Notes on Small Government and Where to Shrink It
January 17th 2011 14:00
After the 2010 elections, politicians and pundits, particularly on the winning side, were quick to spin the results and conclude they had a mandate for whatever positions they had espoused. It’s possible, of course, that there was a strong public sentiment in favor of the Contract With America, but it seems equally likely that the vote was based on dissatisfaction with the economy. It makes no difference whose fault it is, when it started, or what has been done – things are bad now, and so there’s the hope that somebody else can do better.
Part of this dissatisfaction is reflected in the call for smaller government. To be sure, many of those people calling for smaller government are actually concerned with the reach of government into everyday life, but in other cases, the message is simply that smaller government implies lower taxes. Again, without getting into partisan analysis, for the past two years we have been living with an Obama tax cut that came on top of the Bush tax cuts, but if the perception is that taxes are too high, that’s what molds opinion. Part of the problem may be that large sections of the Bush tax cuts were directed at specific types of income that affected a limited number of people: low tax rates on qualified dividends and long term capital gains. Another fact is that the Obama tax cuts were swallowed up by increased state and local taxes, which were raised in order to balance budgets decimated by the economic downturn. The tax cuts, which President Bush had said we could afford, and which President Obama said would stimulate the economy, failed in both cases. This caused the not unreasonable presumption that smaller government would be less costly, and a further tax reduction would force politicians to live within the nation’s means. The phrase “starve the beast” became one of several rallying cries.
Cutting government income may result in some level of cost reduction, but it’s akin to cart before horse reasoning. The first step should be to define what services we want government to provide, so that we can cut what’s left. In many cases, the first cuts have been in the area of education and healthcare. Reducing public library hours, or closing libraries entirely, is common at the local level, along with increasing class sizes in public schools. States have reduced their subsidies for state colleges leading to increased tuition and fees, coupled with cutbacks in programs. There’s reduced maintenance in parks. Arizona gained national attention when it’s Medicaid program withdrew funding for organ transplants.
Since the focus is on the federal budget, we have every reason to review what the federal government should do. One common approach has been to review the Constitution, particvularly with regard to originalism and original intent. By that logic, if a service can’t be directly tied to the intention of the founders, it shouldn’t be provided. Many of the laws currently in force are based, however vaguely, on the idea that Congress may regulate commerce – even if the activities were not even imagined at the time of Washington and Franklin. If you listen to the radio , you probably want to have somebody controlling the distribution of radio frequencies, since the alternative would be a complete breakdown in all electronic communications, including cell phones. Travel by airplane and the air traffic controllers maintain distances between planes – another federal program.
Since Conservatives show fealty to original intent and the Constitution, some thoughts from the founding fathers might be useful. For example, article 1 section 8 seems to show limited belief in a standing army: “To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;” While there’s no such limitation on the Navy, the founders clearly thought that the Army wouldn’t be needed for more than two years. The two years are up, so that should be a fairly good cash savings.
While Benjamin Rush was not a signer of the Constitution, his signature on the Declaration of Independence qualifies him as a founder. He was the most distinguished physician of his time, and held the chair in Medicine at the University of Pennsylvania. Dr. Rush called for simplifying the practice of medicine, and relied on mercury bichloride for almost all treatment. following his lead, we could eliminate the FDA, CDC and Public Health Service.
The founders didn’t believe in fiat currency, so we can return to the gold standard and eliminate the need for the mint. Since the Constitution itself was hand written, we can eliminate the government printing office.
Small government advocates tend to generalize. The Republicans have promised to cut the budget by $100 billion, while leaving defense, homeland security, and Social Security intact. This means draconian cuts in the range of 20% in every other program. Before anybody starts cutting the outlays, we should really have a serious discussion of what services we’re willing to live without. Othjerwise we’ll do something we’ll really regret.
Part of this dissatisfaction is reflected in the call for smaller government. To be sure, many of those people calling for smaller government are actually concerned with the reach of government into everyday life, but in other cases, the message is simply that smaller government implies lower taxes. Again, without getting into partisan analysis, for the past two years we have been living with an Obama tax cut that came on top of the Bush tax cuts, but if the perception is that taxes are too high, that’s what molds opinion. Part of the problem may be that large sections of the Bush tax cuts were directed at specific types of income that affected a limited number of people: low tax rates on qualified dividends and long term capital gains. Another fact is that the Obama tax cuts were swallowed up by increased state and local taxes, which were raised in order to balance budgets decimated by the economic downturn. The tax cuts, which President Bush had said we could afford, and which President Obama said would stimulate the economy, failed in both cases. This caused the not unreasonable presumption that smaller government would be less costly, and a further tax reduction would force politicians to live within the nation’s means. The phrase “starve the beast” became one of several rallying cries.
Cutting government income may result in some level of cost reduction, but it’s akin to cart before horse reasoning. The first step should be to define what services we want government to provide, so that we can cut what’s left. In many cases, the first cuts have been in the area of education and healthcare. Reducing public library hours, or closing libraries entirely, is common at the local level, along with increasing class sizes in public schools. States have reduced their subsidies for state colleges leading to increased tuition and fees, coupled with cutbacks in programs. There’s reduced maintenance in parks. Arizona gained national attention when it’s Medicaid program withdrew funding for organ transplants.
Since the focus is on the federal budget, we have every reason to review what the federal government should do. One common approach has been to review the Constitution, particvularly with regard to originalism and original intent. By that logic, if a service can’t be directly tied to the intention of the founders, it shouldn’t be provided. Many of the laws currently in force are based, however vaguely, on the idea that Congress may regulate commerce – even if the activities were not even imagined at the time of Washington and Franklin. If you listen to the radio , you probably want to have somebody controlling the distribution of radio frequencies, since the alternative would be a complete breakdown in all electronic communications, including cell phones. Travel by airplane and the air traffic controllers maintain distances between planes – another federal program.
Since Conservatives show fealty to original intent and the Constitution, some thoughts from the founding fathers might be useful. For example, article 1 section 8 seems to show limited belief in a standing army: “To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;” While there’s no such limitation on the Navy, the founders clearly thought that the Army wouldn’t be needed for more than two years. The two years are up, so that should be a fairly good cash savings.
While Benjamin Rush was not a signer of the Constitution, his signature on the Declaration of Independence qualifies him as a founder. He was the most distinguished physician of his time, and held the chair in Medicine at the University of Pennsylvania. Dr. Rush called for simplifying the practice of medicine, and relied on mercury bichloride for almost all treatment. following his lead, we could eliminate the FDA, CDC and Public Health Service.
The founders didn’t believe in fiat currency, so we can return to the gold standard and eliminate the need for the mint. Since the Constitution itself was hand written, we can eliminate the government printing office.
Small government advocates tend to generalize. The Republicans have promised to cut the budget by $100 billion, while leaving defense, homeland security, and Social Security intact. This means draconian cuts in the range of 20% in every other program. Before anybody starts cutting the outlays, we should really have a serious discussion of what services we’re willing to live without. Othjerwise we’ll do something we’ll really regret.
| 20 |
| Vote |
subscribe to this blog
