IBJOpinion

MARCUS: Opposing ideas need not demand respect

Morton Marcus
March 19, 2011
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share
Morton Marcus

Morton MarcusMore than 200 people assembled in Hobart on March 11 to hear a panel of vigorous speakers explore the various dimensions of ethics in government. The discussion focused on officials, elected and appointed, who convert their power into personal gain. We call it corruption in the form of graft, bribery, nepotism, conflict of interest, being on the take, pay to play, and a host of additional names.

These serious matters cost taxpayers billions of dollars annually at the state and local levels. The abuse of power is not limited to certain states, counties or cities. It is found everywhere, but it is not the dominant characteristic of public service. The overwhelming majority of elected and appointed officials are honest servants of the people not looking for kickbacks or inappropriate advantages in their jobs.

Speakers at the meeting encouraged the audience to keep an eye on government, to be watchdogs, to endorse training government officials and workers about ethical issues. The culture of unethical behavior and the perception of public office as a private possession permit corruption to endure from one administration to another, in some cases for generations.

Ethics goes much further than not cheating the taxpayers by improperly applying their funds for personal gain. Ethics in government also involves doing the right thing and being effective.

The idea that citizens are taxpayers and nothing more leads to poor decisions. As consumers of services, we have other direct and indirect relationships with government beyond paying taxes. When we emphasize taxes, we focus on efficiency and often disregard effectiveness.

Take snow removal. It snows and streets are impassable. Crews come out, remove the snow, and normal functions resume. That’s what we want. That’s effective government.

Yes, we desire efficient government where funds are used honestly and in a prudent manner, keeping costs low. We don’t want all the contracts for snow removal going to the mayor’s friends and family. But removal of the snow is our primary concern. The possibility of saving some money in the process is desirable, but secondary.

This view does not condone illegal or unethical behaviors. But it adds a dimension to ethical government. Would we prefer perfectly appropriate contracting and a poor job of snow removal?

The essential ethical aspect of government, touched only lightly at this conference, is the need for government officials to do the right thing. Often, the excuse is made that there are differences of opinion as to what is right. This argument merely reveals an inadequacy of debate, sometimes disguising an unwillingness to oppose ill-informed views.

For example, is it morally justified to deny necessary services to the poor, the disabled and the disadvantaged in order to maintain low taxes on the wealthy? Is it unconscionable to deny unemployment or Worker’s Compensation in order to keep down taxes on workers holding jobs? (Many people believe that employers pay these taxes, but in all likelihood they are paid indirectly through lower wages for those at work.)

In Indiana and across the nation, arguments bubble concerning the effect on investment and the robustness of business if taxes are raised moderately. Those arguments are unfounded except in the mythology of the ignorant. We have a cadre of conservatives who would cut government spending in order to get people back to work. This is a fundamentally flawed idea.

To accept these positions, to honor them as valid expressions of personal values, is unethical. To avoid debate because your opponent holds a different view is wrong. That is why legislative minorities in several states have denied the majorities easy victories. Failure to cooperate with an unethical power is a commendable ethical stand.•

__________

Marcus taught economics for more than 30 years at Indiana University and is the former director of IU’s Business Research Center. His column appears weekly. He can be reached at mmarcus@ibj.com.

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in IBJ editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ on Facebook:
Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ's Tweets on these topics:
 
Subscribe to IBJ
  1. "bike lanes, specialized lighting, decorative signage, public art, grass medians, trees and rain gardens" These are all nice things to have, but can we freaking get the hundreds of potholes all over the city fixed first?!?!?!!?!?!

  2. When a criminal with multiple prior convictions serves five days of a one year sentence and later kills a police officer with a weapon illegally in his posession, residents of Boone County need to pay a tax to drive to work... PERFECT Progressive logic.. If, on the other hand, a fund were to be set up to build more prisons and hire more guards to keep the known criminals off the streets, I'd be the first to contribute.

  3. Not a word about how much the taxpayers will be ripped off on this deal. Crime spirals out of control and the the social problems that cause it go unheeded by an administration that does not give a rats behind about the welfare of our citizens. There is no money for police or plowing snow (remember last winter) or or or or, but spend on a sports complex, and the cash flows out of the taxpayers pockets. This city is SICK

  4. Sounds like a competitor just wanted to cause a problem. I would think as long as they are not "selling" the alcohol to the residents it is no different than if I serve wine to dinner guests. With all the violent crime happening I would think they should turn their attention to real criminals. Let these older residents enjoy what pleasures they can. Then again those boozed up residents may pose a danger to society.

  5. Where did the money go from the 2007 Income tax increase for public safety that the Mayor used to stir opposition and win the election and then failed to repeal (although he promised he would when he was running for election)? Where did the money go from the water utility sale? Where did the money go from the parking meter deal? Why does the money have all these funds for TIF deals and redevelopment of Mass avenue, and subsidy for luxury high rises, parking garages in Broad Ripple, and granola chain grocery stores but can not find the money to take care of public safety. Commuters shouldn't have to pay the tax of failed leadership in Marion County by leaders that commuters have no say in electing. Taxation without representation.

ADVERTISEMENT