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.


Post a comment to this story

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

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ on Facebook:
Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ's Tweets on these topics:
Subscribe to IBJ
  1. PJ - Mall operators like Simon, and most developers/ land owners, establish individual legal entities for each property to avoid having a problem location sink the ship, or simply structure the note to exclude anything but the property acting as collateral. Usually both. The big banks that lend are big boys that know the risks and aren't mad at Simon for forking over the deed and walking away.

  2. Do any of the East side residence think that Macy, JC Penny's and the other national tenants would have letft the mall if they were making money?? I have read several post about how Simon neglected the property but it sounds like the Eastsiders stopped shopping at the mall even when it was full with all of the national retailers that you want to come back to the mall. I used to work at the Dick's at Washington Square and I know for a fact it's the worst performing Dick's in the Indianapolis market. You better start shopping there before it closes also.

  3. How can any company that has the cash and other assets be allowed to simply foreclose and not pay the debt? Simon, pay the debt and sell the property yourself. Don't just stiff the bank with the loan and require them to find a buyer.

  4. If you only knew....

  5. The proposal is structured in such a way that a private company (who has competitors in the marketplace) has struck a deal to get "financing" through utility ratepayers via IPL. Competitors to BlueIndy are at disadvantage now. The story isn't "how green can we be" but how creative "financing" through captive ratepayers benefits a company whose proposal should sink or float in the competitive marketplace without customer funding. If it was a great idea there would be financing available. IBJ needs to be doing a story on the utility ratemaking piece of this (which is pretty complicated) but instead it suggests that folks are whining about paying for being green.