Streetwise Professor

During this week’s bus tour, Obama repeatedly asserted that it was necessary to pass the “jobs bill” in order to save the jobs of teachers, firemen, and the like.  Biden joined in, and predicted that failure to pass the jobs bill would lead to more rapes and murders, due to layoffs of police.  And it just ain’t Crazy Joe: Jay-the-most-aptly-named-man-in-DC-Carney said that Obama “absolutely” agrees with Biden.  Harry Reid weighed in, claiming that public employment was the priority, because “it’s very clear that private-sector jobs have been doing just fine.”

An aside. First: what planet is Reid living on?  (NB: not the first time I’ve asked this question to myself.)  Second: can you imagine the hue-and-cry, the gnashing of teeth, the rending of garments, had any Republican said anything remotely similar to what Reid did?  S/he would have been labeled the second coming of Marie Antoinette* for her/his callousness, insensitivity, lack of compassion, condescension, etc., etc.

But on to my substantive point.  Since when, in the nearly 225 years of this Republic, has the employment of firemen, policemen and teachers been the responsibility of the Federal government?  Indeed, the entire concept is a mockery of the idea of a “federal” system.

I know that the Constitution is a sad shadow of its former self, primarily the result of a relentless centralizing assault beginning in the Progressive era.  (The Progressives being arch-foes of many things in the Constitution, federalism among them.)  But the idea that it is somehow the responsibility of Washington to secure the employment of teachers, etc., represents a complete mockery of the most basic ideas of the Constitution.

Brought to you, ironically, by a former lecturer in Constitutional Law.  (Not professor.  Professors at least attempt to engage in original thought and scholarship.  Obama just lectured a few classes then: he lectures the world now.)

Public education, and police and fire protection are quintessentially local activities.  Local communities internalize the benefits of these activities, and should bear the costs.  It is fundamentally defective as an economic matter, even ignoring Constitutional constraints, to shift the costs of providing these services to people who do not realize the benefits.  That just leads to waste and inefficiency.

But this isn’t about the Constitution, or economic efficiency.  This is about paying off Obama’s (and Reid’s, etc.) constituencies.

Sadly, I have looked in vain to find any relatively prominent person in politics object to the Obama-Biden-Reid efforts on principled Constitutional grounds–which in turn are based on a solid political and economic principle of delegating decision making authority to those who are directly impacted by said decisions.  Which suggests that disrespect or indifference to the most basic Constitutional tenets is a bi-partisan affair.

Not that this is news, but seldom is it so blatantly on display.

*Yes, I know Marie Antoinette’s “let them eat cake” is a fabrication, first found in Rousseau.  Just another reason to pay no attention to Rousseau.  But for worse or for worse, Marie is the poster girl for callous indifference to human suffering.  In contrast, Harry Reid’s comment is fully documented, yet he is getting a pass.  Particularly from the intellectual heirs of Rousseau.