Government
Introduction
This section probably has the topics for several books
(if I could write, which I obviously can’t). Basically this will be: what I
believe the role of government is and some of its failures. Some of my views
may be shocking (or counter to what you believe). There are so many things
about government to explain. I will most likely be talking about the congress
(legislative level).
Levels of Government
When most people think of government the images of the
Capitol building or the White House come to mind. True, those are symbols of
government, but that is not all there is. Essentially government is elected
officials selected to run the area they are. There are basic levels: the
neighborhood, the city, the county, the state and finally, the country. How
hands on the government should be is listed inversely, with the most hands-on
being the neighborhood and the least being the country. It is not necessarily
abandoning conservative ideals to be more hands-on (and spend more) the lower
the level you are at. I view conservatism as a big picture concept that works
best at the higher, more hands off levels of governance. Think of it in terms
of a corporation: the country is the whole company, but it is made up of
divisions (states), the divisions (states) have departments (counties), and so
forth. The federal level (like the head of the corporation) sets the vision and
goals for the country (company in this example, as a whole). The divisions
(states) are responsible for finding the operating details of obtaining their
goals (and should have at least that degree of autonomy). Many of the decisions
that should be made at the state level are now being made at the federal level.
I advocate the states making most of the governance decisions. Government is
typically more responsible when there is more direct involvement and
consequences. This is more true at the state level than it is at the federal
level.
Government Ethics
Government ethics – some people think of this as an
oxymoron. From now on, I will be talking most about the federal level (unless
otherwise stated). So what should the government do? The government does have
some responsibilities: interstate commerce resolution, national defense,
creating a positive environment for markets and a couple others. The US is more
of a “representational republic” than a democracy. People are elected to make
the decisions. However, in recent years, it has become more evident that there
is a principal-agent problem with this system. When these “representatives” go
out of their way to buy votes or are acting in the interest of being bankrolled
by special interest groups, which is a failure of democracy. The government was
supposed to be “of the people, by the people, and for the people”. A government
also has a responsibility to spend and manage the resources it uses to maximize
the benefit of society. The government should not overspend or misuse
resources. Sometimes it is easy to believe that the government has lost its
way. Some of what i would term ethical government considerations will be worked
into further sections
Big Point: a government has no financial resources of
its own; the money it spends belongs to the people (taxpayers).
Government: Smaller is Better
If you own stock in a corporation, you want the company
to maximize your value. This involves being efficient, prudent and smart.
Shouldn’t you want the same qualities in you government? The government takes
its money from the people. However, sometimes there is an incentive for the
government to take more money to pay for programs. These programs increase the
size and scope (what they are involved in) of the US government. This added
government involvement and resource usage takes freedoms and resources from its
citizens. In other words, government intervention is inversely proportional to
personal freedom. The government takes away money that can be used in the
private sector (sometime known as crowding out). Since the government needs
funding for itself (and takes it away from its citizens and businesses), it is
important to decide what things government should and should not be involved
in. This is a fine balancing act. Some people want the government to do more
for them (more intervention in life), some want less. The conservative wants a
government; they just know that there is a tradeoff between government
involvement and freedom. There are roles that the government should be involved
in, such as: national defense, interstate commerce, the legal system and a few
others that basically set up a country with well functioning markets. There is
an expression in economics: “There is no such thing as a free lunch”. There is
always a cost to government programs that must be paid by someone (even if it
isn’t you).
What Government Should Be
I guess I touched on this a little bit above.
Government should be responsible with the tax payer provided resources. Most of
the taxes levied should be going to the states. Government should never spend
more than it takes in. Government should help with interstate commerce issues
and markets. Government should deal with international trade, treaties and
issues. Unfortunately, there are times when a government must regulate
industries or practices for the good of society. I acknowledge this, but prefer
it to be at the minimum (and only what is absolutely necessary). There are
external costs that result from the usage/manufacturing of a good or service
that is not fully accounted for by price (called an externality). A good
example of an externality is air pollution from a factory.
Government should be as small as possible. The scope
of government should be limited to providing as little as society sees fit (as
there are costs of running programs/services). The amount of wasteful spending
by the government should be limited. The government should only provide
programs that have a positive cost benefit analysis. A taxpayer in Seattle
should not have to pay for a marina district in Iowa (that is a phenomenon known
as pork). Adding provisions to legislation that impact cost outside the scope
of a bill should be discouraged (sometimes known as earmarks). Those kinds of
things are unfair to the country as a whole. The scope of federal legislation
in the House of Representatives or the Senate should be limited to programs
and/or bills that relate to the country as a whole, not specific cities, states,
etc.
What Government Should Not Be
So now that I’ve stated a little bit about what roles I
see government taking, what roles should government stay out of? Government
should not transfer wealth from one group to another. Everything in your life
shouldn’t be touched in some way by government. Government should not be a
lender or a borrower. Government should not spend more than it takes in –
ever. It is not the responsibility of the government to provide any service
that can be provided by the private sector. Government should not absolve
people of personal responsibility (or take away consequences). Government
should not be about controlling the people or their actions; it should be about
enabling the people with limited intervention in their lives.
This is going to sound strange, but I believe
government should be seen as a necessary evil. It should be seen more as a
thief of resources than a giver. It should not be something you should ever
fully trust. Government should never be something that someone depends on for
survival. Government should not be seen as a solution to any problem
(especially social issues). Government should not be something you give blind
allegiance to, you should always question why the government wants to do a
particular thing (and its motivations).
Level of Intervention Allowable
I might have answered this in my sections: Levels of
Government, What Government Should Be, and What Government Should Not Be.
Ultimately, the level of intervention allowable should be decided by the voters
(but not fully). It is a fluid situation and will change from time to time.
This must be reconciled with the voter’s wanting benefits they don’t pay for,
long-term policy implications (voters tend to think more about short-term
ramifications), wanting the government to punish those who are more successful,
etc. In other words, the voters vote in their rational self-interest, but it
may not be the best for the country as a whole (especially considering time
implications).
There seems to be a sense of jealousy that some voters
have for people/businesses that are more successful. A perfect example of this
took place in Oregon where there was a ballot initiative to raise taxes on those
making over a set amount of money (I think it was something like $250,000 a
year). Basically this is a misuse of democracy to enable some group to benefit
at the expense of another group (poorer people voting on a tax increase for
someone else because they do not have to pay anything). Sometimes you may have
to do something the voters don’t want, but is absolutely necessary.
My preferred level of government intervention is
limited. If the government spends on project B, it has to get the resources
from somewhere (the taxpayers or project A). I view government intervention as
a form a rights limitation (rights in that it restricts the way you spend your
money, what you can do, or you total amount of resources). Money equals
opportunity in a capitalist system. There are different scenarios where more
control or less control exists.
Some countries (like the Scandinavian ones) have a
high degree of government intervention. This is ok for them as it is that is
the way the country was defined and the residents expect (maybe due to resource
control from a monarchy and essentially being the same size as some states).
The US is a different beast entirely. It was based off of personal freedom,
opportunity and limited government intervention. It is too late for the people
to accept a change of definition. Some people view the perceived success of the
Scandinavian countries and think that the same successes (or apparent successes)
can be emulated in the US. That is impossible considering the large population
(and economy) of the US and the size of the paradigm shift that would be
necessary.
Original Post Date: 3/17/11
No comments:
Post a Comment