Posted by
Civis on Tuesday, March 04, 2008 5:08:47 PM
The term “special interests” brings to mind a negative connotation. These groups work to promote policies that benefit their own self interest rather than promoting policies for the benefit of all. Not all special interest groups have intentions that could be perceived as bad and some can be considered quite noble. They run the full political, social, cultural, and business spectrum. You can question the merits, motivations, and/or constitutionality of these groups’ causes, but interest groups are constitutionally allowed to petition the government.
Now all I hear coming out of the Democratic primary is how each candidate is going to fight the special interests. Certainly they are not talking about the teacher’s union. My question to the Democrats is why do you harp on the evil special interests while simultaneously making it easier for them to consolidate influence by centralizing power at the federal level?
Ø Would special interest groups have as much clout if the New Deal, the Great Society, and No Child Left Behind (I know this was ushered in by a Republican) programs were never enacted?
Ø Would special interests have the same clout if federalism was strictly followed and each State and sub-government retained the sovereignty that was intended in the US Constitution?
In my humble opinion, centralizing government power also centralizes lobbyist power leading to more opportunities for corruption. Decentralized power and the retention of sovereignty at the local level provides an atmosphere for a federal congressman to listen to a special request and respond that the request is outside their scope of power rather than saying I can cure all your ills.
According to a report that was created for Congress, ”Federal Grants to State and Local Governments: A Brief History”, federal grants, before the second half of the 19th century, were largely grants for land, canals, and forts. It facilitated the westward migration of settlers. The federal government played almost no role in providing social service grants. Below is an excerpt from the report identifying Franklin Pierce's reasoning for this lack of social spending:
"President Franklin Pierce (1853-1857) vetoed an 1854 act, supported by reformer Dorothea Dix, to allocate funds to states to help the indigent insane. Pierce contended that if:"
“Congress is to make provision for [paupers], the fountains of charity will be dried up at home, and the several States, instead of bestowing their own means on the social wants of their people ... [will] become humble suppliants (beggars) for the bounty of the Federal Government, reversing their true relation to this Union.”
Pierce’s comments should be considered prophetic.
http://founders.blogtownhall.com/2007/10/02/21st_century_federalism3.thtml