The outdated principles of less government

DYCKMAN E-mail: Click here Archive

By MARTIN DYCKMAN

© St. Petersburg Times,
published September 23, 2001

TALLAHASSEE -- On Sept. 10, a day that now seems so ancient as to belong to a former life, Speaker Tom Feeney called members into the chamber of the Florida House of Representatives to coach them on how to get their bills out of committee and to the floor for a vote.

Just see to it that the legislation fits his five guiding principles, Feeney said.

"Everyone has their biases and their differences in philosophy," he explained. "The best I can do is share mine honestly with you."

Adding a theatric touch, Feeney distributed a plastic wallet card quoting the principles, inviting members to use it like a talisman to get their bills heard. Simply "show your card to the committee chair and point out how many of the principles your bill met," he said.

What Feeney didn't say, not needing to, was that bills not conforming to the principles might as well be filed in a trash can as with the clerk.

This is not democracy as the public schools teach it.

But the reality is that speakers have always had, and have relentlessly used, the power to kill legislation they do not like. The same goes for presidents of the Senate. The only new elements are (a) that Feeney was so forthcoming about it (which suspicious Democrats viewed less as a spasm of candor than as a propaganda stunt for his anticipated campaign for Congress) and (b) the notion that all legislation must filter through the same doctrinaire prism.

Speaker (now Sen.) Daniel Webster of Orlando, the first Republican to govern the House since Reconstruction, enunciated the principles five years ago. Ever since, each House committee staff analysis of pending legislation has had to note how it fulfills or offends the principles.

So perhaps the citizens of Florida, whom the House ostensibly represents, should pay close attention to the principles, and especially to the argumentative, ad hominem nature of some of them.

The first is "less government," which supposes fewer regulations and "unnecessary programs."

The second is more of the same: "Lower taxes," which also encompasses "personal responsibility in spending . . ."

The third elaborates on "personal responsibility" by suggesting that ideal legislation should "encourage" citizens to "provide for their own health, safety, education, moral fortitude, or general welfare."

The fourth, obviously missing an asterisk, exalts "individual freedom" for individuals or families to decide, "without hindrance or coercion from government, how to conduct their own lives and make personal choices." There really should be a footnote saying, "Except for reproductive choice."

The fifth concerns "stronger families," which is defined in part as the power "to rear children without excessive interference from the government."

It is the first, however, that particularly merits attention now.

Less government . . .

Nothing could have been made more obvious Sept. 11 than that the United States needs not less government, but more.

It was less government that left the airlines in charge of their own security, which they delegated to poorly trained, miserably paid civilian contract employees. It was less regulation that let knives and box cutters aboard four aircraft that would soon become flying bombs.

But when the nation recoiled in shock and fear, it was real cops, not shopping mall security guards, who set up a security perimeter around the governor's mansion where the president's brother lives. They were real cops with real weapons and the best of training, and no one cared to ask how much more they might cost.

It was real cops and real firefighters who died by the hundreds at the World Trade Center helping civilians escape. You will not hear anyone now begrudge what some used to call their "generous" pension and health benefits.

The point I'm trying to make is not just about law enforcement and airport security. They are the most obvious examples, but hardly the extent of the indispensable things that government exists to do. Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr., who left his estate to the government, said it best: "With taxes, I buy civilization."

"It's government workers who save people's lives. It's the government that's going to have to bail out the airline industry, the government that's saving New York. So all this government-bashing has got to stop. In a lot of ways, we're seeing where our true values are," says House Minority Leader Lois Frankel, who heads the loyal opposition to Feeney. Though it is only the House that is currently fixated on the five principles, Webster is in a hot race to be the next Senate president. If he wins, the five principles will likely control the Senate's agenda, too.

It wouldn't be so bad if there were a little balance to the principles. As by dropping "less government" as the first principle and replacing it with "a safer society."

© 2006 • All Rights Reserved • St. Petersburg Times
490 First Avenue South • St. Petersburg, FL 33701 • 727-893-8111

Contact the Times | Privacy Policy
Standard of Accuracy | Terms, Conditions & Copyright