TEA PARTY CONVERSATIONS: CENTRALIZATION OF GOVERNMENT POWER REPEALS LIBERTY

By Jason Spencer

As a result of the current economic crunch being felt at all levels of government, Georgia Gov. Sonny Purdue announced plans for a major restructuring of state government that would make four constitutional offices appointed, rather than elected. Those offices would include Insurance Commissioner, Labor Commissioner, Agriculture Commissioner, and School Superintendent. This announcement set off a fire storm of debate, especially among those who favor decentralized government. Of course, this measure would require a constitutional amendment to give the state’s executive more concentration of power. Those in favor of centralizing more power within the governor’s office are quoted as saying these functions would be “mainstreamed” and “make government more efficient”. In that same line of thinking, there is even a movement within Camden County to consolidate county and local government to “stream line and eliminate redundant services”.

As a result, movements to centralize government services for the sake of “efficiency” seem to be the new fad among creatures of government. While this fad within government circles is being brainstormed, it poses the question of whether centralized efforts would actually translate into “more efficient” government. Those in the Tea Party Movement are among the most ardent proponents of liberty and decentralized power and do not favor Gov. Perdue's attempt to take electing power away from the citizens of Georgia. To remove the people’s ability to elect four Constitutional offices, and amend the Constitution to grant that power to the Governor to appoint those positions, runs counter to our philosophy of decentralization.

The philosophy of decentralization rest on the premise that decentralized government is most compatible with long-run concerns for liberty. The presumption in favor of decentralization is rooted in the idea that local jurisdictions must compete for residents and capital, which provides some incentive for greater degrees of freedom. In other words, smaller jurisdictions are able to contain the rise of would-be despots that could endanger the flight of capital from local businesses and its residents. Ultimately, smaller jurisdictions would be more likely to recover from “capital flight” and affect the least amount of people as compared to a larger demographic or region.

Furthermore, localism exposes corruption more easily when it becomes embedded within its governing apparatus; therefore, as a consequence, it is more easily uprooted. Local corruption can be more benign. For example, it would be easier for someone on a middle class budget to bribe the local zoning board than the Georgia State Department of Natural Resources or the U.S. State Department.

Another aspect of decentralization is that tyranny on the local level is much more soluble. This solubility allows locals to minimize the damage it could cause. Tyranny is far less destructive when it is localized. This means that evil people are prevented from violating the rights of people outside their jurisdiction. In addition, the ability of government’s power to intervene wisely should never be trusted. Governments will always invoke good motives even when they are a mere mask for power grabs (just like the recent passage of the Obama Health Care Bill). Once the power grab has occurred, it is used as a decree for central planning and prevents local jurisdictions from escaping its grasp.

Moreover, a plurality of government prevents the accumulation of centralized power and act as a “longitudinal separation of powers” amongst the various jurisdictions. Lower governments are envious of their turf and they will resist against ceding any of their authority, notwithstanding lucrative bribes or deals. In essence, centralization dilutes the voice of the people. In fact, the entire history of liberty is steeped with impressive results of competing institutional structures. By the way, not one of which can be trusted with complete control.

With all of this said, I would caution those well intended motives on the subject of consolidating city-county governments within Camden County. Much research has been done on the consolidation of governments and what is clear from the findings is that trying to measure outcomes of “consolidation” and “efficient government” is nebulous at best. It is somewhat oxymoronic to think the words “efficient” and “government” go together like “peanut butter and jelly”. The act of consolidating will not guarantee more efficient operations, despite what some of its advocates would have us believe. However, some of the research on this subject has been done on large metropolitan areas. But one interesting tidbit to note is the some consolidated governments with a population of over 15, 000 tended to see a U-shaped cost-curve in the cost of services. This means that average costs fall over a range, flatten, and then begin to rise as the newly consolidated government establishes itself. Attempts to consolidate governmental authority imply that public goods and services are best handled by a single comprehensive organization—a government monopoly.

Now, let’s get back to Gov. Purdue’s call for more centralized power into the Governor’s office. In 2003, the Council of State Governments reported “merely shifting organizational boxes does not guarantee savings” and warned that restructuring can at times lead to shifting of costs rather than savings. So the better question to ask is: Why not eliminate some of these agencies all-together? For instance, eliminating the State Department of Education would empower local school boards in much broader ways. It stands to reason that local schools boards are more familiar with their needs than a distant bureaucracy a few hundred miles away in Atlanta.

Ultimately, preserving liberty and economic freedom is more likely to be found in a competitive, decentralized governmental system. Those who love liberty must favor decentralization of power because it is the path towards greater individual freedom and the respect of rights. That goal of maintaining economic and individual freedom can be reached only by avoiding a consolidated, monopoly government system that depends on one organization to provide all public goods. A decentralized, fragmented political system that is competitive and responsive to the needs of the locals can achieve that goal.

EDITOR’S NOTE: Jason Spencer is a Health Care professional in Southeastern Georgia and a leader in the TEA Party movement in the area. His articles are presented by THE CLARION ISSUE: Counter Editorials and Opinions on Current Events and Attitudes. There is a link to the local TEA Party’s blog from our blog at www.clarionissue.blogspot. com .