End Era Of Big Government: Are You Sure You Want To?
It always amazes me to read or hear someone talk about the need for the era of big government to be over; yet when something goes wrong in our nation or someone needs relief in some way -- government is the first place they go to ask for help.
I wonder how many of those citizens whose homes were destroyed by Katrina or that latest tornado, the last hurricane or wide spread flooding are believers of ending the era of big government?
How many of those demanding medicine, health care, safe toys or food be made available to anyone are believers of ending the era of big government?
How many of those demanding that we help the homeless, the starving or the abused in some other nation are believers of ending the era of big government?
How many of those demanding college grants for their kids, tax cuts for their businesses or special attention for being disabled are believers of ending the era of big government?
How many men, women, blacks, Latinos' or gays demanding equal rights and pay are believers of ending the era of big government?
How many businesses or homeowners that are having financial problems demanding relief from paying bills are believers of ending the era of big government?
Who would most of us turn to if a wide spread killer disease
or bugs (like the killer bees from
Our constitution says,
"We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."
I guess most Americans believe the meaning of "insure
domestic tranquility" and "promote the general welfare" means that the
government should be like a parent. "Don't
tell me how to live; but if I need help - Be there!"
Once again our nation is in deep domestic and foreign policy
trouble. Mom, Dad - help us.
Government has been and always will be our backup
system. Without it, we'd be lost.
So to those of you demanding the era of big government be
over; be careful what you wish for. You
may be the next person in need of help.
Those are very good points. All big governments are not created equal. It's all about where and how the money is allocated.
January 9, 2009 9:50 AM | Reply | Permalink
I think there is a big difference between big government and a effective/responsive government. Big government does not necessarily equate to a good one any more than a small one does.
January 9, 2009 9:55 AM | Reply | Permalink
Of course we ALL want SMART government (effective/responsive); but those that advocate LESS government tend to forget the times when THEY need that same government to do something for THEM -- which USUALLY cost taxpayers money.
Like I mentioned government being out parent. We say LEAVE us alone until that is, we need them, they THEY end up paying because we waited so long to ask for help.
January 9, 2009 10:20 AM | Reply | Permalink
This is a multi-levelled problem in framing.
First, the people that talk about "big government is bad" often believe that nearly all government regulation is intrusive, and to a very great degree, they believe that any part of government that doesn't either work as the military or jail people that they picture as criminals is wasteful spending (listen to them awhile, you'll see that's true, some of them don't even like the FDA, for chrissakes).
Second, they believe that anytime the government is large (even if this is caused by the scale of what they have to manage) it will be very wasteful.
These need to be picked apart so that they don't get to play word games on us. The first should be labelled (by liberals/progressives)as "The question of whether government is unnecessarily intrusive or not." (Avoid the "gimme" of calling this argument "intrusive government" as though conceding that any and all government already IS intrusive.)
The second should be labelled (by liberals/progressives) as "The question of whether government (a particular government) is too bloated.
Both of these individal arguments are arguments that people if favor of stripping regulation and ecomomies-of-scale out of government (the Grover Norquist and the economic pirate factions of the GOP) are going to lose if you base your arguments in history.
Herbert Hoover's presidency is an indictment of the "Laissez Faire", no-regulation asshats of the 20's, 30's, 80's and 00's.
A contrast of Bush's history versus FDR's makes them lose on the front of limiting government authority to manage the people's business. Since he crippled federal agencies by injecting his political (and amazingly stupid machinations) into every thing, thereby paralyzing the proper functioning of government. He has shown what a failure a "small government" approach is, by swamping failing policy in money, and sabotaging good policy that wouldn't have cost more than the career government employees' salaries, that he hamstrung from doing their jobs by sadlling them with incompetent political hack management.
FDR's record, by contrast, WAS big government, which lifted us out of the Great Depression (caused by "small, non-intering government" theories) and provided the biggest boost to standard of living the US, and perhaps the world, have ever known.
January 9, 2009 1:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
"We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."
That is enough for me.
It has taken Big Government to provide the police forces necessary to protect the vaults of the few.
It has taken Big Government to provide the communication network to keep the rich selling.
It has taken Big Government to provide the concrete for the freeways that take the rich's goods from place to place.
It has taken Big Government to provide the proper (or improper) regulation and distribution of the currency to keep the rich in riches.
It is not whether or not there is going to be big government with a population to serve in excess of 300 million. It is how best for the government to serve this large population.
January 9, 2009 1:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
Very well put dickday
January 9, 2009 1:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
What a disingenuous response, DD!
The Internet is used for commerce, true. Do you want to give up your connection though?
You have freeways, true. Ever use them? I know I do!
Ever put money into a bank vault? Expect it to be there later?
The rich benefit from the social architecture, so to the not-so-rich. You can argue about the relative balance, etc. but your response basically makes it sound like you feel you are living under tyranny.
January 9, 2009 5:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
The rich make and keep more money because of it.
This Land is your land, this Land is my land
From California To the New York Island
From the Red Wood Forest
To Gulf Stream Waters
This land was made for you and me
The courts throw the poor into jail every day for infractions
While big time crooks walk the streets and
live in mansions
January 9, 2009 7:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hmmm.
So who are in this "rich" set of folks?
Barack Obama? He has a million dollars somewhere.
Bill and Hillary Clinton? They aren't doing too badly.
Ted Kennedy got off of a negligent manslaughter rap because of wealth and family connections... started by his dad who was a bootlegger.
Is it all the rich? Some of the rich? What?
Many middle class families have tremendous homes... are they rich too? I'm losing track now.
January 9, 2009 8:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
I love everybody. Equally. Except Rush. I want to have all his money confiscated.
Except Sean, I want all of his money confiscated.
Except Glenn, I really want all his money confiscated.
I have become an ad hoc socialist. Just pick out some of the most distasteful human beings and take all their money and spread it out among the rabble.
January 9, 2009 8:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well, here's the thing.
All Big Government (indeed, all Government) is intrusive. Of course it is! If it wasn't it wouldn't be good for anything anyway. Government only exists as long as it continues to threaten us with jail or worse to convince us to turn over our paychecks to them.
And that's okay... I have libertarian tendencies, but I'm not an idiot; most real libertarians (I'm a faux-Libertarian, I don't mind other people being governed) would agree that government has certain functions without which "the blessings of liberty" would accrue only to those with large weapons.
The point is that in any system of government (ANY system of government), government works for the people who have power better than it works for those without. Regulation is not the friend of the little guy; it's the friend of the big guy.
The Big Guy in Big Government Land is just the rich dude or those of noble blood or what have you, whereas the Big Guy in No Government Land is the biggest guy, period (or in more technologically advanced societies, the best armed guy).
Limited government is the greatest enabling condition for liberty ever imagined. Government (ideally) prevents people from using force to obtain good outcomes at the expense of their neighbors, and then STOPS!
You can, of course, go further. Maybe you think "force" should include threats of force. Or congregations of people large enough to threaten without actually doing anything. Or maybe "force" even means standard form contracts for loans issued on a take-it-or-leave-it basis.
Point is, it's the Big Guys (the guys able to corral large numbers of people, threaten, and draft form contracts) who will control the Big Government. Democracy does not (is not in fact supposed to) protect you from this; it just doesn't have the skills.
Democracy protects you from the Big Guys actually being government, a la Saddam Hussein. It doesn't protect you from the Big Guys writing legislation. What protects you from that is the limitations on legislation that are in the Constitution.
Unfortunately, under pressure from Roosevelt, the Supreme Court of the United States started ignoring and limiting those provisions in the 1930's. Nothing wrong with that (Roosevelt thought he was protecting the little people after all!). But our post- Roosevelt Government is perfectly capable of effective oppression, and modern Deficit Conservatism is the result: Big Government paid for by the Little People.
The article to which this is a comment conflates Big Government, the regulatory and redistributional State, with government generally. Government shouldn't be a parent unless we want to be a nation of children.
Grow up. Your ancestors in 1776 did.
January 9, 2009 5:29 PM | Reply | Permalink