How big should government be? The answer is: As big as it has to be — and for small-government types, no bigger than it has to be.
The whole debate about the proper size of government is a blind alley leading into a dead end. Government must grow at times of war or collapsing economy. It grows when there are lots of schoolchildren, elderly people or natural disasters. Government provides necessities that the private sector can't. We can argue over what constitutes a necessity.
There was no joy in President Obama's discussion Tuesday night of the expensive economic-recovery plan. He told Congress that he asked for it, "not because I believe in bigger government — I don't." It was because "a failure to act would have worsened our long-term deficit by assuring weak economic growth for years."
Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal's Republican response to the speech showed a stunning disconnect from reality. First he called for a pile of new tax cuts, then warned that Democrats would "saddle future generations with debt."
Future generations are saddled with debt precisely because of reckless Republican tax cuts — and spending. Obama repeated his vow to cut the deficit in half, once the crisis has passed. And he spoke in real-world specifics of tax loopholes to be ended and higher levies on the richest 2 percent.
Well, what about spending? There are fiscally righteous Republicans who fervently believe in small government and have the courage to vote against popular programs. They are but a handful. George W. Bush, working with a Republican Congress, embarked on the biggest spending spree since Lyndon Johnson, even excluding money allocated to defense and homeland security.
A current Republican talking point, repeated by Jindal, holds that "our party got away from its principles." Sadly, the party gets away from its principles most every time it's in power.
Bush wasn't a special case.
Under Ronald Reagan, the U.S. government consumed the highest percentage of gross domestic product in American history, except for during World War II.
In his first address before Congress, in 1981, Reagan made shocked reference to the nearly $1 trillion in debt his administration had inherited. He called the number "incomprehensible." But Reagan's rhetoric had no bearing on subsequent policy. By the time he left office, the national debt had more than doubled, to over $2 trillion.
The national debt almost doubled under George W. Bush, from just under $6 trillion to nearly $10 trillion.
The one fiscally honest Republican president in recent decades was the much-maligned George H.W. Bush. Deciding that the time had come for America to start paying its bills, the elder Bush broke his "no new taxes" pledge. For that gutsy move, his party's tax-a-phobes reviled him.
Their barbs multiplied for Bush's successor, Democrat Bill Clinton, who backed higher taxes for some upper-income Americans. That helped create budget surpluses — a fiscal Eden from which America was ejected soon after.
A recent New York Times-CBS News poll asked Americans whether it's more important for Republicans to stick to GOP policies or work with Obama and the Democrats. Only 17 percent preferred that Republicans stick to their policies. That's not much of a thumbs-up for the Republican way.
Nobody likes the deficits being run up. Everybody gripes about some of the ways the money's being spent. But at the moment, only government can pull us out of the economic swamp.
If Obama succeeds in cutting the deficit in half, he will have presided over a very big government followed by a much shrunken one. Both versions will have been right for their times. Clearly, there's no "one-size-fits-all" circumstances for government.
To find out more about Froma Harrop, and read features by other Creators Syndicate writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators Syndicate web page at www.creators.com.
COPYRIGHT 2009 THE PROVIDENCE JOURNAL CO.
DISTRIBUTED BY CREATORS SYNDICATE, INC.
??
??
??
??
|
 |
Comments
|
3 Comments | Post Comment
|
|
Ma'am;.... Your question is based upon a wrong predicate... If you ask how large government needs to be to feed itself, and to support injustice; the answer will always be: too large....Ask why we need the complete redundancy of government.... Do we really need fifty competing states within the united states when that does not help the whole people, adds to cost, and impedes all progress??? We have fifty different seat belt laws; and easily fifty one completely different sets of laws as well as local statutes that people must always be aware of, that feed lawyers and bleed the population....It is just an example, but law is the responsibility of government... We talk about jobs being exported, but how often are they exported within the nation, and who does it help??? We have more infrastructure in this state than business can support, and all because business, often picked up and left, chasing lower wages, and a more agreeable government.... Who is going to be responsible for all those left high and dry???Way back in Rome, the state had to forbid the freeing of elderly slaves which the made them eligible for the corn dole...Do we condider for a moment the cost of the people left behind??? Do we consider any of the collateral costs of outlaw capitalism??? If we paid for the damage a quart of oil does in this country we should be paying ten dollars a quart, and people would watch their leaks.... We let it go cheap, and we watch the damage grow.... But, Government has made the choice to support criminal capitalism, and what does that mean???It means all the associated costs, from crime, and police, education, regulation, again, redundancy of government and infrastructure, unemployment, and the big one: WAR....Capital needs markets, and markets mean war... Capital meanspoverty, and crime, and crime means cops and prisons.... Capital means stress, pain, insecurity, failed relationships, and mental illness, and so, social support.... Government and organization will always involve a certain cost.... Add to the cost of government all of the collateral damage to society done by capitalism, and you see the beast cannot support itself.... The rich do not want to pay taxes....It is because of them that society bears the costs that it does...And here is the rip... Government bears the price it does out of an extra constitutional choice to support capitalism.... If it made an issue of the reasons it was formed: Justice, defense, welfare, tranquility, liberty, and unity; then its costs would be minimal.... Government's prices are high for doing as it should not do... Government's prices are high for not doing as it should....You could liquidate the wealth of the wealthy, and reform the government completely, and the society would still be burdened for many years with the maimed and injured of this society....Does it seem that we are a small minded, hateful people???That is but a symptom of our own neglected needs and pain... The fact is that government is not big enough to handle the rich, and is not strong enough to carry the injured....So size is not the question... If you are paying for something that does not work, you are paying too much....If the government cannot protect the rich from their own excessive greed they too are paying too much... It may seem like a great price to bear; but if we had democracy we would have the government we could afford... It is the cost of Autocracy and Monarchy that have always led to revolution... It is cost today of plutocracy that will bring on revolution in this country... Bankruptcy equals revolution... That is a law... We are bankrupt... The fact only needs to set in.... Thanks...Sweeney
Comment: #1
Posted by: James A, Sweeney
Thu Feb 26, 2009 6:27 AM
|
|
|
|
Froma,
You might consider writing a column on the revenues the Reagan administration created for the federal government.
His tax breaks to individuals as well as business, created historic growth, that this great country had never experienced.
Perhaps an idea we should try to replicate during these difficult times.
Comment: #2
Posted by: M. Gould
Thu Feb 26, 2009 10:13 AM
|
|
|
|
"Future generations are saddled with debt precisely because of reckless Republican tax cuts — and spending."
This "future generations" myth drives me nuts. Can't these people ever get it?
The future, which begins when payments start becoming due after borrowing, is composed of borrowers and lenders. Lenders give up a quantity of money to borrowers. Borrowers pay it back each time period--not just in some future generation scenario--with interest. It's no different with the future generations than now. There is no net gain or loss to society as a whole in any future era--borrowers pay back and lenders receive--it's simply a transfer (of interest) from one group, borrowers, to another group, lenders. Future generations have both borrowers and lenders, the same as every generation.
Thus, there's no societal future generation net cost. There are, of course, potential individual transfers. If the borrowed money supports federal spending for benefits favoring me, and I have or will have a low or no-tax situation, then I'll gain at the expense of other taxpayers who pay relatively more of the interest (through their taxes). Thus, if current seniors and near-seniors receive a greater portion of the federal expenditure benefits, the current younger workers, as a group, may very well pay disproportionately for it, at least until they reach low-tax old-age and "pass" some fed debt along to their younger generation.
Maybe an even simpler way to put it is this. The statement about the future generation really says GDP will be smaller in some future era as a result of the current federal debt. This is possible, but you need some very sophisticated analysis to credibly make that case, and it's a highly debatable issue among economists. Obviously, it's not what the Democrats currently think!
In any case, I'm pretty certain it's not what the future generation comment implies in the mind of the reading public, who most likely take it in the sense of a loan that requires no payments for, maybe 30 years. They see it as a current freebie without realizing they have taken out a loan that they will be paying interest on every year.
I realize not one person in who-knows-how-many gets this, but, Froma, how about educating the public instead of repeating these misleading canards?
Comment: #3
Posted by: Mike Murphree
Mon Mar 2, 2009 11:57 AM
|
|
|
|
|
|
