Mexico’s Congress has just passed legislation that would decriminalize the possession of small quantities of illegal drugs. If President Vicente Fox signs the legislation (and it appears that he will), Mexico will join the ranks of the Netherlands and several other countries that have abandoned the “zero tolerance” model embraced by the United States. Under the new law, possession of up to 25 milligrams of heroin, 5 grams of marijuana (about four joints) or 0.5 grams of cocaine (about 4 “lines”), for personal use would no longer be a criminal offense.
That legislation is a step in the right direction. One of more odious features of the war on drugs is the practice of filling the jails with small‐time (often recreational) users. But Mexico’s proposed decriminalization measure does not get to the root of the growing problems of drug‐related corruption and violence in that society. As I have documented in my book Bad Neighbor Policy: Washington’s Futile War on Drugs in Latin America and more recently in a Foreign Policy Briefing, Mexico Is Becoming the Next Colombia, most of those problems are caused by the enormous black market premium in the illicit drug trade. Unfortunately, Mexican leaders show no willingness to legalize the manufacture or sale of marijuana, cocaine, and other drugs. Indeed, they have argued that the new law will enable law enforcement agencies to devote more resources to supressing trafficking. That means the huge potential profit in the drug trade will persist—and so will the corruption and violence that is tearing Mexico’s society apart.
The new law is a small step in the right direction. But Mexico (and other countries) need to abandon the entire prohibition model to produce truly meaningful benefits.
Does the Wall Street Journal think the Constitution is suspended on the weekends? Two weeks ago on Saturday, April 15, the Journal claimed on its front page that “the Constitution guarantees a public‐school K-12 education for every child in the U.S.” Then this past Saturday, April 29, the Journal’s usually reliable editorial page deplored the “states’ rampant noncompliance with the 2002 No Child Left Behind Act” and the “lax enforcement of NCLB” by Education Secretary Margaret Spellings.
In both cases the Journal seems to have forgotten that the U.S. Constitution grants no authority over education to the federal government. Education is not mentioned in the Constitution of the United States, and for good reason. The Founders wanted most aspects of life managed by those who were closest to them, either by state or local government or by families, businesses, and other elements of civil society. Certainly, they saw no role for the federal government in education.
Once upon a time, not so very many years ago, Congress understood that. The History of the Formation of the Union under the Constitution, published by the United States Constitution Sesquicentennial Commission, under the direction of the president, the vice president, and the Speaker of the House in 1943, contained this exchange in a section titled “Questions and Answers Pertaining to the Constitution”:
Q. Where, in the Constitution, is there mention of education?
A. There is none; education is a matter reserved for the states.
Not only is the Constitution absolutely silent on the subject of education, but the U.S. Supreme Court has also refused to recognize any right to a taxpayer‐funded education. As Timothy Sandefur, author of Cato’s forthcoming book Cornerstone of Liberty: Property Rights in 21st-Century America, points out, in San Antonio Independent School Distict v. Rodriguez (1973), the Court specifically declared that education, though important, “is not among the rights afforded explicit protection under our Federal Constitution. Nor do we find any basis for saying it is implicitly so protected.” Nine years later, in Plyler v. Doe, the Court held that if a state chooses to give such an education to citizens, it must also offer it to the children of illegal aliens. But it has consistently recognized that taxpayer‐funded education is a privilege, and not a right.
And as I wrote in the Cato Handbook for Congress a few years ago, the argument against federal involvement in education
is not based simply on a commitment to the original Constitution, as important as that is. It also reflects an understanding of why the Founders were right to reserve most subjects to state, local, or private endeavor. The Founders feared the concentration of power. They believed that the best way to protect individual freedom and civil society was to limit and divide power. Thus it was much better to have decisions made independently by 13–or 50–states, each able to innovate and to observe and copy successful innovations in other states, than to have one decision made for the entire country. As the country gets bigger and more complex, and especially as government amasses more power, the advantages of decentralization and divided power become even greater.
And that’s why it was a mistake to further centralize the control of our local schools in the No Child Left Behind Act. And why our friends at the Wall Street Journal, who are usually committed to the virtues of federalism and decentralization, should be applauding the several states’ resistance to federal intrusion, not calling for a crackdown.
I expect to have more to say about the trustees report once I’ve had a chance to read it. My prediction is that the trustees will announce that Medicare’s unfunded liabilities have grown since last year’s estimate of $68.4 trillion.
But no change in the trustees’ projections is likely to change the fact that Medicare is a ticking tax bomb — made worse by a GOP that keeps packing in the explosives.
Do you think that the entitlement crisis is difficult to solve? Think again. I write
The solution, as I have argued for several years, is to raise the age of government dependency for workers now in their 30’s and 40’s. This is a painless solution, because (a) it does not affect anyone who currently receives or is counting on government entitlements and (b) it does not really affect people now in their 30’s and 40’s.
For people in their 30’s and 40’s today, the age of government dependency is only a promise. As of now, projected entitlement benefits to young workers are only promises that, under conservative assumptions, the government will be unable to meet. If the assumptions pan out, then the actual benefits that young workers receive when they finally retire probably will have to be reduced. It seems to me that young workers are no worse off if their promised benefits are reduced now (by raising the age of government dependency) than if their actual benefits are reduced when they reach their late 60’s.
But then, hey, I’m not a politician. And politicians say that the age of government dependency is a third rail that no one can touch.
Today, the Cato Institute released its latest health policy book, Crisis of Abundance: Rethinking How We Pay for Health Care, by Arnold Kling, a man I like to think of as the anti‐Krugman. Have a look at Kling’s work here, buy the book here.