Political Fairness and Equity

July-August 1995

By James W. Skillen

The Center for Public justice affirms that government should act in the public interest, treating all citizens fairly and equitably. Sounds simple enough, but what does it mean?

For many people the democratic process circumscribes what is possible for government to achieve and leaves little room for anything more to be said about fairness; the people should get what they want. Others believe that justice is a goal or ideal that can never be fully actualized, so the word is largely irrelevant for practical political considerations.

In contrast to these two views, we believe that justice is a genuine standard that always places its demands on people and governments. Even though it may be difficult for us to discover what is fair and just in every circumstance, the principle should always occupy center stage in our political deliberations.

Among other things, justice demands of government the fair and equitable treatment of citizens not only in the courts but also with respect to government's distribution of public goods and services. This means no discrimination among citizens for wrong or irrelevant reasons. In seeking to protect the environment, for example, government should put restrictions fairly on all companies and not allow some to escape the restraints. Or when government offers support for the education of children it should not give special advantage to one racial or religious group over others.

At the same time, equity requires positive discrimination when meaningful differences exist. For example, government ought to treat profit-making companies differently than it treats nonprofit companies in the tax code. And government should, for constructive reasons, distinguish between those who are, and those who are not, handicapped when it allocates educational resources to students.

The Contemporary Budget Debate

To make these general points more concrete, let's step into the contemporary debate over balancing the federal budget. The current Republican majority in Congress certainly deserves credit for pushing vigorously for deficit reductions over the next seven years. The equity and fairness argument behind budget reductions appears almost self-evident when we recognize the degree to which recent generations have been passing on an ever-growing debt to future generations. That is unfair.

I will say more in a moment about the inadequacies of these new budget proposals. But before doing that we need to consider the deeper crisis of government that lies behind the budget predicament. The unusual achievement of the Gingrich-led Republicans during the first half of 1995 has been the high degree of party discipline they have managed to maintain around a multi-part legislative agenda. Opponents may not like all parts of that agenda, but it is becoming clearer each day that the only constructive way to oppose those parts will have to be by proposing an equally disciplined and comprehensive alternative program. Those who criticize one item or another on the Republican agenda, complaining that someone will suffer a loss due to cutbacks, do little to enhance the debate. The status quo is simply unfair and unacceptable. If something is not done now to correct government's perpetual overspending, many more people will suffer in the future.

The deeper question concerns the very possibility of healthy governance over time. The predicament in which we find ourselves today is due to the fact that for the past 25 years no disciplined majority controlling Congress and/or the presidency has existed to pursue an integrated legislative agenda built on a balance of income and expenditures. That is why we have had booming budget deficits. Shifting majorities on single legislative issues have been making piece-by-piece spending decisions, but a disciplined majority has not existed to put all the pieces together within the framework of a balanced budget.

While the Republicans' current budget-balancing proposal is not adequate in many respects, as judged by the standards of fairness and equity, it may be the only way to begin to get the public behind a step-by-step program that can become more just each year over the next 5-10 years. After all, a disciplined, governing majority cannot exist without winning and maintaining popular support. Criticism that merely picks on one item or another in the budget proposal, implying that such a cut need not be made, is of no help whatever unless the critics can show how their preferred expenditure can fit into a different balanced budget.

If the Republican cuts are not the right ones, then what is a better, fairer budget? If in each of the next seven years the Republicans can improve on their programs and budget, winning more and more public support to achieve greater fairness and equity, then they will deserve the praise they will receive for their political leadership. If the Republican program as a whole is unfair and inadequate, then the opposition simply must offer a better total package that sufficient evidence that the Democratic party can discipline itself to reach that better goal over the long term.

The point is that after decades of undisciplined, interest-group politics, the well-being of the country cannot be achieved one issue at a time. Fairness and equity depend on comprehensive, coherent governance, and such governance depends on party discipline that builds up and sustains public confidence.

Medicare

Having raised the issue of the larger governing crisis and having noted the positive potential of newly disciplined parties pursuing comprehensive legislative programs, let's now take a brief look at the House and Senate Republicans' newly proposed budgets; (the two budget proposals have not been reconciled at the time of writing).

Questions about fairness and equity must, of course, come to grips with more than simply the need for a balanced budget. Within a seven-year plan for achieving balance, how fair does the relationship among budgeted items look? The plan to slow up projected increases in Medicare spending, for example, may be essential from a cost-cutting perspective, but if so, why cut only Medicare and not Social Security, which entails even larger expenditures? Moreover, if Medicare spending is to be held in check, why put forward a plan in which the most serious cuts will not come until 2000 and 2001, rather than sooner? By that time, a new Congress might not be able to carry through with such heavy cuts and it may do what the current Congress is doing, namely, putting the heaviest cuts off till later.

We must ask, therefore, whether the Republicans are serious or are merely trying to make themselves look good while leaving the pain for later? That's what President Reagan did; that's what recent Democrats have done. What's fair and equitable about that?

Beyond the timing question, we should also ask what sense it makes to propose cut-backs in Medicare expenditures without reforming the health-care system itself, Here again, equity and fairness should lead to a concern with much more than budget numbers in the abstract. A great deal of Medicare's uncontrolled growth has been caused by a poorly designed insurance system. A better system could help make Medicare both fairer and less expensive. By not addressing the underlying causes of the huge growth in medical costs, the majority in Congress gives the impression that it is making great progress in the fight against budget deficits. But if the cuts in Medicare expenditures don't address the underlying health-care crisis, then elderly sick people may simply be forced to suffer more and more in the years ahead. What is fair about that?

The motivation behind my criticism is not to imply that Medicare expenditures should not be cut, but only that a disciplined Republican (or Democratic) Party will soon have to produce a plan to reform health care. If that is not done long before 2002, then the growing injustices associated with the country's health-care crisis may outdistance the less significant injustice of an unbalanced budget.

Welfare

Consider also the proposed cuts in welfare expenditures. It is certainly legitimate, even urgent, for the federal government to reform its failing welfare system. Programs that keep the poor dependent on bureaucracies and fail to make a dent in the worst kinds of poverty ought to be ended. That kind of argument, however, should be made as a matter of principle with regard to bad policies whether or not the budget is in balance. By contrast, to argue that welfare programs should be cut to help overcome the budget deficit makes no sense at all if the savings is relatively small (as it is) and if, at the same time, Congress plans to continue spending huge amounts on other unfair programs without reforming them.

Huge government subsidies, for example, go to the middle and upper classes through mortgage-interest deductions and through large Social Security benefits to some who do not pay a fair tax on their incomes as a whole. If welfare programs need to be reformed because they are bad programs, then many other programs should also be reformed. If government spending should to be cut, then it should be cut fairly and equitably everywhere and not only where the majority can get away with it because the poor do not have a strong enough voice to contend for more responsible programs.

Federalism vs. the Empowerment of Non-Government Organizations

Take yet another important area of controversy. The Republican majority repeats again and again that it wants to put power back in the hands of the people and overcome Washington's bureaucratic overreach. But what do they mean by this?

One of the House proposals is to grant a larger income-tax deduction to families for their dependents ($500 per dependent). The principle of fairness that supports this is that families with dependents need more of their income to hold themselves together and to rear their children. Those without dependents do not have a similar burden. Better to let parents keep more money as long as they have dependents. This is, in fact, a healthy way for government to uphold families, and perhaps the deduction should be even larger.

But this is something quite different from the federal government relinquishing responsibility for certain programs by simply sending money in block grants to state governments. If governmental responsibility entails the expenditure of money, why will state bureaucracies be able to do that better than the federal government? Is this really returning power to the people or merely giving more burdens and control to a lower level of government?

With respect to levels of government, if the states really are better able to handle certain governing responsibilities, then why have the federal government collect any taxes for those responsibilities only to send the funds back to the states? Why not let the states take care of themselves by raising their own taxes? Clearly, Congress is not going to follow this line of argument to its logical conclusion. So that makes the question about the federal government's proper responsibility all the more urgent? Unfortunately, this question has not been answered in the Republican budget proposals. When it suits them, they decry Washington's hold on power and argue that they are returning power to the people; when it suits them, they also decide to let Washington keep power to use for purposes that may appear quite incompatible with decentralization. Neither the Republicans nor the Democrats have yet offered a clear and comprehensive rationale for a fair and equitable federalism.

The challenge that the Center for Public Justice wants to help address is that of developing both comprehensive legislative programs and long-term governance strategies able to meet the requirements of justice for all.

[This is the fifth article in a series on the basic principles of the Center for Public Justice.]