In the spirit of Election Day, Grand Valley State University hosted a debate on Tuesday between two professors, from opposing sides of the political spectrum, who discussed the role of the federal government.

The Hauenstein Center’s inaugural Coffee House Debate, a new part of its Common Ground Initiative, put Mark Hoffman, director of the School of Public, Nonprofit and Health Administration, against Donijo Robbins, professor in the SPNHA.

POSITIONS ON GOVERNMENT

Hoffman, who leans liberal, said in a way the U.S. was established as an anti-government country because the Declaration of Independence was a “list of complaints against the colonial administration.”

“Given this history I think it is natural and healthy that we look with some suspicion on government, and we’re very sensitive to incidents of waste, corruption and red tape,” he said. “But because of this, I think we tend to be oblivious to the successes and the benefits of government.”

Americans tend to overlook the ability to drink clean tap water, mailing a package without it being opened or working in a factory without having to worry it will be a fire trap, Hoffman said, and even with contributions from generous benefactors, many construction projects have some government funding.

He added that about 1.4 million nonprofit organizations also have government help, with some receiving large percentages of their operating budgets through government grants and contracts.

“A lot of what the government does, I think, becomes invisible to us,” Hoffman said. “So it becomes very easy to sort of dismiss what the government does and just say, ‘Well if we got rid of government not much would be affected.’ But I think in reality an awful lot would be affected.”

Robbins, who identifies as a fiscal conservative, said the government is too big.

“I think we can define size of government by expenditures and revenue that the federal government brings in and spends,” she said, and the scope as “the intervention of government into the economy or our lives.”

Robbins said the government can intervene by supplying goods and services – such as trash collection, providing water and sewer – or taxing policies, redistributing wealth and over-regulation.

“As government grows and the scope of government becomes more involved in our lives, its expenditures will grow,” she said, noting that size and scope are intertwined.

“When we borrow $17 trillion, we’re borrowing from the future,” Robbins said of the current U.S. deficit. “We’re borrowing from somebody in the future so that we can pay for stuff today, and that’s unsustainable.”

COMMON GROUND

Both professors agreed that the budget should be balanced, but Hoffman wasn’t sure if they would agree on how.

“I don’t necessarily agree that the whole problem is that we’re providing too many services,” he said. “The problem may also be that we’re not providing enough revenue to cover the services.”

Though the U.S. income distribution is somewhat skewed, with higher earners paying more in taxes, Hoffman said the distribution of wealth – the marketable assets one owns minus their debt – was different.

“If you looked at that, you would see about the top 1 percent of households own about 35 percent of all privately held wealth, and the next 19 percent have about 53 percent,” he said. “So all in all, the top 20 percent own about 89 percent of all wealth in the country, and they’re certainly not paying 89 percent of the tax burden.”

Robbins suggested reforming the 55,000 page tax code to balance the budget.

“Perhaps we could reform the tax code, because I don’t think that creates a level playing field, and I don’t like it when government policies pick winners and losers, and I think that’s exactly what they do from either side,” she said.

Robbins said removing tax deductions for nonprofit charitable donations could give about $1 trillion more to government.

Hoffman agrees the tax code should be reformed, but said it would be difficult because the positions people take will be rooted “very strongly in self-interest.”

Robbins is also concerned with legislators’ self-interest. Recently, Congress wrote themselves out of requirements to enroll under the Affordable Care Act, she said. They were also previously exempt from insider trading laws.

“The people who write these laws are exactly the ones who get to benefit from these laws, and I don’t like that,” she said. “So if you’re going to make a policy, make it where the writers of the laws actually have to conform.”

Hoffman mentioned another issue that could make government more effective and credible.

“I think that basically in our system, money means too much, that it costs too much to run for office,” he said. “This money needs to come from donors and those donors then wind up having an awful lot of influence on legislation. Somebody running for Congress can’t just be looking for how they’re going to raise millions and millions and millions of dollars two years from now, even if they were just elected, because they’re not going to be able to solve these hard problems, because they have to pay too much attention to where they’re going to get the money.”

SEQUESTRATION

Robbins said she liked sequestration because Congress wasn’t spending money they don’t have, but that’s the bad part.

“Congress has not been able to pass their appropriation bills in a timely matter,” she said. “This is not something new; it’s been happening for 20 years, so something has got to be done.”

She also said it raises awareness about efforts being made to change the Congressional Budget Act of 1974.

“It has now set the stage for the way they act in Washington,” Robbins said. “It allows them to shut down government if they don’t come to a decision, it makes super majorities necessary to pass certain legislation, and I think from that standpoint we really need to reform the 1974 legislation.”

Hoffman said sequestration is a symptom of a growing dysfunction among legislators.

“I do think this is something that is very dangerous,” he said. “I worry that we’re going to lose our democracy because our legislatures become ineffectual. And that’s how the Roman Republic fell and the Polish Commonwealth fell – basically, because their legislatures became unable to solve the problems that were faced.”
[email protected]