Reducing the Size of Government

     “Reducing the size of government” has become the slogan of the republican presidential candidates. It is a theme that plays well with the American public, especially those voters who accept the narrow view of “big government” the republicans are portraying.

     Essentially, the republican presidential candidates (Gingrich, Paul, Santorum, and Romney) are telling the American voters that government has grown too big and too irresponsible, and the main culprit of this enormous growth is President Obama, who has implemented a socialist economic plan. (It guarantees that everyone will succeed regardless of the amount of hard work they’re will to do and the amount of risk they’re willing to take.)

        Mitt Romney, for example, in his speech on Friday at Lawrence University (Appleton, Wisconsin), suggested that government “dispenses the benefits, borrows what it can’t take, and consumes a greater and greater share of the economy.” Furthermore, he indicated, President Obama’s policies promote this use of government: “His stimulus protected the government, not people.”  Moreover, Romney implied, President Obama seems unable to understand that "It's not the government's role to guarantee that every one of us will achieve the success we seek." instead, he argues, it is the government job to help us understand that "The promise of America has always been that if you worked hard, and took some risks,” it would provide you with “the opportunity to build a better life for your family and for the next generation."

     Essentially, Romney and the other republican candidates are arguing that the United States has a big government that needs to be reduced in size; needs to be forced to spend more responsibly; needs to reward the “hard- working, risk takers,” and needs to understand that it isn’t the role of government to guarantee the success of everyone.”

     Each of these points require its own separate (brief) discussion:

1.   We need to reduce the size of government.

Answer: Although, it is true that we need to reduce the size of our government, the areas most in need of reduction are never discussed. “Defense spending” is the prime example. Time and time again congress continues to order the pentagon to build tanks, ships, planes, and other armament the pentagon has told congress, on numerous occasions, they military don’t want or need. Similarly, there are military installations that the Department of Defense will like to close down or consolidate if congress will approve. But year after year, congress refuses to allow the Department of Defense to do so. Defense contracts, unnecessary weapons system development, and the inappropriate use of military men, women, and resources in “nation building,” are a few of the areas of our “big government” that should be reduced, along with earmarks and subsidies. However, not surprisingly, none of the republican presidential candidates are discussing these

issues for a very simple reason: These areas of Defense Spending are the “hidden stimulus packages” in Texas, Arizona, North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, Kentucky, Florida, Virginia, New Jersey, Alabama, Mississippi, Colorado, Kansas, Missouri, Oklahoma, Kansas, Wisconsin, . . . you get the picture. 

2.   Our government needs to spend more responsibly.

Answer: Although this is true, the largest amount of wasteful spending in done in the areas I mentioned above. And I say again, these are areas of spending that the republican presidential candidates are not discussing.

3.   Our government needs to reward the “hard- working, risk takers.

Answer: I agree, so let’s start by rewarding the hardest-working (and the most important) group of Americans -- family farmers. Then let’s continue by rewarding military men and women (especially combat veterans), law enforcement officers, fire fighters, emergency and rescue personnel. Obviously, Mr. Romney doesn’t understand when a corporate risk taker looses “his risk,” he simply looses the shirt off his back, but when a law enforcement officer, a soldier, or a firefighter looses his risk, he looses his life.  The main point that Mitt Romney and the other republican candidates seems to be missing is this: Corporate American aren’t the only ones who are taking risks that are vital to the social and economic survival of the United States. In fact, Americans in many areas of American life are taking risk in areas that are equally vital to the social and economic survival of the United States. Interestingly: Most of them aren’t being rewarded for the hard work and risk taking. Instead, most of them are now prevented from collectively bargaining. Many are paying more for their benefits, working for less pay, and working longer hours. Most importantly, they are doing this at a time when corporate profits are at an all-time high!

4.   Our government needs to understand that it isn’t the role of government to guarantee the success of everyone.

Answer: Our government guarantees the success of those who receive subsidies, earmarks, and defense contracts. Our government guarantees the success of those who profit from the presence of military bases in their communities, and those who profit from “nation building.” It is disingenuous for the republican candidates to expect the government to refrain from playing any role in the success of middle class citizens, while expecting the government to provide richest, corporate Americans with the types of assistance that makes success highly probable.  

     These are the issues that the republican leaders should talk about when they begin to tell us about reducing the size of government. Unfortunately, they never will, because they know that confronting these truths about big government spending will force them to see reflections in the mirrors of themselves.

By

 James A. Porter