An alternative to popular faith
Ever since Ronald Reagan said, “In this present crisis, government is not the solution to our problem. Government is the problem,” (then proceeded to run the largest federal deficits in history), the chic thing has been to criticize big government as an affront to our self reliant, can-do, cowboy heritage. The media pundits, both major political parties and the Tea Party repeatedly call for less government.
On March 24, 2009, Bobby Jindal, governor of Louisiana said, “There has never been a challenge that the American people, with as little interference as possible by the federal government, cannot handle.” Oh, really? Today, May 31, 2010, the Chicago Tribune published a wonderful article written by Leonard Pitts, all government haters should read. I’ll quote a few passages:
“. . . Bobby Jindal . . . is singing a new song . . . Now, he’s BEGGING for federal ‘interference.’ He wants federal money, federal supplies, wants the feds to help create a barrier island to protect Louisiana wetlands from oil.
[…]
“One hears pointed questions about President Barack Obama’s engagement or lack thereof in the unfolding crisis. One hears accusations that the government was lax in its oversight duties and too cozy with the oil industry it was supposed to be regulating. One hears nothing about deregulation, about leaving the free market alone to do its magic […] the sudden silence of the apostles of small government and free markets is telling.
“Yes, government is not perfect […] Any bureaucracy serving 309 million people . . . is likely to have flaws. […] But . . . people like Jindal rail against the very concept of government itself, selling the delusional notion that taxation and regulation represent the evisceration of some essential American principle. They wax eloquent about what great things the free market and the free American could do if government would just get off their backs.
“One thinks of one’s meat oozing with salmonella, one’s paint filled with lead, one’s car getting 12 miles to the gallon, one’s self being breezily denied a job for reasons of race, creed, gender or sexual orientation and yes, one’s ocean covered from horizon to horizon with a sheen of oil. And one shudders.
“[…]there are no small government disciples in massive oil spills. No, . . . Bobby Jindal turned righteously to that big, sometimes bloated, often intrusive federal government and asked for help. He said, Send money, send resources. You will notice he never once said, send less.”
Yes, it is so terribly chic, so wonderfully clever to criticize big government, as though each of us were ready to shoulder the responsibilities of the army, Social Security, Medicare, roads, bridges, education, policing and the thousands of other tasks we happily delegate to the bureaucracy.
I have spoken about this on many occasions, for instance YOUR CHILDREN WON’T PAY FOR DEFICITS and EUROPEAN WELFARE STATE and TEA PARTY CONFUSION, but Leonard Pitts said it better.
Rodger Malcolm Mitchell
http://www.rodgermitchell.com
No nation can tax itself into prosperity
#Monetary Sovereignty - Mitchell 
Roger,
The point you make in your article seems logical.
Perhaps it would be best to steer the national debate away from “big government is bad” to “what DOES big government spend on vs what SHOULD big government spend on”.
In the past 12 to 24 months, there have been much use of the word “socialism” in a negative context. Government funded health care is socialism, and therefore is bad. If government funded health care is socialism, is all government spending socialism? Medicare? Wars? Police departments? Road paving? Libraries? Agricultural subsidies? The coast guard?
Rather than say “socialism is bad” without defining what is meant by the term, would it not be better to debate what government spending makes sense and what government spending does not?
Kevin – http://www.SoleraGroup.com
LikeLike
I agree with you, though I am less concerned about cost than about accomplishment. Ironically (to some), even wasted spending offers benefits by employing people and adding money to the economy. However, greater efficiency would be even more beneficial.
Let’s face it, all big organizations are clumsy and wasteful, and what’s bigger than the U.S. government?
Rodger Malcolm Mitchell
LikeLike
Limited government is different from no government. Left-leaning people often make this mistake and set up this strawman fallacy. Maritime affairs is covered in the Constitution and the Commerce Clause covers regulating securities. So, the Constitution does not prohibit the federal government from acting. Therefore, the oil spill represents no growth in government Unlike universal healthcare which is clearly an expansion of government. Jindal is simply asking the federal government to do their job.
LikeLike
Peter, everything the government does is “covered under the Constitution,” else the government would be prohibited from doing it. Thus, everything the government legally does is “their job.”
There are 400+ federal agencies (See: AGENCIES). The anti-big-government people would say many of them represent an “expansion of government.” You may select the ones you feel are an unconstitutional expansion of government, and petition to your congressperson.
The Health and Human Services Department is one of those agencies. Congress and the U.S. Supreme Court say all its work is covered under the Constitution as is the work of all other federal agencies.
I imagine some people think Social Security and Medicare are too “left-leaning.”
Rodger Malcolm Mitchell
LikeLike
Rodger,
This is my first time reading your blog and I have found it very interesting. There certainly does seem to be a contradiction in the political rhetoric espoused by some on the right during an election cycle, and the practical needs with which they are confronted while governing. That said, we can all agree that there are certain functions for which a national government is completely necessary, such as fighting a war, or assisting in the gulf oil spill. However, this does not mean that the government is the best solution for every challenge that confronts the American public. I believe it is common consensus that the government has been less than adept at handling the spill up to this point. This issue has been compounded, as you pointed out, by regulators and federal agencies who were more concerned about kickbacks and cozy relationships with the industry they were monitoring and actual regulation. This raises the question that if the government is this inept when they are needed, why do we want them to handle aspects of our nation that can perhaps be handled without their interference?
Thank you and look forward to your feedback,
Zach
LikeLike
Zach, I agree that the federal government often is big, foolish, clumsy lummox. The single best thing government does is create money (aka, “deficit spend”). No one else can fulfill this necessary role.
Unfortunately, it is that role which is most criticized by those who do not understand the need for money (debt)growth.
In theory, all federal projects could be private, with the government merely the hiring agency: The army, roads, bridges, dams, food and drug inspection all theoretically could be private projects, supported by federal funding. It would be interesting to read commentary on that.
Rodger Malcolm Mitchell
LikeLike