No Liberty Without Dependency

By Patrick Weadon

Marylanders (and all Americans, for that matter) have short memories when it comes to history, particularly economic history. It is true that for millions, times are tough and that we as a nation are faced with grave economic difficulties.

While there are plenty of reasons to be concerned, it is instructive to remember that in the past, America has been in far worse shape. As noted in “American Made,” the wonderful history of the Works Project Administration (WPA), “When FDR took office, a quarter of the nation’s workers had no jobs and no hope of finding one. Factoring in their families, this meant that in a nation of 130 million ... 60 million were literally without support: no money … no food … no shelter.”

This fact is small consolation to those facing the economic challenges of the current day, but the fact remains that our nation survived those tough times and went on to achieve even greater things.

We pulled through, in part, because of the hard work and spirit of the American people. Another reason we made it through, however, was robust government programs. It is true that the New Deal did not end the Depression. What it did do was serve as a cast that stabilized the broken economy and allowed us to eventually move forward to better days.

Programs such as Social Security gave people hope and over time provided invaluable assistance to future generations (case in point: Paul Ryan’s college tuition was paid with Social Security survivor benefits). Later, initiatives such as the GI Bill and Medicare would produce a middle class that would become the envy of the world. Government did not create this miracle; the American people did, but government played an indispensable role.

This is why I believe policies that acknowledge the indispensability of government to the American way of life are critical to ensuring our future. To quote the eminent University of Chicago scholar Cass Sunstein: “In what sense is the money in our pockets and bank accounts fully ours? Did we earn it by our own autonomous efforts? Could we have inherited it without the assistance of probate courts? Do we save it without the support of bank regulators? Could we spend it if there were no public officials to coordinate the efforts and pool the resources of the community in which we live? Without taxes, there would be no liberty. Without taxes there would be no property. Without taxes, few of us would have any assets worth defending. [It is] a dim fiction that some people enjoy and exercise their rights without placing any burden whatsoever on the public … There is no liberty without dependency.”

So in summary, conservatives are correct in making the case that no economy can function without individuals who are willing to engage in thrift, self-reliance and entrepreneurship. They are wrong, however, in assuming that only individuals drive the economy. Public investment is an immutable part of the mix as well.

The fact is that we are all in this together and that, in the end, no one wins unless everyone wins. I am not making a case to ensure equal outcomes. That is not realistic. However, when the rich are the only members of a society that have reason to hope for a better future, society as a whole suffers. Those political leaders who have the courage and wisdom to understand this should be lauded. Yes, we need to reduce expenditures, but at the same time we need to continue to find ways to “put the hay down where the goats can get it.”