|
 ince
September 11, public support for government has increased as Americans
rally together in the face of outside threats.
A Gallup poll
conducted just days before the attacks asked Americans whether the
government is trying to do too many things that should be left to
individuals and businesses, or whether it should do more to solve
the country's problems. Fifty-five percent thought the government
was doing too much, compared to 36 percent who thought it should
do more. When the same poll was repeated, the results flipped; 41
percent thought the government was doing too much, while 51 percent
believed it should do more to solve the country's problems.
Other polls
show similar high levels of trust in government to "do what's
right" following September 11. Such trends are not historically
unusual, however. As Robert Higgs documented in his 1987 book, Crisis
and Leviathan, federal expenditures increase during war periods,
but then never fully recede to their pre-war levels once the war
ends. This "ratchet effect" means that periods of crisis
have tended to strengthen reliance on the government permanently,
while simultaneously eroding individual responsibility and freedom.
The income
tax as we know it was first introduced as the nation prepared for
World War I. During World War II, income-tax rates not only increased,
but were automatically deducted from paychecks. That wartime expedient
remained after the conclusion of the war, leaving countless businesses
forced into the tax-collection business, and obscuring for many
Americans the real fiscal burden imposed by their government.
This ratchet
effect is also evident in regulatory activity. Pages in the Federal
Register, which has served as a daily compendium of federal
rules and notices since 1936, increase by 20 percent on average
during national crises (including wars and the "moral equivalent
of war" — the 1970s energy crisis). Moreover, growth in
Federal Register pages appears to continue on a steeper path
after the crisis ends.
Federal
Register page counts cannot tell us what different types of
regulatory activity are more prevalent during and after war periods,
but history suggests that we are more likely to see "economic
regulations" during periods of war than "social regulations."
"Economic
regulations" directly restrict a firm's primary economic activities
such as its pricing and output decisions. During the world wars,
the federal government took over factories and railroads to secure
supplies for defense efforts. Most of these commandeered resources
were returned to private hands at the conclusion of hostilities,
but with residual regulatory controls that hadn't existed before
the war. The railroads, for example, were returned to their owners
in 1920, but the powers of the Interstate Commerce Commission were
expanded to include complete control over rates, securities offerings,
mergers, and construction, as well as use and abandonment of rail
facilities.
Since September
11, airport security is the most visible case of federal assumption
of a private activity. The November 2001 aviation security legislation
put federal employees in charge of airport security screening for
the next three years at least. Like the resources commandeered during
previous wars, airport security may be returned to private hands
after three years, but only upon the request of individual airports,
and only with increased federal regulatory scrutiny.
"Social
regulations" are generally intended to promote environmental
quality, or the health and safety of consumers and workers. Unlike
economic regulations, the greatest increases in social regulations
have historically occurred during times of peace and prosperity,
rather than in response to wars. The sharpest increase in social
regulatory activity occurred during the post-Vietnam period of the
1970s. Higgs suggests that this may be because U.S. wars have served
to shift national attitudes and values toward greater acceptance
of federal regulation and less reliance on individual responsibility
and choice.
America, from
its Founding, has been characterized by a skepticism of government.
It remains to be seen whether that skepticism can be preserved through
these troubled times. As the threat from terrorism fades, elected
officials may feel pressure to "lead" on domestic as well
as national defense issues. If historical patterns hold, Americans
may see a further erosion of our individual freedoms as the federal
government moves beyond its unique and essential role in national
defense, toward greater federal regulation of private activities.
|
