Throughout various entries I’ve repeated my belief that many times government is disingenuous. What do I mean by “disingenuous” and is it a fair statement to make? While I’m not sure if a government going through the motions is criminal, the waste that it indicts in the presence of continuing problems of basic health care and poverty should be. And, in such huge bureaucracies, it is very easy for the right hand not to know what the left hand is doing. A dictionary might define disingenuous as being not straightforward or candid and perhaps even crafty. Well, if the truth is in the details maybe looking at a couple of examples will be helpful.
Election time always raises issues. They don’t necessarily solve them, but they get raised and this political season is no exception. As we race away from “super Tuesday” at least one remaining candidate continues to make tax reform a fundamental issue of his candidacy. Whether or not Huckabee’s consumption tax is the best solution, he at least acknowledges the current system’s inequity. Tax policy empowers the more literate and the wealthy that can employ them. The big obstacle to simplification is the power it takes from Congress and the President to “take action”. Tax policy is the major way in which our policy makers influence change and without that tool they would have to make more direct, and perhaps more accountable, measures to affect change.
If the American tax code is one source of frustration, then our legal system is another. Again, language is key in that empowers specialists. How many times do you consent to enter a website or accept terms and conditions without reading the details? Even when large sums of money are on the line as in the case of the mortgage crisis, most people, including well-educated professionals, fail to read the details. My question is: is it the responsibility of every consumer to understand each and every distinct contract? Or is a more reasonable approach for everyone to agree to a standard contract that defines the conduct and behaviors of both parties entering into a relationship? There is a lot more room for abuse of power by not holding parties to standard contracts which focus on conduct and behavior.
In the cases of our tax code and legal system, both are too complicated for all but an expert to navigate because language is power. And, complicit in our social contract that includes the government is that such systems should not be beyond the literary reach of the least educated of our population. I’m not saying government doesn’t have the right to collect taxes. If we demand the services we have to pay for them. I’m also not saying that we shouldn’t be able to “click on” disclaimers or sign mortgage contracts without thought or attention. I am saying that everyone has the right to transparency in these systems and that can be accomplished with simplification.
Finally, we find another example in the very contentious issue of Immigration policy. A great divide has been created over how to move forward with undocumented immigrants currently in the United States. We have always had the power to control immigration through enforcing employer compliance, but did the powers that be turn a blind eye toward this problem because it boosted the economy? The immigrants would never have come if we did not offer them jobs and to the degree we “ignored” this problem is also the degree to which we are responsible to arriving at an equitable solution.
If the function of government is to serve the public, then it is disingenuous to maintain systems which are structured in such a way so as to mystify the public whom it purportedly serves. Systems don’t need to be complicated to work. And, usually such complicated systems are evidence of at least neglect, if not poorly thought out systems.
