Lincoln thought that the proper role of government was to do things people couldn't do for themselves.
A lot of people say they want smaller government. I rarely hear anyone wanting more. They just say, "Government should do this or that." The results, unless the government stops one "service" to refocus on another, is that adding services results in bigger government.
The devil is always in the details. So let me throw out some examples, along with some of my opinions, and see who wants more or less from government.
Environmental protection.... I personally can't protect myself from pollution unless it is a minor thing with a neighbor. Even them I may not be able to stop it. Alone, I stand no change against a corporation of any size. Both pro business and pro environment groups will scream about highhandedness, senseless regulation or overregulation. As an individual I don't have sufficient knowledge or resources to make or enforce reasonable rules. Are you willing to reduce cut environment monitoring and enforcement to shrink government?
Business regulation: Oil, banking, work place conditions, discrimination by age, race ... These are all areas where individuals don't have the money, time or power to go it alone without government. Are you willing to reduce regulations to shrink government?
Welfare:
In my 40's I went back to school to retrain as a computer analysis. I met and befriended two men two lived on social security disability payments. The schizophrenic was 40ish, very smart and a bit quirky even on his meds. His social security payment covered a small kind of dumpy efficiency apartment where he live alone independently on a diet of boiled dry beans and 1/2 pack of cigs a day. His medical and educational expense were cover, but I don't know the source. IMHO, even if he had graduated, he was unemployable. If I ran a computer programming business that was large enough that I could lock him in the back and keep him away from the clients, I'd have hired him. He was never going to be that lucky.
The other was a quadriplegic due to oxygen deprivation of his brain during birth. He controlled his chair with wrist movement via a joystick and communication by laboriously texting with a computer which tracked a dot/cursor on his headband as he had enough control of his neck to make it work. He graduated as a web designer. His government assistance was a house, one aide to feed, move and care for him, his motorized chair and computer, a junky van with a lift which he couldn't afford to upgrade and enough money to eke out an existence. His view of his future was very uncertain; IMHO, grim.
There is a lot of pressure to reduce entitlements, thus government, with across the board spending cuts. I will not tell horror stories about abuse of the welfare programs as we all know some. My point is I didn't begrudge either of these two guys the help my tax dollars paid for. I would have paid more taxes to improve the quality of their lives and did so privately. The problem is deciding who is deserving and of how much. Laws and regulations have to be written in a one-size-fits-all language despite regional and local differences in cost of living. It takes time and people to evaluate and monitor entitlements. (that means more people, higher case loads and/or less oversight)
More people means bigger government. Less oversight and higher case loads mean more fraud. Society has to choose the balance. This is subjective, opinion-driven and political. Where do you stand?
Some programs included in "entitlements" aren't really giveaways, like social security retirement payments after the recipient paid in through out their working lives. There are so many entitlements that have similar conundrums. What size government meets your requirements for compassion, efficiency and oversight?
Defense: Defense in one form or another is about 1/2 the federal budget. A stronger national defense seems tied to spending, hence bigger government. I find it odd that the smaller government advocates tend to be the strong defense advocates. The politics of special interest groups for various weapon systems, base location and defense related jobs is intense. What is the correct balance?
Law Enforcement: From the salaries of LEO to public prosecutors to the court and prison system, a lot of money/government is related to law enforcement. Included is the war on drugs, the ATF,some Homeland Security functions and the Immigration Service. In Wisconsin, the largest department in the state government is Corrections. A few other related facts include the US having the highest proportion of its citizens incarcerated, about .7%. (higher than North Korea, Cuba and Russia) I watched a story about the problems of incarcerated men on the communities and families they leave. His take was we need to figure out how to distinguish "those we are afraid of from those we are just mad at." Some, including me, think we should increase the number by adding more white-collar criminals.
Elected officials who want to lower the prison population or don't support stiff sentences lose elections for being soft on crime. Recidivism rates are high, rehabilitation services scarce and drug use rampant. How can we lower our costs while protecting citizens? The proper size for this part of government is a tough call. Suggestions?
Education: On healthcare visits, I often encounter foreign personnel, especially Pilipino. I always question them on their origin and educational background. Those of foreign birth are typically recruited just after medical training. All of those I have met are now US citizens or on a path to citizenship. All are glad to be here and become Americans in every sense of the word. I end these discussions by thanking them for letting me "interrogate them"(get a lot of laughs), welcoming them to the US and saying, "Good for you; shame on us for not being able to educate enough of our own people as healthcare workers."
Many years ago in a teacher in-service a reading professional gave us this take. He said that, over 20 years, test results show that overall student reading performance has improved slightly despite widespread public criticism. During the same time period, the problems student bring to the classroom, economic and familial, have made students more difficult to work with. He concluded we need to do better, but all things considered we were gaining ground. I wouldn't be surprised to find this is still true, slight gains on a more difficult student body.
We need to work on effectively and reach. How to improve is highly contested. I view education as an ounce of prevention, but quality is key. I rarely question the wisdom of expenditures. However, we may be overtesting, not have good tests for true quality and tightening budgets are helping the situation.
Science research: Only government can fund research that may point out problems with corporate interests. With pesticides, manufacturer are only required to test chemicals for 90 days. It is still very expensive. A small experiment with glyphosates conducted over two years indicated problems. But the sample size, 200 rats, is too small for definitive conclusions. Government should fund a larger version with multiple species to more clearly determine possible effects. Nobody else can muster the funds to do so and it is important, even if they find the stuff is not dangerous. These studies are usually funded by grants, competitively selected by quality of design and usefulness of the question they are attempting to answer, submitted by independent researchers and there results are subject to peer review and our scrutiny. I think we should be spending as much as we can afford on this endeavor. It also provides well paying jobs.
Infrastructure: Ever watch the disaster shows on infrastructure like bridges, pipelines, sewage systems and the power grid? Improving infrastructure provides well paying jobs as well as promoting economic growth and personal safety. Remember, more spending is bigger government.
Overall, shrinking government is problematic. If the budget is cut by a billion dollars, government doesn't shrink by a billion. There are lost wages of direct and indirect employees and business owners (think lower tax revenue), increases in unemployment compensation and disruption of personal lives by stress and financial woes.
What other components of big or small government have I overlooked? Which are your pet peeves? What would Lincoln do? What would Jesus do?
