|
Post by gailkate on Oct 14, 2008 18:18:10 GMT -5
This is not intended as a "put up your dukes" discussion. I really don't know what people mean by Big Government. So make me a list, please. All the things that come to mind when you think of the term, I guess either because of cost or number of employees or rules or extension into people's lives.
|
|
|
Post by joew on Oct 14, 2008 19:40:40 GMT -5
Federal Department of Education, Department of Health and Human Services, Department of Energy, for starters.
|
|
|
Post by gailkate on Oct 14, 2008 23:01:18 GMT -5
I confess I was expecting more in the way of explanation.
|
|
|
Post by joew on Oct 14, 2008 23:30:56 GMT -5
Soz. I thought you just wanted us small government types to name names.
The big problem with all three that I listed is that they are not part of the responsibilities delegated to the federal government under the Constitution. So here are all these agencies spending big bucks and telling the hicks how to do things, when their state governments should be handling any problems that free citizens can't deal with on their own..
|
|
|
Post by doctork on Oct 15, 2008 1:19:00 GMT -5
I think "Big Government" is a term frequently used by Republicans/Conservatives when referring to Democratic/Liberal programs. In a nutshell, federal government taking on responsibilities which could/should be left to the states. In joew's strict definition, if the Constitution doesn't explicitly allocate the power and responsibility to the federal government, the matter should be determined by each state, not by the federal government.
Oddly, though Republicans have long been regarded as "conservative," the national debt has doubled and the size of government has greatly increased under the Bush administration. President Bush has been very proud of his "No Child Left Behind" legislation regarding educational standards, while education is actually almost exclusively the province of the states.
Historically, Democrats have been regarded as supporting more programs be administered by the federal government as a solution to many problems.
Health & Human Services is home to the most popular federal (or state for that matter) programs in history - Medicare. Very few politicians of any party would want to eliminate the program, as it is a part of "big government" that is widely admired and appreciated by most.
Much of today's concerns about the financial meltdown traces its origin to decreased federal regulation. The "bailout" legislation includes more regulatory supervision by various federal agencies in order to reduce the likelihood of recurrence and stem abuse.
I think it is easier to rail against big government than to tease out exactly what is "too big" and what is genuinely necessary federal responsibility. And we ourselves elect the representatives who create the legislation. They seem great when we meet them on the campaign trail here at home, but when they move inside the Beltway some transformation seems to occur.
|
|
|
Post by gailkate on Oct 15, 2008 9:32:39 GMT -5
Well said, K. The Washington stink apparently clings to them all (except when they campaign and rail against Washington insiders).
Education is a great example of the conundrum for me. There was no public education in 1787, so how could the Constitution address it? I know my view is seen as way too loose by conservatives, but I take the Preamble to be the Vision, in modern business terms. Much that isn't specified can be seen as relating directly to the Preamble or deriving from specified responsibilities (e.g., Commerce). So education would seem reasonable as a general right to be federally overseen. Whether we need a DOE is another question. Their web site describes reasonable goals, though I often disagree with the means they use.
Isn't it that we all question the tendency of bureaucracies to grow like tumbleweeds? I do get irked by the labels given Dems because I cannot see how any burgeoning of federal government can be placed directly on their shoulders. It seems as if a bushel of rules and roles gets out of hand and we pull them into something that's supposed to make sense of the hodge-podge. But then people feel there's a Big Bro dictating to the hicks, as Joe says. Sometimes the hicks are very sophisticated and want to maintain their own dictatorship, to the detriment of their states' citizens. (For example, MN has some education laws that I consider unconstitutional.)
Oops, I could go on forever. Just one more thought - the Income Tax, 1913. Constitutional?
|
|
|
Post by joew on Oct 15, 2008 18:42:29 GMT -5
Yep. XVIth Amendment.
|
|