to see the log in our own. 

We long ago ceded the control of our children’s education to a publicly-funded process and have accepted the numerous consequences that have resulted. Years ago we bought into the federal income tax system and have progressively accepted the logic of disclosing all of our financial affairs and the reality of sending huge amounts of treasure to Washington. We have long-accepted regulations for automobiles, banking, and healthcare but now it appears that we are ready to further “partner-up” with Uncle Sam in ways that would have seemed foreign or excessively-intrusive a few years ago.

As a child growing up in New England near the massive but abandoned textile mills that filled so many towns, I learned about child labor, industrial safety and industrial pollution. Later I learned about immigrants and textile barons and discovered that my great-grandfather was both an immigrant and a factory owner. This knowledge brought both pride and pain to me as I considered his success, and ultimately mine, could have involved the exploitation of children, immigrants and the environment. But over the past century, to our credit, we have rectified these wrongs often through labor laws and environmental regulations to the point that these failings are no longer relevant. Yet I wonder, given all the new roles for the government that we are discovering, if we couldn’t ask Uncle Sam to play an old tune from that mill-town era that has new relevance today?

Fiddler, can you play, “I Owe My Soul to the Company Store”?