Too Much Government

A classic conservative political ploy is to charge that our Federal government is too big, too powerful and too intrusive in our lives. This plays very well politically because the human condition is such that we all need someone to blame for both real and imagined injustices in our lives. Why not blame "the government" - it doesn't fight back.

It is also a very attractive conservative strategy because they never have to do anything about it except complain. They have discovered that if they just rant and rave against the size and cost of the Federal Government they gain significant political points without ever having to come up with any serious and meaningful solutions. They have done this successfully since Ronald Reagan's first presidential campaign.

If you are really interested in seeing how serious they are, consider the following.
Let's look at the size of the executive branch of our government. After ten consecutive years of Republican control in 1990, the executive branch had over 300,000 more civilian employees than when President Carter left office in 1980! How hypocritical!

Not only are the conservatives a bunch of hypocrites they are also dead wrong about our government. There is no evidence whatsoever to suggest that our government is too large, too powerful or too intrusive.

Is it too big? Compared to the rest of the civilized world (particularly if you discount the military burden we carry for all the free world) our government is among the smallest as a percent of gross national product. Since liberalism really took root our free market private sector has been the envy of the free world. Almost without exception our free market has been awash with investment capital, has experienced minimal unemployment and is unchallenged in new business formation leadership. Our standard of living is the envy of the world. All this is hardly indicative of a society burdened by too much government.

Is it too powerful? This charge has always struck me as utter nonsense. I know of no suspension of our Bill of Rights. Individual rights today, particularly for women and minorities, are stronger that they have ever been. I know of no instance where any individual or business operating in a legal and socially responsible way has ever been
the victim of the arbitrary use of government power. There are examples all around the world of excessively powerful governments. Ours is not one of them.

Is it too intrusive in our lives? More rhetorical nonsense. As a life long entrepreneur I have found the government almost to a fault not intruding in the private sector until it became blatantly obvious that it had to step in. Civil rights and environmental protection laws are classic examples. Legislation (intrusion) was far too long in coming. Quite simply, every intrusion I am aware of was occasioned by activities that were detrimental to society as a whole. In such circumstances action is the absolute obligation of our government, mandated by the constitution's directive for the Federal government to "promote the general welfare". It is totally inaccurate to suggest that our government is too intrusive, that big brother is watching.
Since all of these observations are such a radical contradiction of the conservative philosophy, I can only hope and pray they will rise to the challenge and engage in a serious and reasoned debate. All I ask of them is to drop the rhetoric and talk specifics. I ask them to tell us what specific steps they would take to reduce what they see as the excess size, power and intrusiveness of our Federal government.

Let us help them out. As I see it there are only two things we can do. Eliminate inefficiency and eliminate functions. We all support increased efficiency but know there is not enough here to satisfy the conservatives. To get where they want to go we will have to slash governmental functions down to what they see as the essentials. To be blunt they would have to repeal virtually the entire liberal agenda of the past sixty years. Let me offer a partial list of the liberal agenda and ask that they announce what they would like to see as the first elements to be repealed.

Let me state that each and every item adds to the size and cost of the government, is wholly supported by the liberal establishment and was almost to an item, vehemently opposed by the conservatives. The liberal recognizes the need to continually modify and adjust all departments and programs but in general holds their continuation is essential. In the main the conservative would disengage the government from all. The partial list:
Social Security, Medicare, Environmental Protection Agency, Food and Drug Administration, Securities and Exchange Commission, Federal Aviation Authority, Federal Communication Commission, National Transportation and Safety Board, U.S. Postal Service, the Commerce Dept., National Park Services, OSHA, Internal Revenue Service and Treasury Department.

How about some specific "costly" legislation? The Minimum Wage Law, Clean Air Act, Clean Waters Act, Hazardous Waste Cleanup, Voting Rights Act, Peace Corp., Student Loan Program, the Family & Medical Leave Act. Again each and everything here is a product of the liberal agenda, most put a "burden" on business and all resulted in a bigger more costly government. This liberal would eliminate nothing, streamline everything and increase high end taxes (if needed) to the levels in effect in our nations most prosperous decade - the1950's.

I ask the conservatives to tell us exactly what they would eliminate. It shouldn't be too difficult for them as they opposed almost everything. They have to come out against something besides The National Endowment for the Arts if they are going to get anywhere. I remind the conservatives one can't really accomplish anything by just ranting and raving about it. One has to actually do something about it. You can't cut the size of government without actually cutting the size of government.

We liberals are consistent in our convictions. We believed in and put forth specific legislation for every element of the liberal agenda. We passed it and we support it. The conservatives say the liberal agenda is responsible for anything and everything wrong with this country.

If they really believe that why on earth are they not campaigning to repeal it? Let me suggest an answer. They know that to do so would be political suicide. It would not only be political suicide, it would be economic suicide as well. The limited Federal government we had in the late 19th century and early 20th century clearly demonstrate that fact. It was powerless to take actions to moderate the rampant excesses of the free market that ultimately led to the Great Depression of the 1930's. Thanks to the "New Deal" a repeat is highly unlikely.

The last thing this nation needs as we close in on the 21st century is to go back to a form of government designed for the 19th century. What served well in a largely agrarian society is wholly inadequate for the industrial/information age of today.

I suggest that conservatives know just as well as we liberals do that this country has exactly the level of government we want and need. The genius of our founding fathers creation could evolve no other way. As long as the people have the power of the ballot we will continue to have the government we want.

May I add that I condemn their tactics of using the phony "big government" issue. All they are doing is poisoning many citizens view of the most honorable national government, for all its warts, that the world has ever known. That conservatives do this solely for their own political gain is wholly reprehensible.