The Big Government/ Small Government Debate

[Jumbo]

I almost put "meme" in the title instead of debate.

I need to beg your guys' indulgence on this as I may violate a rule I usually follow and endorse: starting a thread and then turning it over to others who want to address the topic while not being available myself. So I will take any heat I get. But this is a topic I have wanted to see discussed, and I have a longish but still stream-of consciousness OP throwing some of my thoughts on the matter out there to be torn apart and thus allowing myself to improve my positions.

I also feel I need to remind how seriously I may have been deformed by growing up in Alaska despite my life-long efforts to not let my environmental shapings dominate my thinking.


I think we would do well to get over the simple-minded and often ridiculous “big gov bad, small gov good" mentality. Big, successful, corporations and orgnaizations, with VERY few if any exceptions, have big management populations and extensive, complicated corporate/organizational polices.

But they are relatively well run from top to bottom, more than not ,,as a fundamental part of their success. While appropriate size (minimal bloating/waste/redundancy) does matter, it's competency and efficiency that win the day. And the bigger the nation or corporation (in every way) the bigger the government or management population)needed.

It's not a "big gov" that's the problem, for you guys who chant that <cough> meme--it's an ineffective and inefficient big gov that's the problem. This nation can NEVER be properly run by a "small gov" at the top of the pyramid. The armed services alone require an extensive and very large bureaucracy. The argument needs to be shifted to a revamping of how to quantify, attract, attain, and maintain a much more effective and efficient government. It's going to need to be "big", however, period.

And if you think an effective counter-argument is to let the state take “all that stuff” over to a much larger degree, I strongly disagree. I see no "magic" in the "soveriegnty of states", though I certainly believe in hearing the local experts and not being overly-involved. I don't "want the feds everywhere" at all! But knowing human behvaiors, I think states left too much to themselves become little kingdoms/fiefdoms for the still-incompetent to run.

Jeebus, the south is still full of secession-friendly rhetoric and so was my home state not too long ago. Cronyism and corruption, and politicians being in the pocket of lobbyists, is certainly thriving at the state level. Perry is a good example of that even by the testimony of some of his supprotters, and it show the hypocrisy that rules the day in this tipic (ok, all) topic(s). I think that a major shift to a much more “states-in-charge” balance than now would lead to an increase in undesirable social, and arguably, economic, characteristics in overall national impact. The history of this nation and of much of the world reveals that things progress better socially and in terms of material prosperity with a strong and properly broad government at the top that can take priority over individual regions.

Again, it is the extreme and the incompent in federal intervening that requires addressing. Let states have their say and listen to them with genuine deference, but there’s a definite need for federal supremacy. The manner in which law and societal organization for the better was brought to the west from the top on down (trickling for we Regan fans) as regions developed from wilderness to territory to statehood under the United States as a federal entity is a supporting example, even with all the errors and even atrocities included.

Without the federal power, I content it would have been far worse from range wars to civic peace in the towns themselves and the multitude of various “barons“ previously running the show, let alone the fact that a couple border states by themselves would not have been able to thwart Mexico’s wild notion (much like the native Americans) that they should be allowed to keep their property prior to our finding it attractive.

And the story of the American west just holds some of the historical examples of the need of a strong (but efficient and competent) “big federal government.” One more time---we are a very big nation, not just a group of big states. Matters like our national defense, our large population, our large geographical spread, and our complex and diverse social system, demand a large and competent national governing body for us to realize our best.

Hell, why should just the states have the final say anyway if you‘re really into regional rights? Let’s take the logic to the next step. Make state government really small too and let each town/city run it’s own show much more completely without state or federal interference. That would likely work out swell.

Ok, it's all yours. I'll be back as I can.

[GibbsFactor]

The problem I've always had with growing our government is that the workers have no pride of ownership (which is ironic really) and no competing brand. This allows companies like GE to be more, and I use that word loosely, efficient than the government.

Government to Government aid doesn't work, the country was founded on the belief in States rights, we are much larger than our Canadian or European counterparts so fair comparisons are hard to make, among other issues.

Of course the other side of the coin is human nature which prohibits us from not having a government. I wish smarter people were tackling this issue besides our Political hacks.

[Tulane Skins Fan]

So, location "Alaska." Solved that one.

I think this is essentially where I fall on this spectrum as well. I'm not for inefficient government, but i don't believe that big government equals inefficient government. I do believe there are some things that government does well; there are also some things it doesn't do well.

[mojobo]

I think one of the biggest problems with a big government is the big pool of money it takes attracts a lot of people/corporations/unions to lobby hard for that money instead of getting money through the private sector which in my opinion is a much more efficient and productive way. How would you feel about a federal government system that instead of electing people to find the best way to collect, borrow, and spend the publics money simply transfers the money directly to the citizens regardless of race, age, gender, etc. and only discriminates based on income?

Right now we collect about $2 trillion federally in revenue with a population of about 300,000,000 making federal spending per capita around $6,600. If we were to simply transfer that to each person and keep enough just for military operations (which could be cut significantly but thats another argument) and other minimal necessities of government then we could probably still keep around $5,500 of that money per person. Next we could make it so that only people over the age of 18 which according to the Census is 76% of our population. That means the $2 trillion would be split between about 228,000,000 people making it a transfer of $7,700 if you keep the $1,000 for military spending/ minimum government. Next you could make it so that the upper 25%-50% receive less and less of the money transfer as it really loses its significance once you earn that much as you are financially stable. So right there you decrease the amount of people receiving money by a net amount of about another 35% depending on how regressive you want the benefits to be. That comes to about $13,300 per person for those who receive the benefits or $12,300 after the $1,000 military contribution everyone makes. This way we have a small operational government but a strong safety net for people that also would reduce a lot of needs for state governments to fund their own safety nets but also likely results in a net revenue gain as more people are spending money. Social security could also be tamed back as the pressure on income would also be lessened as seniors would have a steady income stream.

One thing that would have to be guaranteed is that we don't borrow to give people more in the present at the expense of future benefits. Note that this hypothetical plan is already balanced and doesn't require any additional borrowing which solves yet another issue. While I don't like saying it, this plan would also benefit more from taxing income rather than consumption as it gives poorer people more of a stake our economy and people making more money benefits those with lower income as well as themselves. This idea sort of goes off the "fair tax" idea but I think has a few differences that I think make it a little more "progressive" and easier to swallow for those who don't really like cutting spending in the first place.

Anyways just kind of throwing it out there. Seems like a good compromise for the big government vs small government as it shrinks the federal government operationally, but increases the safety net and welfare of the poor and allows more people to be invested in the overall economy of the U.S. even if they don't have the skills, connections, or risk tolerance to actively participate in it.

[Jumbo]

GF: I don't want/need to "grow" government at this point, just saying it will always be "big" and focusing on that size as an inherent issue with negative connotations along with a goal to simply make it "smaller" is misdirection.

As far as history goes (and I sure don't consider myself expert, just decently informed and awaiting the erudition of others), the states (colonies) were already in existence and operating when it was determined that a union needed to be formed. The essential purpose of that forming was to establish by consensus legislation, and assure by unified defense, more political and social freedom than was available unde British dominion.

And there was certainly significant compromise among the key power brokers and political leaders during that early formation. While states (colonies) rights were a key concern and important priority, the crying obviousness of the matter was that a federal ("higher-level") governing body was needed.

So, once again, in the perpetuation of the "states rights mantra", we can get misdirected. Nothing I have said, or will ever say, is about dismissing or minimization of states rights. It's more about moving past the fallacies and misdirection of the "big bad wolf" and "crying wolf."

The problem lies in execution of federal governance, not the reason it was created, it's need, or the fact that it is going to be "big" and a "big" part of our life no matter what party is in place. And that is as it should be IMO, with the focuses for change being on the lines of how competent that role is played.

Tulane: I have not lived in Alaska for decades though I maintain close contacts and a permanent personal attachment. I notice that it's a core part of my self-identity to use the term "Alaskan" as a base description.

[GibbsFactor]

I find my line of thinking regarding States Rights to be pretty simple. States should have the power to decide the tough social issues for no other reason than some of these issues are simply to divisive to expect a national plan.

I agree that big government is inevitable at this point but again reinforce the fact that business principles such as pride of ownership and a competing brand will never apply. Therefore, you will always have a level of inefficient bureaucracy. It's simply unavoidable. The controls GE has don't work at the Federal government level for those very reasons. These are the reasons I support a Federal Government that has less of it's hand in the cookie jar.

There are other solutions out there that don't require Federal Agencies to manage everything. The SEC doesn't work. We are rethinking that one as we speak. I don't see why it has to be all in on government or fold. There needs to be regulations but when does it end? Eventually we will all work for a regulation compliance agency of the Government making sure we are all doing our jobs. At that point, wouldn't we basically be Communists?

[Lombardi's_kid_brother]

The SEC used to work.

The problem with government agencies is not that they exist. The problem is how they get twisted by the political winds. On the debate thread, the argument became that since FEMA was ineffective during Katrina, it obvioulsy does not work, it should be scrapped, and disaster reflief should be farmed out to the private sector or something. But FEMA - historically - has worked. When it was underfunded and run by a moron, it failed.

[Jumbo]

I'm a gonna try that "answer within the quote via a highlighted color" style just to show old dogs can do something different.

I find my line of thinking regarding States Rights to be pretty simple. States should have the power to decide the tough social issues for no other reason than some of these issues are simply to divisive to expect a national plan. I think we fundamentally disagree on that last point (but I don't think you're "crazy" at all ). While no fan of Big Brother or wanting "feds in our beds", I think it's a national consensus, however difficult to achieve, on most "tough social issues" that is most needed. Without that, there's little doubt in my mind that some states would find a way to have unadulterated Christian doctrine taught in science classes and homosexuals not allowed to vote (joking <I hope> on the last, but hoping my general position is clear whether agreed with or not).

I agree that big government is inevitable at this point but again reinforce the fact that business principles such as pride of ownership and a competing brand will never apply. Ok, but is it a core need that they do? I don't think so. Though in many ways, pride of ownership can be transmuted to a combination of patriotism and competence---i.e. 'it's my country, I am in a national political office, and I want to serve the nation as a whole, not just one demographic or some lobbyists who grease my wheels."

Therefore, you will always have a level of inefficient bureaucracy. It's simply unavoidable. The controls GE has don't work at the Federal government level for those very reasons. All these liabilities exist at the state, county, and even city government and contracting levels. They are not unique to or created by the existence of federal involvement. And while a federal level adds another layer of potential sin or error, we are a union, and an absence of a federal overseer just strips us all of one potentially useful watchdog over such trasgressions, just as state watchdogs can productively oversee county and township/city issues of the same stripe. These are the reasons I support a Federal Government that has less of it's hand in the cookie jar. This last sentence is a guiding thought I agree with, and more emphasis on a competent hand and not a needlessly meddling hand to be specific. As I inferred in my OP, bloat as a size-related issue is a genuine negative. What may be tiresome but I say a necessary evil, is the debate on issue for issue as what is bloat and what is need. I'd say we have plenty of both. I wish it was easier, but I think leaping for easier just for its own sake of ease is as harmful as ignoring the bloat.

There are other solutions out there that don't require Federal Agencies to manage everything. Agreed without argument. The SEC doesn't work. I think the evidence shows it has at times and is a worthy concept. I think the evidence (even if of human nature only) also shows that loosening of restraints in scope and power of the agencies that can define and prosecute financial and commercial criminal activity results in more, not less, abuse. We are rethinking that one as we speak. I don't see why it has to be all in on government or fold. Per the previous sentence, I don't see anyone other that total and pure anarchists endorsing that---it's what I think is that beat to death term here--a strawman. There needs to be regulations but when does it end? Eventually we will all work for a regulation compliance agency of the Government making sure we are all doing our jobs. Hyperbole, but I'll allow that even the remote possibility is something to keep in mind. At that point, wouldn't we basically be Communists? No, not even granting the strawman. We'll only be communists when we're truly communists.

I will note that in the end we are the United States of America, not the "Agree in Unity When Convenient States of America" or the "States of America Who Sometimes Unite" etc.

[stanleys]

Those on the top of large corporations have a financial incentive to be as efficient as possible. Large governments have not impetus for efficiency. The difference is a simple as that.

Plus, there's those pesky little Enumerated Powers that everyone likes to ignore when it suits them so that everyone ignores them.

[ACW]

Those on the top of large corporations have a financial incentive to be as efficient as possible. Large governments have not impetus for efficiency. The difference is a simple as that.

This is key. Meanwhile, bureaucrats want a BIGGER budget.

[Jumbo]

Those on the top of large corporations have a financial incentive to be as efficient as possible. Large governments have not impetus for efficiency. The difference is a simple as that.

Plus, there's those pesky little Enumerated Powers that everyone likes to ignore when it suits them so that everyone ignores them.

Now wer're getting int one of the relevant tangential areas I was waiting to arise when I did the OP...the pros and cons ( and myths/realities) of offering equivalent top private-arena salaries and bennies to national level office holders as part of improving competencies and efficiency to duplicate those desirable private sector dynamics.

[ACW]

http://harrybrowne.org/articles/Prin...Government.htm
1: Government is force.

[alexey]

Government is essentially a monopoly in a lot of areas. Small and nimble innovators can usually take some business away from large corporations by doing things better. Such competitive pressures are not pressuring the government. I'm sure there are better ways of overseeing Wall Street, but small and nible innovators are not in position to start doing that.

Also, in government everything is a "turf". People rise through the ranks, get budgets, etc. Insentives are usually to get more turf and bigger budget.

It would be interesting to have a discussion on what mechanisms could be used to improve the government. Obviously making it "smaller" is a not a viable alternative. People who promote "smaller government" are the people who do not want to pick up **** that their dog left on the sidewalk.

[TheGreatBuzz]

A big problem is when trying to compare the way a large corporation is run to the way a country is run is that there are 2 very different expectations from them. A company is expected to be fiscally responsible and turn a profit. A government is expected to take care of us regardless of cost. (I know there will be an argument about what level of care at what cost is expected from a government but that's not the point I'm making.)

EDIT:

People who promote "smaller government" are the people who do not want to pick up **** that their dog left on the sidewalk.

That's not really fair. I promote smaller government and I "pick up **** after my dog" and generally try to take care of myself without relying someone else to do it for me (which is what I think you were implying. Sorry if I misunderstood.)

[Prosperity]

I'm not the most experienced person as far as life goes, but I never enjoy my interactions with the government, and from that simple premise, I'd like to limit my interaction with it as much as possible. Why don't I enjoy it? Well, it seems like their workers are bored, irritable, and too worried about pretending to be otherwise... (most of dealings are with clerks and functionaries, so maybe that is to be expected, but secretaries at private companies always treat me with more respect) back that up with an impenetrable bureacracy and it's just a pain. The smallest errors can cost you hours or days of productivity. When it all goes smoothly it's not so bad. Of course, I also hate dealing with large organizations of every variety.

But there's more to it then that. I admit I've advocated secession at least half heartedly... But that's not so much about the role of the government in our lives, as what the government does specifically. If this country was run by the sort of folks I see running for the GOP, and if it continued for a generation or so I could see myself advocating California's secession from the Union... probably out of frustration, and not sincerely. I know I'm a hypocrite on this topic but there are red lines, and being lead by lunatics without hope of change is a red line for me.

So I guess there's the Anti-Fed sentiment, and the Anti-Gov in general sentiment. Those two are distinct ideas, but woven together by simplistic talking points. Tea Party drones don't have a problem with the government saying I can't smoke weed, or that my gay friends can't marry (those are pretty significant lifestyle pressures).

---------- Post added September-8th-2011 at 11:06 PM ----------

Now wer're getting int one of the relevant tangential areas I was waiting to arise when I did the OP...the pros and cons ( and myths/realities) of offering equivalent top private-arena salaries and bennies to national level office holders as part of improving competencies and efficiency to duplicate those desirable private sector dynamics.

Perhaps you should focus on the benefits that national politics offers (fame, power)... those two lures can attract some shady people. I know I'm going to sound like a douche when I say this, but I am sincerely and strongly prejudiced against anyone that wants to run for office, because it's been a really good predictor of who is a douche and not. Again I am hypocritical in this respect because I'm lured to those things, well I don't think for fame, but for the power definitely.