Since the approval of the Constitution, the Federal government has done many things. Once of the things it has done quietly is grow, and grow, and grow! In times of feast it has grown, in times of famine - it has grown, in times of strife - it has grown, in times of peace -- well you get the idea. I think right now there are at least 19 million federal, state and local government employees in the US. That is one government employee for every 15.2 non-government employed citizens (including kids).
As an employee of that very same government even I have to ask, when will we have enough people living off the wealth created by others? As I look at my paycheck, when compared to the average, I don’t have much to complain about, but should it be that way? Should the average salary of a federal employee far outstrip the that of the average tax payer? I think the answer to this is “well yes, maybe, if they want the Federal Government to do everything for them!”
One of the questions I’ve not heard asked in the latest round of the election debates is what should the citizen expect from his or her government (at any level)? There are those on the extreme right who would argue for something akin to complete Laissez-faire, where the government has no interaction between private parties. History has shown the consequence is the individual is at the mercy of the large corporation. For example, those wealthy families who made their fortunes in the late 1800’s off the possible exploitation of the common man, people like the Vanderbilt’s s, the Mellon’s, and the Rockefeller’s.
On the opposite side is the left, those individuals who believe government should be all encompassing, the government should be there to save and protect them from all the problems with life. Each of us should be equal and all should share in the wealth of all. The role of government is to provide that mythical safety net so that no matter what they will have a comfortable life.
Today, we have examples where industry will sell products they know to be flawed. The question is should there be government oversight or should the issues be resolved through litigation. Should there be an expectation the government will set some level of safety requirement? If so, how intrusive and oversightful should it be? If we are looking to have government protect us from all evil, how big and how intrusive must it become?
Perhaps it is the difference between the left and the right that is creating all the controversy with the new TSA procedures. Is it reasonable to expect the government to be solely responsible for the safety of air travelers? In my pervious life I was involved with units designated as a counter-terror forces. They were organized, trained and equipped to seek out terrorist and resolve, through a proactive approach, the problem they were creating. This is significantly different than the anti-terrorist activities TSA is designed for. The mission of TSA is to prevent terrorist activities. Will they be successful by causing the average traveler to become alienated from the government?
These new TSA procedures are implemented as regulations. They are not laws voted on by the Congress and signed by the President. They are policies made up and implemented by government bureaucrats and political appointees who are not subject to elective recall. Keep that in mind when you think about how big our government should be and how much you expect it to do for you.
In the words of Senator Barry Goldwater
“Now those who seek absolute power, even though they seek it to do what they regard as good, are simply demanding the right to enforce their own version of heaven on earth, and let me remind you they are the very ones who always create the most hellish tyranny.”I would vote for smaller government.
No comments:
Post a Comment