How small should government be?

I've lost track of how many times I've heard people talk about how the government needs to be smaller. I want to know just how small people think government should be. And specifically what government services you want to get rid of. Remember - there ain't no such thing as a free lunch, and you get what you pay for. There are costs and consequences to slashing government spending. And over the last century or so, we've seen plenty of examples of how both big government and small government do things. I've put together a short photo essay to illustrate.

Let's start with infrastructure. Small government cuts maintenance budgets to the bone, and skimps on inspections and repairs. In fact, small government tends to neglect the infrastructure until things start falling apart and people die. Big government, on the other hand, not only maintains the existing infrastructure, but undertakes major new projects that can change the entire face of the country.

 

Government really only has two essential functions.

1) Public good provision
2) Securing property rights

So whatever is required to accomplish those two objectives, it'd be really impossible to argue that it hasn't grossly overstepped those boundaries though.

 

We've also seen how small and big government handle military matters. Small government tries to fight wars on the cheap, even if it means sending our soldiers into battle without the support they need. And if they don't have the resources to provide for soldiers actually in the field, returned veterans are left to fend for themselves, even when they carry the scars of war, both mental and physical.

Big government mobilizes the economy to send our soldiers into battle with the best equipment, training, and support we can provide. And when those soldiers come home, big government makes sure they have the opportunities they deserve.

 

Small government sits back and simply watches as our rivers become so polluted they catch on fire and as the most fertile soil in the world blows away because of poor farming practices. Big government takes action to make sure our air is breathable, our water drinkable, and that best practices are made available to everyone.

 

Small government says that social policy is none of its business, even when our schools are falling apart and people are starving on the streets. Big government makes sure we have a world class educational system and a social safety net.

 

This is going to (*)(*)(*)(*) people off. popcorn.gif

 

Infrastructure is not small/big government exclusive. Accidents happen either way. And it is clearly outlined in the constitution, so the government has the authority given to it by the constitution.

 

I think government certainly should be small in terms of regulations, laws and bureaucracy. But not so much in terms of taxes and money spent, otherwise we would not be able to afford various public services and investments that modern society needs.

 

Needs more big government pictures!

 

The Constitution tells us exactly what the federal government is and isn't allowed to do.

Plenty of liberals and neo-cons seem to think so, which is why they keep spending money through inflation and debt.

Bridges collapsing and roads crumbling is not a product of small government, it's a product of the failure of government. Government has gotten much larger over the last century and it's failures are becoming more and more prominent.

You're basically saying that somehow if government has more money that it will become more efficient. That premise is based on faulty logic that has no historical basis in reality.

 

Your little picture presentation is cute, but it has nothing in common with reality. You attribute everything negative with small government and everything good with big government with absolutely no proof that your connections are truthful.

First off, your fallacy is your apparent claim that if the Federal Government was not "big" then this issues would not be addressed. That is not true. The State would and should be responsible for items within their own states. With the Federal Government trimmed down to the size it should be trimmed to, this would allow State governments to collect more taxes within their states to address these situations.

Yes, lets. Do you realize that roads and bridge construction and maintenance has nothing to do with the Federal Government, except for when the Federal Government decides to filter money to States for projects? Even the interstate road system is controlled by each State's Department of Transportation.

If the Federal Government did not collect money to filter down to the States, then Federal taxes would be lower (in theory) and States could actually collect the taxes themselves.

The military IS a responsibility of the Federal Government. Insuring that we have an adequate military and that the soldiers have adequate equipment and post combat care is probably the most important function of the Federal Government. If anything, the people that are calling for "smaller Government" are not calling for less military spending and those that want big Government want military spending drastically cut.

Actually, the Federal Government has little participation in this area except to over regulate which complicates things more so. It is usually the University's within each State that finds better ways to farm or utilize land. I do agree that environmental issues should be a concern of the Federal Government, but they should be acting as a function of "manager" towards the States so that States can better address the issues within their States.

This has absolutely no relationship to size of Government except when it comes to funding. These issues are more efficiently handled at the State level, not the Federal level.

Basically, you have the argument completely confused. Most people are not talking about shrinking the amount of service Government provides. They are complaining that the Federal Government is overstepping their jurisdiction and are trying to dictate things that should be handled at State level.

Shrink the Federal Government. Once shrunk, it should be able to support itself with less taxes. Those taxes could then be collected by the States instead for the States to use as they see fit.....not for what the Federal Government things the States should be using the money for.

 

The Great Depression was caused by the Federal Reserve, which is a government agency. Big government at work.

Schools crumbling is another failure of government. Government is much larger than it ever has been, and the quality of education is still poor. Your logic is to keep throwing more money at it. It's obviously not working.

 

Nice of you to make it clear from the gitgo that you have no desire for an honest discussion.

 

And the internet president Ron Paul is definitely not the answer.

 

Nice strawman.

 

Thank you

 

Wrong. The Federal Reserve is independent from government and it is private.

 

The Federal Reserve is an independent government agency. It is not independent "From" government, nor is it private.

 

Nothing created and managed by the government can ever be considered "private"

 

Government should be this big.

 

So, Doc, you're saying that the government can maintain and build roads, bridges, etc, without money? How exactly does that work? And Danboy, The Minneapolis bridge collapse was not an isolated incident, it was a symptom of the terrible condition that our infrastructure is in in this country. It was the most dramatic incident, but not the only one. Remember the huge blackout that hit the Northeast a few years ago? Part of the reason Katrina was devastating was because of the substandard condition of the levees in New Orleans. There was an incident where a major watermain broke in a Maryland suburb of DC that turned a major road into a river. Take a look at the American Society of Civil Engineers' infrastructure report card to see just how bad it is. Warning: you may not sleep as well at night after looking at it.
http://www.asce.org/reportcard/

All of this is a symptom of the small government philosophy of cut taxes, cut taxes, and cut taxes some more, regardless of consequences. Since most people don't really think much about infrastructure and tend to take it for granted, maintenance budgets are often an easy thing to cut. No taxes = no revenues = no money to fix the roads. Like I said, you get what you pay for.

 

FALSE? First of all, we haven't had small government and small taxes in a very long time! So to say these recent events are to be blamed by small government is just stupid. Now why in recent years has our infrastructure gone to the (*)(*)(*)(*)s? Because money that was supposed to be given to this was instead used to fuel the military industrial complex. That is why earmarks have more recently exploded. Because money isn't being sent where it is meant to, its being sent where it shouldnt be. Thats why we have outrageous debt and an income tax that steals MY money before I ever even get to see it.

 

You're right, I am presenting just negative things about small government and positive things about big government. I do not mean to imply that big government is always good and small government is always bad. However, I think it's a safe bet that pretty much everyone is more then familiar with the problems of big government. My point is that small government has really big problems that seem to be generally overlooked. And that you can't just cut government and cut government without consequences.

Yes, I am well aware of how much responsibility has been delegated to the States. And they do an absolutely crap job of it. We leave maintaining the roads to the states, and what do we get? Fatal bridge collapses. We leave the schools to the states, and what do we get? High school graduates who can't read a newspaper and school buildings that are literally falling apart.

Saying that the federal government has little to do with environmental issues is absurd. That was a real picture of a real river that really was on fire. In Cleveland, to be specific. That fire caused over $1 million in damages. And it wasn't an isolated incident, either. The Cuyahoga River caught fire at least thirteen times. And what did the states do about it? Absolutely nothing. It was only when the federal clean water act was passed did things start to improve. And those Universities finding solutions? Where do their research grants come from? I'll give you a clue, a little town on the Potomac river. Besides, environmental issues almost always exceed state boundaries. During the Dustbowl, for example, people could tell what state the dust came from by its color.

Do you honestly think the interstates would have ever been built if it'd been left up to the states? Or even the transcontinental railroad for that matter. If it were up to the states, the best way to cross North America would still be by Conestoga wagon. The reason that the federal government started to get involved in all these areas in the first place was because the states couldn't or wouldn't do anything about them, and things were just getting that bad that someone had to do something. The states are incompetent and corrupt, whether you're talking in absolute terms or in comparison to the federal government. In fact, a recent study of state corruption risk gave 8 states a failing grade, only 5 a grade of B, and all the rest were C's and D's. And here's the real kicker. Want to know what state came out with the best grade? What state is the least corrupt state in the union? New Jersey. Yes, you heard me folks, New Jersey. http://www.stateintegrity.org/
And these are the people you want to leave the fate of the country to? Are you mad?

You say that if we would just shrink the federal government, the states would take over and do a better job. There's nothing stopping the states from doing so now, and they haven't. There never was anything keeping the states from doing so, and they never did. Since the Reagan administration, it's been fashionable to delegate more and more things to the states. And it's only made things worse, as I was trying to illustrate.

"The people that are calling for "smaller Government" are not calling for less military spending," and, "Most people are not talking about shrinking the amount of service Government provides."? Seriously? Then what the heck do you think you're going to cut? What exactly do you want to make smaller? And how in blazes are you going to pay for all that if you keep cutting taxes? Military spending doesn't grow on trees. Government services don't fall like mana from the heavens.

 

Income taxes are lower now then really anytime in living memory. And earmarks at their worst were a tiny, tiny sliver of federal spending. Look, nobody likes paying taxes, but they are the price of living in a civilized society. And the Republicans have been cutting taxes for decades, telling people they can have services but not have to pay for them. The money's got to come from somewhere. And when you irresponsibly cut taxes, the result is that there's not going to be enough money to go around. That's why our infrastructure is falling apart, because we've been too cheap to pay to keep it up.

 

You know how I know that you don't pay a large amount of taxes?

Because of this answer of yours. It's patently false.

Try to figure out why it's false.