A while ago I came to my own conclusion that local government has four distinct responsibilities. Its ability to fulfill those four responsibilities determines how successful it is. Public Safety, Roads, Public Education, and Sanitation. Any local government (state level and below) can prioritize those as they see fit.

This comes up today as Krugman's Op-ed talks about Social Security, the federal budget and W's promise to restore honor and integrity to the Office. W's tax cut and his cooking of the books to say that he's not raiding SS faster than anyone, including Krugman, suspected are not honest nor does either posess the slightest bit of integrity. That W and his administration are liars and would never make good on their promises is not news to their political enemies and is probably not a shock to their supporters. After all, they're politicians and we don't expect much from them. When they make pledges to behave enitirely differently from the rest, we raise our eyebrows and wait for this lie to confirm that, yes, all politicians are liars.

All of this has set me to determining what, if any, the responsibilities of a national government are. In economics there are concepts defined as public goods. An example is national defense. By default, a government provides public goods since no one in an economy can profitably supply them on their own. I usually start with public goods as benchmarks for what a government must provide to be successful. I know that honesty and integrity aren't responsibilities of a government (except when they promise to provide it). I don't think that Social Security or a balanced budget are responsibilities either. I think a government ought to provide all three, but they're not basic responsibilities. Of course, not being required to supply doesn't mean you can welch on a promise to supply after the fact and not expect people to get in a huff.
- posted by levinson @ 8/28/2001 07:46:00 AM