What is the role of government? That is a question that should be asked and answered for every citizen of the country. Just what do we want and expect our government to do?
Do you want government to be essentially your "Daddy" and you an everlasting dependent? Do you want "Daddy" to take care of you, tell you what is politically correct, what you should eat, who you should associate with, what you should think, what you should wear.? Don't laugh. In return you will be clothed and fed and given medical attention and try to keep you from being exposed to ideas that they consider harmful. We have many people in this country that have that basic belief, even though most don't recognize it. A quick look at the events occurring on our college campuses, especially the big Ivy League and California Universities should give you a clue.The most socialist of all the schools seems to be the Berkeley campus of the University of California where political dissent from socialist orthodoxy is put down, usually violently.
Before you answer that just consider a few things. The more you ask of your government, the more control that government will have over your lives and the greater the tax burden will be to pay for the things you want. There really is not such thing as a free lunch. Somebody pays. In spite of the ignorance of so many liberals that the money they want the government to spend on their free stuff is not money that just appears out of nowhere. It is taken, for force of law, from somebody who is working and producing something. Today the top 5% of the wage earners pay some 70% of the total tax burden. Some would increase the taxes on the rich so that the top 1% pay 90% of the nations income.
Do you want security? How much? Then, depending how much security you want, you must give up some, or a lot, of your freedom to achieve it. Police forces will have to be increased and given more power. Security check points will have to be expanded. Cameras positioned to monitor more areas will have to be installed. That's not the end. Laws will need to be passed giving more power to the government. The desire for absolute security will result in a police state.
Do you want the government to provide health care to the ones that can't, or don't want to, pay for private insurance? That issue is front and center today in the Congress as the debate over the repeal and replace of Obama Care is fought. Or should the government institute a one payer system where everybody is provided medical care at the taxpayers expense? There is certainly a push on, led by Bernie Sanders, to do that very thing. The cost is unknown and hasn't been evaluated by the GBO as far as I know. But, it will be expensive. I honestly believe that we are going to end up with that kind of program. Maybe not this go around, but not too far in the future. It will increase the proportion of the federal budget for entitlements to far greater percentage than it is now. You say Europe already has that kind of program, but they don't have the huge defense expenditures the United States has to act as an umbrella over the western world. And, if you don't think that is necessary, you haven't been paying attention to history lately.
Do you want to spend vast sums of the taxpayers money to "help" the poor as defined by some yardstick? What happens to "help" when it turns into entitlements that far to many people become dependent upon. Ignoring for the moment the effect on the nation as a whole, but on the individuals that are living on the dole. It has proved to be an anchor that keeps one generation after another chained to the welfare dole handed out by government bureaucrats. The government has literally created a permanent underclass with only a few able to break the chains of welfare and rise up in society. It's just too easy to take the "free" money that Uncle is handing out. As an example, single women are actually rewarded by having children by increasing the amount of their allotment for each child. That increases the number of young fatherless kids that are growing up and, far to often, getting into trouble.
A good yardstick to gauge how you feel is the catastrophe in south Texas and now Florida. The taxpayers are supplying a great deal of help in the immediate problems of rescuing people, trying to control the water levels and providing temporary relief to the victims in terms of shelter, food and other necessities. But, at what level should the taxpayers stop aid? Should they be responsible to rebuild the homes for the people that lost them in the hurricane and flood and not had the foresight to buy insurance to cover this eventuality, even though they clearly live in in a hurricane zone? Should the taxpayers poor huge sums of money into rebuilding the infra-structure of south Texas and Florida, including that infra-structure that is owned by private utility companies? What responsibility do the taxpayers of the nation assume for the individual states?
How about the environment? The government has stepped in big time to regulate businesses with the goal of keeping the environment clean. But, these regulations have been increasingly strict and have impacted the of creation of jobs. We have created an insatiable bureaucracy that sucks up huge sums of money while they search for the next regulation. To put the frosting on the cake they do not have to consider the fall out of their demands. There is no cost-benefit study done before new regulations are handed down. How big a role should the government have in setting environmental standards? Should they mandate the fuel consumption of cars and trucks? Why? Should the price you pay for natural gas and electricity be heavily influenced by the desire for you to lower your consumption of these items by adjusting rates so that larger users pay more per unit? Why? After all there is no economic reason to raise rates as the consumer uses more electricity or natural gas. Just the opposite. As more electricity or natural gas is produced, the lower the cost per unit. Large users should actually get lower rates as they increase their usage. Electricity is not a resource that is limited in quantity and is not threatened in the long term and there is so much natural gas that we are exporting it in vast quantities.
How about endangered species? Should the government prevent the expansion of homes and businesses because a rat is threatened, raising the cost of housing by limiting supply and jobs that would be created? Another bureau the the government has created that will never stop finding species to protect with no mandate to consider the costs of their regulation.
So what is the role of government?
It is clear that the founding fathers were very wary of large government. In fact they firmly believed that large government was the greatest threat to the freedom of the individual. Any reading of the Constitution would clearly show that. The Constitution and it's amendments clearly define the role of the federal government and the protections that every citizen has from intrusion by that government. The tenth amendment clearly restricts the federal government from any activity not specifically granted by the constitution. Stating clearly that all other things are reserved to the States and to the people.
The founding fathers clearly thought that the role of government was to provide for national defense, regulate interstate commerce, provide a postal service, and to assure the individual rights and liberties of all it's citizens. The government was empowered to make treaties and regulate foreign trade. Not much else. Certainly there is nothing in the Constitution that allows the federal government to take money from one person and give it to somebody else. Taxes are authorized by the Constitution to pay for such things as national defense, interstate commerce and Postal service (roads and infrastructure) and operation of the government itself. And, remember, the power to tax is the power to control.
We have two opposing views of what is allowed by the Constitution. The more conservative side believes that unless the Constitution allows it, the federal government shouldn't do it. On the other side you have the liberals who believe that unless the Constitution specifically forbids it, they should do it if they feel like it. Even if the Constitution specifically gives the power for some action to the people by the constitution, the liberals still feel that they know better and move to impose their will. Gun laws are a good example. The Constitution specifically states that the right of the citizen to keep and bare arms shall not be infringed.And yet there is a ongoing battle to infringe on the right of the people to bare arms. If the people as a whole would like to restrict the sale and possession of firearms they should modify the constitution.
As the government moves into the lives of more and more citizens we become closer and closer to becoming a socialist state. And, one should remember that there has never been a socialist country that has not degenerated into a authoritarian state.
So think carefully about what powers you wish to cede to the government about your lives, your freedom to say what you want, to go where you please, to open a business if you desire, to retain a significant percentage of the money you earn, assemble in peaceful protests against government policies, to work where you wish and other personal liberties that we enjoy-----but for how long?
It has been said that in any form of government is the seeds of it's own destruction. The chink in the armor of a democratic government is when the people realize they can vote themselves the treasure of the empire. We have already reached the first stage of the condition. Where do we go from here?
