Should the Federal Government Vacuum Leaves?

"Subsidiarity," according to Wikipedia, is an organizing principle of decentralization, which holds that a matter ought to be handled by the smallest, lowest, or least centralized authority capable of addressing that matter effectively.

The principle of subsidiarity is built into the U.S. Constitution. As designed, the federal government was to have only such specific powers as the experiment under the Articles of Confederation made clear were necessary and proper to an efficient national government, consistent the with notion that ours was to be a federal system. The last two amendments to the Bill of Rights were specifically designed to prevent mission creep -- to limit the federal government to the exercise of its "specifically enumerated powers." They are:

"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." -- Ninth Amendment (1791)

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." 10th Amendment (1791)

To understand the practical implications of the principle of subsidiarity, consider Moline's annual leaf vacuuming program. And consider whether every American has a right to have his leaves vacuumed up.

Every year at this time, Moline goes into the business of collecting leaves that have fallen from Moline's innumerable trees. This is a great program. The men and women who conceived, implemented and have continued this leaf collection deserve the gratitude of everybody who breathes Moline air.

In 2012, Moline collected 1,624 tons of leaves (3,248,000 lbs) Oct.15-Nov. 30. This job took 5,592 man hours. In addition to vacuuming leaves, the city also collected 167 tons of leaves using a tractor and hay baler. Once collected, most leaves were spread and then worked into the soil on two farms owned by the city; the remainder were utilized by local farmers. The city incurred no land-fill fees.

The cost of the 2012 program was $285,187, or $6.59 per resident. This was a bargain for every resident of Moline, and an even greater bargain for those residents with asthma or other respiratory diseases who avoided just one night in the hospital.

Nowadays, as the federal education department and Obamacare clearly demonstrate, whenever Congress decides that a problem is "national," the principle of "subsidiarity" gets obliterated.

This federal government mission-creep is not new. It dates back to Dec. 5, 1791, when Alexander Hamilton made his Report on Manufacturers to the House of Representatives. In it he wrote:

"It is, therefore, of necessity, left to the discretion of the National Legislature (Congress) to pronounce upon the objects which concern the general welfare, and for which, under that description, an appropriation of money is requisite and proper.

"And there seems to be no room for a doubt, that whatever concerns the general interests of learning, of agriculture, of manufactures, and of commerce, are within the sphere of the national councils, as far as regards an application of money.

The only qualification of the generality of the phrase in question, which seems to be admissible, is this: That the object, to which an appropriation of money is to be made, be general, and not local; its operation extending, in fact, or by possibility, throughout the Union, and not being confined to a particular spot.

No objection ought to arise to this construction, from a supposition that it would imply a power to do whatever else should appear to Congress conducive to the general welfare."

The federal courts, which were originally controlled by federalist judges, accepted Hamilton's construction of the Constitution. When 140 years later, Congress passed Social Security, federal judges sustained it using Hamilton's reasoning.

But if the only qualification is that "the object, to which an appropriation of money is to be made, (must) be general, and not local, what would stop the federal government from deciding that the leaves that fall throughout the nation each autumn, are a matter of "general" and not just "local" concern? What would stop Congress from deciding that the federal government can do a better job of collecting and disposing of leaves than Moline (and all the other cities throughout the nation)?

How many people would have to be hired at salaries in the range of $100,000 per year to run the new Federal Department of Leaf Collection and Disposal? Would they get pensions? Health care?

What would become of the Moline employees who up until now have collected leaves? Would they become federal employees? Or would they be replaced, and new federal employees hired? Perhaps politically connected ACORN "workers?" Would the appropriations for the new department increase at 3 percent, 5 percent, or 10 percent per year? And would the new federal employees get the leaves collected as efficiently as our local workers? And what new "regulations" would be imposed on Moline home owners?

And when the Feds got involved would the cost remain at $6.59 per Moline resident, or would it decrease? Increase? If you have any doubts, just look to the U.S. Department of Education. It began with two employees. Its 2013 budget was $105 billion. Were the services provided by Washington worth $105 billion to the nation's 81 million school children?

Did each child get $1,300 worth of services from Washington?



John Donald O'Shea of Moline is a retired circuit court judge.


Posted Online: Nov. 21, 2013, 11:48 am - Quad-Cities Online
by John Donald O'Shea

Copyright 2013
John Donald O'Shea