The idea that government must keep itself busy with major legislation and social programs is responsible for much of our nation's present problems.
In 1790 and for some time thereafter being President of the United States or a member of the Legislature was a part time job. No one expected, or was expected to, make their living off of their government office. As a result, elected officials spent a significant amount of time dealing with their personal businesses. At the same time the Constitution was accepted as a document limiting government power and authority, and a part time government was the logical outgrowth of a limited government. And, as an added benefit, if legislators stayed closer to home they were more in touch with the people and the communities they represented. They were less likely to develop what we now call "the beltway mentality."
Eventually the practice of part time governing changed. Elected officials became less focused on the limited powers that were granted by the Constitution. They took on increasing responsibility for the everyday affairs of American Society. They refused to tell petitioners for money or legislation a plain and simple "no." Eventually being an elected representative became a full time job. And, as government has taken on more responsibility and more authority it has become more expensive and more of a burden on society. In the context of limited responsibility the job of government was never intended to control the ordinary activities of society, spend unlimited amounts of money, or do anything and everything that may be proposed regardless of its long term impact on the nation. As the transition from part time to full time government occurred the idea that government might be limited became irrelevant. While President Thomas Jefferson agonized over whether or not he had the power to transact the Louisiana Purchase, today most officials never question of whether or not it is constitutionally proper to take control of massive swaths of the American economy or to regulate simply because someone thinks that it is necessary. No one considers the possibility that serious limitations were supposed to, or at any time did exist. The question of whether government might be limited by the Constitution or that an act of Congress might be unconstitutional is likely to result in laughter or derision.
The fact that must be faced is that much of the government’s growth has occurred as a result of a belief that government must be activist; that it must always be involved in solving problems, enacting legislation, regulating the activities of the nation, and the lives of its people. I cannot remember a time when the network news mentioned that Congress was going back into session and didn’t have anything major to work on. Congress has become so activist that candidates always campaign by promising to make government more active, rather than less. Almost no one runs for office on the platform of eliminating government programs; it is always adding more to the blob that threatens to engulf our entire society. And the Capitol Hill reporters are always reminding us of the “vital” pieces of legislation that are in process. It is assumed that whatever Congress is doing is both necessary to the national interest and constitutionally permitted. Almost never does anyone on the inside of government raise such an issue, and then it is usually because someone is stepping on someone else’s toes.
But do we really need all this government activity? Anyone who has watched the acceleration of government growth since the 1930’s has seen that programs are enacted, but are rarely eliminated. Even when they have outlived their usefulness they generally hang around, potentially forever. The Rural Electrification Administration was one of those, established amidst controversy in 1935 it continued to exist and spend money until 1994 when instead of removing it, Congress moved the agency into the Rural Utilities Service under the Dept. of Agriculture, where it continues to exist long after its job has been completed. Old government agencies never die; they just change their names (or locations). Or take the Department of Homeland Security. It wasn’t any more necessary after 9/11/01 than it was before. Law enforcement, intelligence and the military could do the job without having another bureaucracy meddling in things and making things more difficult. This was an example of the Bush Administration not wasting a crisis. Mr. Bush should have known better.
Clearly, if government agencies continue long after they have completed their jobs, or if they develop into organizations that perpetuate the problem they were intended to solve in the name of job security, then they are not really necessary. They have become sinecures for government employees who undoubtedly push a lot of paper but get little of substance done because there isn’t really anything to do. And agencies created to serve the interests of lobbyists, or to cater the desires of industry groups, or to fund what would be better handled by private charities are not needed either. They generally exist only because some one expanded their authority and responsibility by creating them. It is a certainty that government size and complexity has contributed substantially to the complexity of the society we live in. Amity Shlaes and Murray Rothbard have both made significant arguments in to in favor of the position that the Roosevelt New Deal actually prolonged and worsened the Great Depression. There are like arguments that the current government spending to revive the economy has done little or nothing except expand government payrolls. And finally, we now have to face the possibility that the nation may be heading toward bankruptcy and financial collapse because spending has gotten so far out of hand and impossible to control that we are spending ourselves to death. If government programs are intended to improve the general welfare of the nation, then we now see that in the long run they are doing the exact opposite, and like a runaway train, they are taking all of us citizens, its passengers, over the cliff. Clearly, this was not what was intended in 1789, but unintended consequences are often the most disastrous and the most difficult to prevent.
To make matters worse, government officials are almost never held to account when they harm the general public. A business executive who ruins the company gets fired, and in some cases will go to prison. But if you work for the government you get a pass, except when someone else can profit from blaming you. Generally, everyone accuses circumstances beyond their control, or someone who left office years ago, and the matter dies. This is unacceptable. If the evidence were put before an honest and capable jury regarding the banking disaster of 2008, there would be a large number of legislators who would be in prison right now, Pelosi and Reid among them, for defrauding the public. Then we might have to penalize George W. Bush and some of his colleagues who were negligent in bringing the matter to the public attention when they first became aware of the problems at Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. If they had, it might have made a difference.
If government officials were held responsible for enacting misguided policies or failing to take proper action when necessary, they might think twice before doing anything of the sort. That is why I have always disliked the idea of sovereign immunity. It prevents justice from being enacted against those who frequently deserve it most.
I am not terribly confident about America surviving the current situation with the ability to restore itself to its proper level of liberty and prosperity. Obama, Reid and Pelosi, along with many of their useful idiots seem hell bent on destroying the nation. But if we do survive, it is an absolute necessity that the Constitution be amended to prevent this type of thing ever happening again. The founders had too much faith in humanity. It is a shame that we were not more deserving of it.
Does Government Have To Do Everything? No. Next question.
There are activities on three fronts attempting to rein in the Imperial Federal Government. No surprise that progressives are on board with none of them.
The first is the movement among the states to reassert their 10th Amendment rights. As I outlined in an essay over a month ago http://www.intellectualconservative.com/2010/02/03/dangerous-waters/#more-7349 these movements have taken different forms. There are currently 17 states that have enacted, for a lack of a better term, State Sovereignty Laws or Amendments. Another 29 are currently considering such legislation. That's 47 states altogether!
The second is that there are 30 states that are involved in legislation exempting individuals from the mandatory purchase of health insurance. Apparently these state legislators know something about the Constitution that eludes Nancy Pelosi and her comrades.
The third is HR 450 which is entitled "The Enumerated Powers Act"; which requires Congress to specify the source of authority under the United States Constitution for the enactment of laws. This bill currently has over 60 sponsors in the House. Oddly enough, none of them are democrats.
How many times does a political party need to hit with the hammer before they say "Ouch!"?
A government that should do everything is a government that can do anything!
Unfortunately, once the Constitution was treated as a "living document" to avoid the "needlessly difficult" process of amendments (which were designed to make it a living document with the consent of the governed), we have been running on borrowed time. Federal government intrusion goes far beyond anything the framers would have considered and truly beyond that any sane person would want. Congress and the Executive routinely ignore the Constitution supported by the complicit Supreme Court.
What do we need? That is difficult to answer go watch the show/movie Cabaret then multiply what you see by 1,000 or so to get a view of what Germany was like in the 1920s and 1930s. Then look around you and note we are far beyond the excesses that existed there. Past the point of no return?
Our Constitution is in danger, excess is the norm, oh poor me politics is rampant, the country is overrun with illegal entrants, hate crimes legislation protects special interest groups, and we are broke. The give me more folks held their hands out and voted in their messiah subsequently they are finding out he is as unqualified as his opponents claimed. What to do, what to do?
Is the USA on the brink of another revolution?
Deleeuw,
I've been pondering your post, and I'm not certain I agree with it. It's a slightly different take on the original Barry Goldwater quote; “A government big enough to give you everything you want, is also big enough to take everything you have." isn't really true. Look at Greece. I think it was Mark Steyn who said; "A government big enough to give you everything you want, apparently isn't big enough to get anyone to return an entitlement once it is granted." or words to that effect.
His meaning was that Europe, a long time ago, opted for butter over guns. They offloaded their defense to the US and started loading up the entitlement train for their people. Now the only real functioning economy in the EU is Germany; and all the other EU states are trying to figure out how to offload more of their stuff on Germany. The real issue is that any entitlement state must also be natalist.
You require a large working population in order to pay the taxes required to allow others to retire at 55 with a generous pension and medical entitlement they can enjoy for the next 30 years. Not to mention the 6 weeks of vacation, the 30 hour work weeks, and the other generous benefits that unionized workers have demanded of their employers.
Entitlement states get lazy in other areas as well. For example, take birth rates. Entitlement states tend to be so narcissistic as to deliberately eschew the raising of children. Instead of opting for three or four, they might, and I stress might, opt for one designer baby at age 35. This creates the opposite of what the nation needs. The population shrinks.
Look at this map http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Fertility_rate_world_map.PNG and you have a real issue. The referenced map will tell anyone at a glance that large areas of the world are going to go out of business because of this entitlement mentality. All of Europe, most of Asia, and large portions of North and South America are not breeding at rates sufficient to maintain population. And this will happen sooner than one might expect as the more intelligent realize that they don’t want to be the last worker in a particular country trying to support an entire nursing home with his tax burden and relocate to another area of the planet.
Bill Wavering: The entitlement states are either at the tipping point or have already tipped over. I took a look at the map of the world and the replenishing chart that you left a link to. With the exception of Africa and a few countries in southern Asia, the rest of the world is either in decline or at best, a status quo on birth rates. This will cause political unrest and Greece is the point man of this unrest. As for Africa, its birth rate and its ability to feed itself is another huge problem. While the rest of the world is in population decline and is trying to keep the entitlement state afloat, Africa will be at a perpetual state of starvation. The eventual result for the entire world will have to be a cultural change brought about by necessity, not desire. Africa will have to cut population growth and do away with the petty tyrants that impede its very survival. Europe and the Americas will have to go back to work and realize that the only way to have a higher standard of living will have to be through technology and innovation, otherwise we just don't have the population to slug it out with Asia's cheap labor. A higher birth rate is mandatory for the aforementioned continents. Asia led by China and their disregard for human life will economically be the big dog on the street. This too will, in time, go the other way when the peasants rise up against their masters. It will be a repeat of the serfs in Europe taking from the kings, the slaves and beat down under class of the Americas rising from poverty and wanting their piece of the pie. History has this habit of repeating itself. It's sometimes difficult for us to see as it takes centuries for these things to happen and we don't have the luxury of seeing it happen. In summation, things will pan out in the long run, the short run will be difficult but change will come to all. The absolute answer? Christ.
While you ponder the need to add population take a step back and recognize that a declining population could be a very good thing leading to a much superior life experience EXCEPT in situations where you have a nanny state running on unfunded Ponzi schemes where the contributions of the current payers is used to pay off those who paid before. Hmmm sounds almost like social security which would not have been a Ponzi scheme but when it turned into a welfare program paying out a much higher inferred return on investment to those putting in the least in contributions it was almost dead. The real death knell to social security was the use of funds to provide for general operations of the regular federal budget, of course the lovers of government will say that social security funds were just a loan…hmmm, no sinking fund was set up to pay it off so where will the money come from to pay it off?
Medicare is a similar scheme but with no attempt to pretend that the funds were really set aside. Why do we send white collar criminals to jail but not white collar criminal politicians?
Read Mark Steyn's book "America Alone", It portends a world wide disaster; and the disaster is the shrinking world population. He begins by posing a question; "Why is most of the world the way it is? The answer is that once infant mortality was pretty much defeated in the UK in the 18th century there wasn't enough economic activity to keep all the English lads employed, so they set out to make their fortunes in other parts of the world, taking advances in western civilization right along with them.
He postulates that if it had been China or Russia that had beaten infant mortality first then the world would have developed in a decidedly different manner because it would have been flooded with a different type of people from a different civilizational makeup.
So we then look at the present birth rate map and discover that a good many of these western societies are poised to get older than they've ever been before because of the demographic imbalance imposed by the facts that people live longer and more people are choosing to have less babies. The countries at the bottom end of the birth rate curve are in a death spiral. Countries like Russia and Japan with decidedly low birth rates are literally depopulating themselves in front of our eyes.
Countries that are barely maintaining birth rates at replacement levels like the US are doing a little better; holding their own. The future, it would seem, would belong to the countries with the highest birth rates. Go ahead and look that one up and the challenge becomes clear. Most of the countries with the highest birth rates also share another more ominous trait; they are mostly decidedly Muslim. Go ahead and turn that around in your mind for awhile. All the countries that have exportable populations also, by coincidence, have an 'exportable' decidedly non-assimilating religious philosophy. When a Jew marries a Christian one or the other may convert, or not. If a Christian marries a Muslim, well let's just say that the chances of that Muslim becoming a Baptist are somewhere between slim and none while the conversion of that Baptist to Islam is almost assured.
As populations get older, and more unable to reproduce on their own, they must import surplus population in order to survive. It usually makes for interesting times when population fluctuations cause the pendulum to drift right or left on the political scale. What happens when a country goes from a decidedly western style social democracy to a majority Shira Law, Islamic type of mentality. We're fixin' to find out as more and more western european countries import more and more Muslims from other countries. Interesting times indeed
Bill Wavering, your points regarding my paraphrase are actually spot on: A government can PROMISE anything, but not necessarily DO anything. Even with a complete disregard of economic realities, such as printing more money, to pay for goodies, as well as enforcement and bureacracy, after a while society WILL collapse, regardless of totalitarian measures to control.
[...] Government Have To Do Everything? Darn good [...]
deleeuw,
That's exactly the point. If you add up the unfunded mandates for Medicare, Medicaid, CHIP and all the other health care programs the federal government already operates; then toss Obamacare in top of it: Well; by @ 2025 the country will be nothing more than a health care program with an army. Between interest on the debt, the health care costs of all the programs and defense costs, there'll be absolutely nothing left to fund anything.
[...] Does Government Have To Do Everything? [...]