One of the most exciting but also most challenging responsibilities of being a legislator or a jurist involves making changes to the Constitution and constitutional precedents. While the Constitution was written and adopted as a founding document of the United States in 1787, it is by no means a static document. As Moore, Strickland, and Whicker pointed out 20 years ago, “Learned bodies have addressed the question of how well the Constitution has stood the test of time” (p. xi). This observation is no less true today. Politicians and the justices of the Supreme Court are continuously evaluating all manner of constitutional matters in their effort to answer the question about the interpretation and relevance of a document more than 200 years old to contemporary society.
The task of considering making changes to the Constitution is not an easy one, but it is important. I would hesitate to make any changes to the Constitution that would permit the federal government to fund efforts to resolve social problems. It is clear that similar initiatives in the past have caused more problems than they have solved. For this reason, it would be better to leave the powers of the Constitution as they are, and approach the solution of social ills through other means.
The fact of the matter is that the Constitution already makes certain provisions for the appropriation of funds for social welfare concerns (Edling, 2003). Indeed, as Edling (2003) points out, the entire tax system is structured so that it can be modified in order to respond to certain social needs. Even though the tax-paying public tends to resist tax increases vigorously, it is generally understood that taxes are necessary to be able to fund key programs that protect the national interests, including the health and psychological well-being of vulnerable people. Edling (2003) writes that “the power over taxation…[is one of] the most fundamental government powers” (p. 181). This power includes not only the authority to tax or add taxation to individual and corporate entities, but also the right to determine how the collected monies will be allocated and for what identified social needs. In its annual budget the federal government directs a significant portion of tax money to address particular social ailments, including poverty and inadequate health care, although critics contend that the amount of money that is allocated does not fulfill the depth of need and more should be done (Iceland, 2003).
The question about whether one would decide to change the Constitution and permit the federal government to fund approaches to social problems directly is a question that alludes to the strategies that other countries use to address their social problems. In many other nations, personal income taxes are much higher than they are in the United States because the federal government is more involved in the provision of certain social services. Healthcare, education, and housing are just a few areas that are subsidized by other developed nations’ central governments. England, Canada, Switzerland, and Germany are just four countries that nationalized their healthcare systems and rely upon increased economic involvement on the part of the government to ensure the health and well-being of their citizens (Lewis & Surender, 2004). While such an approach may sound responsible and just on paper, the reality reveals complexities that the governments had not anticipated. The nationalized healthcare systems have their own inadequacies and have created massive pragmatic challenges that are not resolved easily, nor without significant financial investment and monitoring. For the United States to take a similar approach would be ill-advised. The federal government is already over-extended with its responsibilities and has been operating at a deficit since the end of the Clinton administration.
Rather than expect the federal government to resolve all social ailments through economic means, there are at least two alternatives that could be considered in the fight against serious social problems that affect individuals and society negatively. First, the federal government does indeed have a responsibility to address social problems, but this need not occur exclusively through financing programs. Policies and legislation are powerful and important means of changing social attitudes that foster institutionalized social problems such as racism, classism, and sexism. When the law asserts and enforces the fact that institutionalized social problems are not acceptable and identifies parties that are accountable, we can begin to dismantle the systems that perpetuate the problems we seek to eradicate through funding. Throwing money at a problem does not make the problem go away; it simply makes it somewhat easier to manage. Secondly, one must acknowledge that money is needed to address certain aspects of social problems; to think otherwise is naïve. The federal government does not necessarily need to be the primary benefactor, however. There are numerous means of privatizing certain responses to social problems that can potentially prove lucrative—financially and socially—not only to the people who are suffering from social problems, but also those who are trying creative funding strategies. One such example, popular in other countries but only just beginning to gain a foothold in the United States, are microlending programs.
Founding father Alexander Hamilton staunchly believed that a “vigorous national government” is “essential to [the country’s] security and welfare” (in Edling, 2003, p. 197), a point that is well-taken. At the same time, however, when the reach of the government’s arm grows too long and the scope of its focus becomes too broad, it becomes increasingly likely that its power and its ability to resolve problems effectively diminishes exponentially. President Bush seems to recognize this dynamic, and it was for this reason that he spearheaded the faith-based social welfare initiatives under the so-called “charitable choice” legislation of 2001 (Cnaan & Boddie, 2002). Although it is unlikely that a single source or a one-dimensional strategy can solve any of our pressing social problems, changing the Constitution in order to extend federal funding power would only be likely to embed ourselves deeper in the quagmire of challenges with which we are faced. Rather than turn to the government for economic bail-out, it is important that the American public, along with their legislators, begin to look for creative and viable alternatives that can help eradicate social ills and their root causes.
References
Cnaan, R.A., & Boddie, S.C. (2002). Charitable choice and faith-based welfare: A call for social work. Social Work, 47(3). 224-235
Edling, M.M. (2003). A revolution in favor of government: Origins of the U.S. Constitution and the making of the American state. New York: Oxford University Press.
Iceland, J. (2003). Poverty in America: A handbook. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
Lewis, J., & Surender, R. (2004). Welfare state change: Towards a third way. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Moore, R.A., Strickland, R.A., & Whicker, M.L. (1987). The Constitution under pressure: A time for change. New York: Praeger.
