Stephen B. Young: Wherefore government?

As our state Legislature moves toward the end of its current session, it’s fitting to ruminate on spending and taxation as the drivers of our political debate. After all, the great issue between Republican and Democrats is whether or not we should fund an entitlement state apparatus. Republicans, in general, oppose such a government and Democrats, in general, favor it.

But emotionally, I don’t want to ignore the very recent failure of our country to do more to control who has access to weapons of death and destruction. A modest effort — not to control the ownership of guns but only to limit such ownership to those people who most probably will not pose a threat of death or destruction to their fellow citizens — failed in the United States Senate.

The National Rifle Association won that political face-off and the country lost, in my judgment. The defeat goes hard with me because I see the victory of the NRA as further evidence of a decline of civility and the moral sense among the American people.

I can’t blame the NRA so much as I fault all of us in tolerating a level of irresponsibility that calls into question both witness to Christian teachings and a fitting concern for our country.

I’ll agree with the gun lobby that it isn’t guns that kill, but people — but I would extend that logic and demand that the people who own instruments of death be persons of high moral character, excellent judgment and judicious temperament.

If they are bad people, why should they escape responsibility for promiscuity in the ownership and use of guns? Aren’t they standing on the same slippery slope of posing a danger to the public as those who might make bombs out of pressure cookers?

According to the Children’s Defense Fund, 119,089 American children and teens died from guns between 1979 and 2012 — more deaths over 32 years than all U.S. soldiers killed in action in the Korean, Vietnam, Iraq and Afghanistan wars combined.

We mourn and memorialize our war dead. But what about the dead children?

More American children die from guns every three days than died in Newtown, Conn., at the hands of one lone-wolf killer, reports the same organization.

What I don’t hear in our debates over who should have access to guns and over how much government should tax and spend are answers to the fundamental question: What is our government for?

Its laws and regulations, its spending programs, its need to levy taxes, should all reflect its duties. Government is a public trust in which trustees must, in good faith and with diligence, serve the needs of the beneficiaries of the powers held in trust.

John Locke argued that the end of the trust of government was to facilitate life, liberty and property. Our Declaration of Independence asserted that the just end of government was to secure rights to life, liberty and happiness.

Our federal Constitution holds in its preamble that the trust of our federal government is to “form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquillity, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare and secure the blessings of liberty.”

In Minnesota, Section 1 of Article 1 of our constitution holds that: “Government is instituted for the security, benefit and protection of the people, in whom all political power is inherent, together with the right to alter, modify or reform government whenever required by the public good.”

Every government program, therefore, needs to be tested for alignment with these ends. If the alignment is askew or only partial, there is an argument that such programs do not rightfully belong to government.

That a majority of voters want a program is insufficient justification, constitutionally, for its initiation and continuance. The purpose of a constitution is to constrain the desires of even a majority. If a constitution is found wanting, the remedy is to amend it.

Last week, Sens. Ann Rest and Rod Skoe wrote in the Pioneer Press that this session their Senate Taxes Committee had four objectives in mind shaping their tax legislation. First was to smooth out volatility in deficits and surpluses. Second was to reform methods of taxation to reflect current economic earning power. Third was to reduce property taxes. And fourth was enhancing job creation.

Given the constitutional test of public good to be passed by each objective, I would say that reform of the methods of taxation, including a diminished reliance on property taxes — an ancient form of taxation — is in the public interest. It would provide for the benefit and protection of the people and promote the general welfare.

Enhancing job creation is in my mind equally supportive of the public good, especially supporting our rights to liberty and happiness, the general welfare, and domestic tranquillity.  But the connection between taxes and job creation is indirect. Taxes don’t create business or jobs. Taxes create an environment in which citizens decide to invest or not. Many argue that the best way to create more jobs is to lower taxes on employers and capital investment.

Similarly, it is not the broad goals of the Senate Taxes Committee that deserve scrutiny against the test of public good, but each specific tax proposed. Does good reasoning sustain the causal connection between the likely effects of the tax, including its impact on a range of other taxpayers, and the stated goal of enhancing the general welfare or securing the blessings of liberty?

Now as for access to guns, the duty of our governments is to provide for our security and our liberty. If guns in too many wrong hands deny us adequate security and keep us from enjoyment of liberty as well as life, then government must do something to remedy such a defect in our society.

Governing is about serving the people, not special interests. Demands of special interests must be filtered through a screen of public purpose. The greater the public purpose served, the more legitimate the demand.