Smaller government is not necessarily better
Be careful what you wish for, especially if it's smaller government. Our nation's population was much smaller in the 1800s. Government began small, but as population grew so did the needs of the people, requiring a larger government.
Recently we hear urgent requests for smaller government, which we're told we have. How is this done? By giving private contracts to businesses and corporations to carry out the work of government. Vast armies of contractors are hired to fill the gaps left in a downsized government. This leads to higher costs and less oversight. Citizens are left to equate government size with the numbers of public employees.
The federal civilian workforce is about 1.9 million permanent full-time civil servants -- about the same as in 1960, but with an additional 7.6 million contract employees on the federal payroll. As population grows so does the workload of government.
This prompts the questions: Who is in charge? Who is responsible for the big picture? Where is the transparency? Who initiates the mandates? Does this undermine American prestige? Is this increasing corruption and the demoralizing of current civil servants? Who is protecting the public?
Do we really want this type of smaller government?
June A. Rusten Ann Arbor
Comments
NoSUVforMe
Sat, Mar 5, 2011 : 11:30 p.m.
I've seen no evidence that government is less efficient than many corporations I've seen, and certainly a lot better than the Department of Defense. Yet, the ideologues aren't clamoring for a massive cut in defense expenditures. What everybody should realize is that nobody likes government until there is something they want from government. Then, if it's not there, it is the governments fault. The fault isn't government, it is people.
AnnArBo
Mon, Feb 28, 2011 : 12:24 a.m.
Hey Townie, give me a list of effecient government run programs.
NoSUVforMe
Sat, Mar 5, 2011 : 11:33 p.m.
Medicare is very well run, much better than any private plan I have experience with. Medicare's administrative cost is also a fraction of what it is on the private side. Find another delivery service, other than the Post Office, that will send a letter across the country for less than $. Some people just hate government but it is usually ignorance or ideology, not facts.
DonBee
Wed, Mar 2, 2011 : 3:31 a.m.
The NASA of the 1960s and 1970s no longer exists. What replaced it is a huge mess of red tape. Most of the really good engineers have left to work for private companies. NASA spends big chunks of its money on technology transfer and other mandated efforts that are not focused on space. Many programs that should have been retired years ago, continue to limp along. Centers that were needed for the program of the 1960s, but not today are still open, because they draw votes. Sorry, NASA as we like to image it has been dead for decades.
Craig Lounsbury
Mon, Feb 28, 2011 : 6:07 p.m.
NASA does some amazing things but I'm not sure efficient is on my list.
David Briegel
Mon, Feb 28, 2011 : 2:58 p.m.
NASA
Townie
Sun, Feb 27, 2011 : 11:37 p.m.
Ah, the myth of 'we need efficient government'... Efficient like Comcast? AT&T? Our wonderful banks? Our health insurance companies? Yes, that's it -- let's turn over all the functions of government to the Comcasts, Banks of America, Exxon, etc. and we'll have a paradise. Government is us and the decisions we make. If we decide to underfund and under resource our government then we get what we deserve. I assume your 'inefficient' remark covers the military as well.
Craig Lounsbury
Mon, Feb 28, 2011 : 6:01 p.m.
"Ah, the myth of 'we need efficient government'... " So we don't need efficient government? Efficient like Comcast? AT&T? Our wonderful banks? Our health insurance companies? I'd settle for that....most of them turn a profit. "Yes, that's it -- let's turn over all the functions of government to the Comcasts, Banks of America, Exxon, etc. and we'll have a paradise". So your saying we don't need efficient government because its impossible to achieve? The only way to achieve it is to privatize? Government is us and the decisions we make. If we decide to underfund and under resource our government then we get what we deserve. "I assume your 'inefficient' remark covers the military as well." when they buy the $90 hammer and the $500 toilet seat they are.
tim
Sun, Feb 27, 2011 : 10:23 p.m.
I don't really care if I pay the private sector or taxes for the public. What I care about is how much I pay. The problem with some of the Republicans is that they don't really save me money and they actually cost me more even though I might pay less in taxes. Take a look at health care ,we pay almost double per capita what our friends in Europe pay and they live longer. So whats up with that? Aren't conservatives suppose to conserve -- they don't really want to they just want to pay less taxes.
Fritz
Sun, Feb 27, 2011 : 9:38 p.m.
It's irrational to debate the "size" of government. There is nothing to compare it to. We can talk about what specific goals we have for government, and we can talk about how much money individuals should contribute, and how much money as a share a GDP overall we want to spend; but to talk in such expansive abstracts like "big" and "small" is just a set up for a pointless argument. The categories are meaningless, and we just fill those linguistic slots with straw men. It's unfair, for example, to assert that to want small government is equivalent to wanting privatization (implying that privatization is just a payoff to corporate overlords), just as it is unfair to assert that people who want "big" government (and does anyone really want "big" government?) are kleptocrats who want to rob hard working tax payers to pay off union bosses and welfare queens. We should try to anchor our discussion to immediate concrete realities and stay away from philosophical abstracts that are just avenues for us to vent our inchoate rage.
rwshas
Sun, Feb 27, 2011 : 6:32 p.m.
The constitution says "limited government". That's what the majority of people want in our Country. Ann Arbor, I'm not so sure...
Edward R Murrow's Ghost
Mon, Feb 28, 2011 : 3:26 a.m.
"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America." Please tell me where, exactly, in this you find a word about "limited" government? It must be here because the rest of the Constitution is about the structure of government so any philosophical statement about the government's role MUST be in the preamble, right? So, please, where EXACTLY in the Constitution do you find that it says "limited government." After all, you put it in quotes. It must be there somewhere, must it not? Or are you just makin' it up? Good Night and Good Luck
johnnya2
Sun, Feb 27, 2011 : 7:15 p.m.
Really? Which amendment is that? People left to their own devices do evil things. I suppose we should have no rules regarding airline safety and leave it up to the "free market". We could also do the same thing for food. Too bad if Kroger sells food that is tainted with PBB or other chemicals, after all it is buyer beware. How about we let local municipalities make laws. Ones like they did in Mississippi and Alabama regarding education and treatment of black citizens. Oh wait, you like the original document which made blacks 3/5th of a person. By the way, you just communicated using the internet. The internet was devised with GOVERNMENT funds. Most great medical discoveries are a result of government funded research.
psaume23
Sun, Feb 27, 2011 : 6:02 p.m.
It depends. Does the size of government have to be commensurate with the size of the population, or with what we want government to do for us? I would use the latter for measurement purposes. Often-time, use of the term "small government" is just as lacking in substance and in providing direction as is the phrase "government is the answer." The "big government" derided by the most vocal national advocates of smaller government happens to include the support mechanism for our brave fighting forces in Iraq and Afghanistan, as well as the single-payer social programs such as Medicare and Medicaid. "Big government" includes our elite law enforcement departments such as the FBI and the Department of Justice. "Big government" includes the free and reduced lunch programs for children of the working poor and the poor in general. Do we really want to cut back on these departments and programs? Do we really want to reduce financial and administrative support for our troops, or cut off our elderly and the poor, from receiving subsidized medical care, or poor children in Detroit, Newark, or Appalachia from receiving a wholesome meal once or twice a day? We all want to pay lower taxes, we all want any "loafers" receiving welfare or other government support, to get to work and pay their own way. But the answer is not by reducing the size of government for the sake of merely making it small.
David Briegel
Sun, Feb 27, 2011 : 5:46 p.m.
John, No, Detroit is an example of what greedy, mostly white people did to that fine city. Instead of addressing the problems of urban living they redlined and created their little paradises N of 8 Mi and W of the city. That is where they owned the land. The infastructure then had to be duplicated. Highways built, etc. If I was Detroit I would double the water and sewer rates to the "suburbs". That was just one of the things those that fled forgot about! I would tell them that there is a lot of land that could be developed if they want the city services that already exist.
jcj
Sat, Mar 5, 2011 : 3:55 p.m.
David Maybe you should move to Detroit and run for Mayor! Your blame the white man mantra should go over well there. If you truly are so passionate then you might want to help solve this problem instead of talking about it! The "white man" has caused plenty of problems no doubt. But I don't remember you acknowledging any he has solved. To make everything the fault of the "white man " is not the best argument intellectually. I worry for you. I would hate to see your name mentioned along side such scholars as oh lets see. Charlie Sheen , Mel Gibson Dan Quayle If we don't succeed, we run the risk of failure Mayor Marion Barry, Washington, DC Outside of the killings, Washington has one of the lowest crime rates in the country Barbara Boxer "Those who died in the earthquake, their lives will never be the same again." Al Gore "A zebra does not change its spots." Bill Clinton "If the personal freedoms guaranteed by the Constitution inhibit the government's ability to govern the people, we should look to limit those guarantees." Gerald Ford "If Lincoln were alive today, he'd be turning over in his grave.
bedrog
Thu, Mar 3, 2011 : 10 p.m.
kwame kilpatrick was white?? thanks david. who knew??
DonBee
Wed, Mar 2, 2011 : 3:27 a.m.
I wish it was this "black and white" Mr Briegel. I tried to move into Detroit when I returned to the area after my military service. I made 16 visits to various government offices I was told repeatedly either "you should look north of 8 Mile" or "Your kind is not welcome here". I finally gave up and looked west instead. I tried, did you?
David Briegel
Mon, Feb 28, 2011 : 6:02 p.m.
hey guys, It sure beats talking about history or facts.
snoopdog
Sun, Feb 27, 2011 : 11:33 p.m.
I will give you credit Briegel, you like to blame everyone but those responsible for their own plight.
moonraker7
Sun, Feb 27, 2011 : 11:04 p.m.
You don't know what you are talking about. Just blame whitey is your answer for everything.
Craig Lounsbury
Sun, Feb 27, 2011 : 5:44 p.m.
I'd vote for efficient Government. The problem I have is that Government is not only big but incredibly inefficient.
Basic Bob
Sun, Feb 27, 2011 : 5:41 p.m.
I think most people would agree that the 2 million civil servants are less of a problem than the 8 million contract workers. These contract workers are not subject to the same level of oversight as federal employees. The federal employees then become responsible for "management" of the contract workers, which means that they expect big paychecks to do nothing productive (overhead), in contrast to getting decent paychecks for direct work. We need to return a lot of these folks to the private sector where they can create value, dare I say "manufacturing"???
John
Sun, Feb 27, 2011 : 5:18 p.m.
But is big government what you want? Tons of Senators and Representatives getting huge salaries and benefits packages just so they can be wined and dined by lobbyists and vote 200 page laws into place that do more harm than good? This country has become too demanding of it's government, and in response government has grown too large. There are way too many things that we rely on government to provide us. In the end of the day, I'd prefer a government that just provides oversight, police/fire/schools/roads/etc, and law. Less taxes, more money in people's pockets, and more privatization. I'd rather smart people run this country again, rather than smooth talkers and people who can afford a lot of commercial time. Citizens taking more ownership in where they live is what we should all want. Detroit is a perfect example of what happens when government tries to do too much, and the people decide that everything is the government's job and not their own.
Jacob Bodnar
Sun, Feb 27, 2011 : 5:14 p.m.
"As population grows so does the workload of government." Why? Why does the workload of the government HAVE to grow with population? With more people I suppose there's more taxes to collect and people to police, but other than that why did we need to add a Department of Energy and Education. Look through the list of Departments of the United States and you'll start asking yourself, what do all these do? Why do we need them? Fact of the matter is, smaller government means smaller government all around. It does not mean, as you suggest, that the government contract out the work it currently does, it means the government simply no longer provides the work it currently does, because frankly we can live quite fine without the work it does. In 1948 total government expenditures were $44 billion, that's it, today government expenditures are well over $3.5 trillion. Adjusted for inflation that's an increase of 818%. Meanwhile population only increased 110% If government was only growing based on the population, we'd be fine, because we'd be offsetting it with tax revenue, but clearly we're not.
bugjuice
Sun, Feb 27, 2011 : 4:29 p.m.
"Small government" advocates are today's Social Darwinists. Let everyone fend for themselves, the strong survive and the weak, the poor and disadvantaged get thrown under the bus.