Taxation Without Representation
Empirical research has demonstrated a disconnect between government representation and the will of the people. This touches on several areas of study, including political science, economics, and sociology.
Public Opinion and Policy Disconnect
Research has shown that in the United States (Gillens), there can be is significant gap between public opinion and actual government policies. For 90% of the voting public, their opinion simply does not matter. Several studies have found that when the preferences of ordinary citizens and elite groups diverge. It is often the interests of the elite that are more likely to shape policy outcomes. This can lead to a situation where the government does not accurately reflect the preferences of the people.
Here are some notable examples, many from a national level for which is easier to get polling data for and intended for illustrative purposes and one state level example relevant to this election:
Vietnam War (1960s-1970s): Throughout much of the Vietnam War, a significant portion of the American public was opposed to the conflict. Despite widespread protests and declining support, government policy continued to escalate the U.S. involvement until the war’s end. By 1968 32% supported the war, 57% opposed. Yet the war continued for 7 years beyond that time. Early support was based on what is now known as a false flag attack. An example of how politicians manipulate public opinion to get support to initiate unpopular measures.
Prohibition (1920-1933): Initially, Prohibition was implemented following a strong temperance movement and public support. However, over time, public sentiment shifted against it due to the rise of organized crime and the negative social impacts, yet the policy persisted until the 21st Amendment repealed it.
Beth Doglio’s Sugar Tax: (2017-Present): Despite studies which show that such sugar taxes are ineffective, this tax was pushed through the House. If the voter referendum ballot Initiative 1634 is any indicaton of public opinion, this reflects yet another instance of how politicians go against public opinion to implement their own objectives.
Japanese American Internment (1942-1945): During World War II, the U.S. government, under Executive Order 9066, forcibly relocated Japanese Americans into internment camps. This action was supported by some public opinion due to wartime hysteria, but many others, including civil rights groups, opposed it. The policy was later widely criticized as a grave injustice.
The Iraq War (2003-2011): Initial support for the Iraq War was high, but over time, as the conflict dragged on and evidence of weapons of mass destruction was disproven, public support dwindled significantly. Despite growing opposition, the policy persisted for years. By 2007 only 36% supported the decision to invade. But the war continued until the end of 2011. Later we discuss how politicians create public opinion and the tail wags the dog but this is an example of that. An example of how politicians manipulate public opinion to get support to initiate unpopular measures.
The War on Drugs (1980s-Present): The War on Drugs, initiated with strong support in the 1980s, led to harsh sentencing laws and a focus on criminalization rather than treatment for drug users. Over time, public opinion shifted towards viewing drug abuse more as a public health issue than a criminal one, but significant policy change has been slow to follow. For decades 6% support eliminating criminal penalties for drug possession and reinvesting drug enforcement resources into treatment and addiction services, 64% supported repealing mandatory minimum sentence for drug crimes, and 61% supported commuting or reducing the sentences of people incarcerated for drugs. Nevertheless 40 years have come and gone and there are many still in prison for drug possession which today would be legal. Most of the arguments used by the political class to support the policy turned out to be patently false.
The 2008 Financial Crisis Response: During the 2008 financial crisis, there was substantial public anger over bank bailouts and perceived unfair treatment of everyday citizens. Policies such as the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP) were implemented to stabilize the financial system, but many felt that these measures did not adequately reflect the public’s desire for accountability and reform. Stats: 60% of the public wanted the government to help people stay in their homes (the government didn’t) whereas 60% of the public opposed wall streat bailouts (the government did this instead). 2008 Crisis
The No Child Left Behind Act (2001-2015): This education reform aimed to improve educational outcomes through standardized testing and accountability measures. While intended to address educational disparities, it faced criticism from educators and parents who felt it placed undue stress on students and schools without adequately addressing root causes of educational inequality. Accorging to a Gallup Poll done in 2012: 16% felt it made education better, 38% felt it made no difference, 29% felt it made things worse and 14% were unfamiliar with the act. We are still living with the aftermath of this program today.
Disclaimer (a.k.a You can stop reading here if you’re busy)
On the rare occasion where I can get good honest feedback on my writing I take it to heart. Some feedback I have gotten is that my writing style sounds like I am trying to be the smartest person in the room. Honestly, it’s just that some of what I have to say is so out of the ordinary that I feel compelled to back it up with solid research. The curse of having an independent mind is that when you form a viewpoint that significantly diverges from the main stream, many people will think you are a crack pot unless you can back it up with a solid bit of evidence. I don’t really hope to change your mind, but I do hope at least that I will give you pause to consider that maybe some of what you have come to believe deserves re-evaluation.
To that end, if you don’t care about the details supporting the claim that your politicans typically don’t represent your interesests the way you want you can save yourself a few minutes and stop reading here. If you want to continue I hope that you find this information useful in helping you make effective voting decisions this November.
“From opinions to policies: Examining the links between citizens, representatives, and policy change” by Mikael Persson (2003)(Persson M.):
Anderson’s work outlines how policy is made in democratic systems, noting that while public opinion can influence policy, other factors such as interest groups, political parties, and institutional constraints also play significant roles. This can lead to a disconnect between what the public wants and what is enacted. This paper combines data from Swedish election studies, surveys with members of parliament, and a database of policy change. It shows that representatives’ opinions reflect advantaged groups better than disadvantaged groups.
Political representatives appear to be better at representing opinions of socioeconomically advantaged groups than disadvantaged groups. If representatives are incapable of representing the views of all citizens, it will be hard for the political system to deliver policy changes in an unbiased way.
“The Effects of Public Opinion on Policy” by Benjamin I. Page and Robert Y. Shapiro (1983) (Page & Schapiro):
Page and Shapiro’s research found that while public opinion does have some impact on policy, it is often indirect and mediated through various intermediaries. Their work highlights how the complexities of policy formation can lead to discrepancies between public preferences and actual policies. In this study they point out that
Even if public opinion is truly a proximate cause of policy, it may itself be affected by factors not wholly compatible with normative concepts of democracy. If, for example interest groups or politicians manage to manipulate opinion through lies or deception, and policy subsequently responds to the manipulated opinion, we would hesitate to celebrate the result as a democratic one.
“Agendas, alternatives and public policies” by John W. Kingdon (1984) (Kingdon J.W):
Kingdon’s “Agenda Setting Theory” explores how issues come to the forefront of the policy agenda and how they are influenced by a combination of public opinion, interest groups, and political elites. His work illustrates how policy decisions are influenced by factors beyond mere public opinion.
Consensus is built in the political stream by bargaining more than by persuasion…in the political stream particpants build consensus by bargaining (trading provisions for support) … interest groups are often able to block consideration of proposals they do not prefer, or to adapt to an item already high on the governmental agenda by adding elements a bit more to their liking.
To get kind of a feel for how this “sausage making” process really happens, it is instructive to look at the list of over 500 amendments to the Affordable Care Act that the Obama administration claimed as it’s crowning achievement, but was severely altered by political wheeling and dealing. This is the side of politics that the partisan voter seldom has any visibliity into.
Thanks to this process even when a politician tells the truth such as “I will put forth a bill that does X,Y and Z” we end up with a law that does A-W, maybe Z, but definately not X or Y. At no point in this “sausage making” process does the opinion of regular working class people seem to gain any serious traction. The root cause of this is that people in power want to stay in power. People stay in power thanks to the support of their party and the money and influence it provides. So, they do what their party and their donors want and then basically lie to the public to say “Wow, that was hard but we got it done through a bi-partisan effort. Are’t you all proud of what we have accomplished?”
What would legislation look like of it were not possible to engage in such wheeling and dealing? What if each bill proposed was all or nothing? What if instead of a political whip setting the agenda, the agenda were set by the public in a request for comments type of setting and like referenda, you had to get a certain level of public support for your bill in order for it to come to a vote on the floor of the house and senate?
We might see fewer laws get passed, but I would bet that the laws that DO get passed would be more aligned with the will of the people.
The impact of public opinion on voting and policymaking" by Leo Ahrens (2024) (Ahrens L.)
Ahrens performs an extensive literature reiew which shows that political parties do more to shape public opinion than public opinion does to shape public policy when political parties are the predominate influence over the political process. This upends the perceived role of “the people” in the democratic process.
As discussed, most people lack the political sophistication necessary for deliberate policy voting. People possess limited information about political issues and often care little about them. As a resolve, people adapt the opinions offered by political elites. The motivation for doing so is twofold (Slothuus and Bisgaard 2021a, p. 897). First, elite opinions simplify the world once you trust a specific opinion source, it becomes unnecessary to form an independent opinion as you can simply adopt their thinking. Second, elites can become so integral to the self that rejecting their opinion requires rejection of the self, implying that people adopt foreign thought to avoid inner inconsistency. This becomes relevant when people form a strong partisan identification
Put simply, if people are uninvolved in the process of influencing policy then why do we bother with democracy at all? If our parties provide structural means to allow the political process to be bought by the higest bidders, then do we even have a democracy? Do we want one? Most importantly of all in our world of ever increasing global tensions, is it worth fighting and dying for something that emperically does not exist?
I would like a Democracy please!
“The right type of legislator: A theory of taxation and representation” by Andrea Mottozi and Erik Snowberg (2018) (Mottozi & Snowberg)
This study develops a theory of taxation and distribution of government spending and finds that individuals have different market abilities and political (negotiating) abilities. When there is a positive correlation then economically disadvantaged voters face a trade-off. Rich voters will always favor a rich legislator. But counterintuitively economically disadvantaged voters will ALSO elect a rich legislator if there exists an ability for legislators to direct funds to their district.
When ability to direct funds to a legislator’s own district does not matter at all—say through budgeting procedures that make it impossible to target funding—then every district elects a legislator who is the same type as its median voter, and the tax rate is effectively set by the median voter of the median district. We call this a representative equilibrium.
If, instead, ability to direct funds matters just a little, many districts with poor median voters will elect rich legislators. However, poor legislators will still form a minimal winning coalition in the legislature. Those that vote for rich legislators will know, in equilibrium, that they will not cause the legislature to tip to a rich majority, and hence will choose a rich legislator for his superior negotiating abilities. The legislative majority, composed of poor legislators, knows that rich legislators will get more than an equal share of tax revenues, and will shade down the tax rate to reduce the expropriation from their districts. We call such equilibria somewhat representative.
Finally, when the ability to direct funds to a legislator’s own district is important, then the unique equilibrium will be for every district to elect a rich legislator.
While on the surface it seems that the poor often vote against their own interest, this viewpoint is somewhat naieve. It turns out that because of the way our government is structured, the poor are forced to make some very tough choices, and there are few good options available to them. Ideally we would structure our government to enable people to vote for the person who best represents them (a.k.a representative equillibrium), but that’s just not how the game is rigged.
Economically disadvantaged, voters are more in need of government services than rich voters, and legislators who seek the vote of the economically disadvantaged will claim to want to “tax the rich” but when taxes are raised they are overwhelmingly raised on the working class while cut for the rich. Furthermore, resources thus taxed, overwhelmingly end up in the hands of the rich.
Even when govenment services are established to help the needy, the lions share of the tax money goes to pay the salaries of government employees who implement the programs rather than being distributed to the needy themselves.
Higher Taxes - Who Benefits?
Government programs designed to help the needy are intended to provide support and assistance to individuals and families facing economic hardship. However, there is some debate and scrutiny over whether these programs sometimes end up benefiting government employees or institutions more than the intended recipients. Here are some points and research related to this issue:
Administrative Costs and Overhead:
Government programs often involve significant administrative costs. Some studies suggest that a substantial portion of funds allocated to social programs goes towards administrative expenses rather than directly reaching beneficiaries. For example, research on welfare programs has shown that administrative costs can sometimes consume a significant share of program budgets, potentially reducing the amount that directly aids recipients.
Public Sector Employment:
Programs like unemployment benefits, social services, and public health initiatives create jobs within the public sector. This can be seen as an indirect benefit to government employees, as their roles are funded by these programs. While this can be viewed as a positive economic impact (providing jobs and stability), it can also be perceived as a way in which government employees benefit from programs intended for the needy.
Program Effectiveness and Targeting:
Research on the effectiveness of social programs often highlights issues with program design and targeting. Studies like “Three Worlds of Welfare Capitalism” by Gøsta Esping-Andersen (1990) analyze how welfare programs sometimes fail to effectively reach those in need due to bureaucratic inefficiencies or inadequate targeting. In such cases, inefficiencies can lead to less effective support for needy populations.
Rent-Seeking Behavior:
The concept of “rent-seeking” in economics refers to efforts by individuals or groups to gain economic benefits through manipulation or exploitation of the political or economic system. Research on rent-seeking behavior in public administration, such as “The Political Economy of the RentSeeking Society” by Anne O. Krueger (1974), explores how certain groups might benefit disproportionately from government programs, including public sector employees.
Comparative Studies:
These studies can provide insights into how effectively programs serve their intended purposes and the broader impacts on public sector employment. While government programs are designed with the best intentions to aid those in need, the effectiveness of these programs can be influenced by administrative costs, program design, and broader economic factors. Research highlights the need for careful design and implementation to ensure that the benefits of these programs are maximized for the intended recipients, while also managing the indirect benefits that may accrue to government employees or institutions involved in administering these programs.
“The Welfare State: A Very Short Introduction” by David Garland (2016):
This book provides a comprehensive overview of welfare states, including discussions on the effectiveness of social programs and their impact on different groups.
“The New Public Service: Serving, Not Steering” by Janet V. Denhardt (2015):
This text explores how public administration, including welfare programs, is influenced by political and professional dynamics, which can impact the efficacy and focus of these programs. It is organized around a set of seven core principles: (1) serve citizens, not customers; (2) seek the public interest; (3) value citizenship and public service above entrepreneurship; (4) think strategically, act democratically; (5) recognize that accountability isn’t simple; (6) serve, rather than steer; and (7) value people, not just productivity.
Conclusion
Most civilized democracies have well established social safety nets, vastly superior to those provided within the United States even among the most progressive states. If we define the success of a social welfare program as delivering needed services and support to those who need it, then one of the most important factors that affects this success is ensuring that those in need have a voice in policy. We have shown that public policy is deaf to the public voice, and this is enabled by the structural features of our two party system. Under the current regime, we have two undesireable choices:
- Eliminate all social welfare programs and let the weak perish (Republican)
- Raise taxes on the working class, implement ineffective welfare programs which enlarge the government workforce loyal to the party that enables them, rinse and repeat (Democrat).
Neither of these choices are favorable to the working class nor to the vulnerable within our population. We need better alternatives. Other countries have already figured this out, and I am sure we can too if we try.