The role of the federal government in our lives

[we vs us]

And Conan:  I think one of the biggest threats to our country is the total disintegration of fact. Discourse in our country has mutated to the level where two smart, well-read and educated, good looking guys (like you and me) can, based on the reporting we see and read, believe exactly opposite things about what's happening with the climate.  You can base your considered opinion on facts and so can I.  I feel like we're stuck in a Kafka novel, where no one can agree what color the sky is, or if water's wet. 

This is the biggest threat to the country because there's no way we can agree to govern together if we can't agree on what planet we're living on.  IMO, there are several global problems confronting us over the next few decades.  My facts tell me that.   I know your facts tell you different, but it freaks me out to think that we'll be risking approaching my problems without the least bit of a plan.

[cannon_fodder]

To find out how we got to where we are and what the "role" of the government is, was and should be I started going through history in my head.  I decided to put it down - and it's a damn novel.  Sorry...

At the founding of our nation the role of the central (Federal) government was to protect guaranteed freedoms to white property owners with powers given to it by the States (who then took whatever powers they wanted and the rest was reserved for the people).  This included enforcing contracts and arbitrating other disputes in Courts.  It included providing security and to a very limited degree facilitating commerce.  It also included "state building" activities such as killing Indians and dealing with other nations.

That role grew quickly to include central banking, monetary policy, a postal service, an expanded armed forces (a navy), to keep the peace between the several states, and to actively govern unincorporated territories.  Most of that activity can be traced to encouraging, protecting, and facilitating commerce BY guarantying the civil rights of "full" citizens.  Such was the role of government through the lives of the founders.

That role expanded with the "great debate" on slavery.  How far we extend one groups freedom while protecting another group's freedom: namely, do we take property away from land owning white men and give said property to itself.   This led to greater central governmental roles in State affairs as new "free" and "slave" states came into being and federal courts had to adjudicate and federal troops had to enforce policies on slave owning. This debate culminated in a civil war in which some independent States decided to break away from their weak Federal Government. 

The well known outcome is that the weak central government was empowered by the "free" states to assume vast new powers.  It raised massive armies, took over industries, mandated standards for roads and railroads, directed naval commerce, coordinated the medical car of veterans, and in the end central government - which only had the power given to it by the States - temporarily outright subjugate the rebelling states. At which point the government assumed new powers to "rebuild" the south and govern it - to hand out land to railroads, to assign western lands to citizens, to set mandates on industry.

That power were never really relinquished and it is widely acknowledge that the "States" were relegate to provinces from those point forward - allowed to control whatever the Federal Government said they could.   It is also the start of entitlement politics: veterans groups were given more and more money to gather support (after the war pensions went up 5 fold over the next 20 years).  To a large extent direct control was given back to the States, but the power to keep a thumb in the situation and override rules it didn't like remained with the Federal Government.  The Federal Government grabbed a ton of emergency powers and gave a large chunk back, but not all. 

The role of the central government slowly continued to grow with various wars, canals, and situations through the 19th Century and the first part of the 20th.  In the early 20th century the Federal Reserve, the FDA, the FTC, and a slew of other acronyms started.  The shift was decided to Federal power and decidedly towards looking out for economic welfare above political welfare.

The biggest leap in the growth of the Federal Government was 1913 and the 16th Amendment.  Before the income tax the government, at most, accounted for 3% of GDP.  Estimates today put that number closer to 23%.  It started very small and effected few people, but obviously has grown over the years. But that focuses on taxation, not the role or power of government - so I digress.

The next big leap was the great depression.  In order to set the nation back on the right course we needed more power in the Central Government.  More monetary power, more borrowing power, authority to build vast stretches of infrastructure (railroads, dams, roads, farm fields, irrigation, electricity), authority to "provide" for the needed in various ways.   Economic lending to farmers, development funds, federally owned development corporations, bailouts, and so on.   Antitrust laws also went into effect and were progressively more vigorously enforced - another power to regulate industry.

The government also started regulating morality with more marriage law, segregation laws (misogyny), and of course prohibition (which started a trend in making getting high/mood altering illegal).  The Federal government said citizens of the States couldn't do these things, so they couldn't. 

Of course this culminated in the new deal.  Initially started as a social safety net and a group of reforms - but grew to include sweeping reforms to everything from labor relations, business regulation, jobs programs, infrastructure development, and a slew of entitlement programs.  A massive increase in the governments role. The role had started as guaranteeing rights, had shifted to a focus on economics, and included a machine of social welfare.  Interestingly a large part was originally declared an unconstitutional power grab until the President threatened the Supreme Court to get his way.   Nonetheless, the New Deal added social welfare, largely in the form of political entitlements to certain groups, to the role of government.

And since that time power has only gradually increased, the programs have gradually grown, and the role of States has gradually been chipped away.  Welfare, medicare, social security, medicaid, food stamps, etc. - are all mostly funded and directed by the Federal Government (states can pass laws that conform to their guidelines).  The Interstate Highway System coupled with the Transportation Department funds most road-miles in the United States and consequently can dictate any policy that effects driving (DUI, weight, who gets a license), the FAA controls all air traffic, the FCC all communication, the ATF all firearms, and so on and so on.  The commerce clause has been interpreted to allow the Federal Government to do anything it wants, in the last 50 years only one case has limited the power of the Federal Government to regulate anything.

What started as a Federal Government with a limited role has expanded to include everything.  There are very few things that the Federal Government could not do if they chose to.  From commanding states to pass laws (or we withhold Billions of dollars we took from your citizens) to regulating tiny details in the sale of produce.  From taxing the rich to giving to the poor. The role of the Federal Government as it now stands is limitless: it controls the entire economy, it protects the rights of citizens, and it attempts to guarantee the economic and social well being of every citizen.

What *SHOULD* the role be? 

Not a simple answer in my book.  In some areas the solution is probably either LESS government and let the system sort it out, or to just admit government is so intertwined they may as well take it over and stop pretending.   The outcome of more Federal Government has been both beneficial (no slaves, rising standard of living, greater influence of the US globally) and negative (inefficiencies, directed taxation and regulation causing poor decisions [not saving, buying a home when you can't afford it, subsidizing one thing so you have to subsidize another]).

Here's some complaints:

1) Too focused on short term goals

It seems to be the system is too geared towards the short term.  If this doesn't do something good in 2 years, my congressman doesn't care.  Fixing home lending and tax codes so in the long term we don't give people an incentive to buy a home when they really shouldn't - doesn't get him reelected in November.

2) Built in interests

When a bill is passed, even with good intentions, to specifically benefit one group - that group often gets a life or death dependence on it.  Farm subsidies, industry tax breaks, or regulations ignoring coal pollution - may have had a place.  But eventually those things need to be reviewed, and under the current system those groups can place all their effort to make sure THEIR special treatment doesn't go away.  As a result the number of "special" groups is ridiculous and has insane results (e.g., we subsidize our cotton production, as a result we have to subsidize cotton production in many other countries AND require our industries to purchase the more expensive America cotton.  So we pay them to grow it, we pay other countries because we pay ours to grow it, and then we pay MORE for the end product anyway.  Or: we subsidize corn production, we also pay some farmers NOT to grow corn, then we subsidize ethanol production to foster energy independence using corn - which we aren't sure creates more energy than it uses to produce, THEN we require the use of ethanol in gas which may or may not increase costs of fuel.).

All laws, tax exemptions, and regulations should have a sunset date.

3) Two party system

Now that the States have almost no power to make significant changes, a two party system is a failure.  What one party is for, the other must be against.  Very little is done to compromise and everything the other does is wrong (even if we did it last week).   This leaves no room for a coalition, no room for compromise, no room for true debate.  It only leaves room for political expedience and grand standing.   

And if you were a lobbyist or special interest, you only have to persuade one party to get your job done.

All governmental funding for political parties should cease.  Why allow the people in power to pay for themselves to remain in power?

4) Lack of Representation

When the nation was founded each representative had 30,000 constituent.  They answered to less people than a Tulsa city counselor does.  Currently, each representative in the US Congress stands for 710,000 people.  When the House size was frozen it was one per 200,000 people. There is no way one man can stand up and pretend to speak for 700,000 people on the variety of issues we face. 

If 30,000,000 Americans want to legalize Marijuana, but they are spread out over the nation, they very well might not have a single voice in Congress.  Same for a litany of other issues.  Coupled with a two party system that ensures that many important issues will never be addressed because they are not, nation wide, the dominant issue of the moment.

In nearly every other system a minority voice is allowed to be heard.  We have decided that the only minority voice that can be heard at the Federal Level is that of the "other" party.  Since that "other" party generally represents the other 40% of the vote, any true minority viewpoint is swallowed up unless it becomes a majority of that 40%.

Additionally, if you only have to bribe, errr lobby 435 people it makes it much easier to get your job done.  200 of those in any given session probably don't matter.  A good number are probably on your side for one reason or another.   Just bribe the small handful you have left and your bill passes.

With the powers given to the United States Congress, we need wider representation.



Man I could go on, sorry for the long rant and there goes my late lunch...  No time to wrap up!

[we vs us]

This thing was SUCH a honey pot for CF.  Scratch a lawyer, find a budding constitutional scholar.   

[Gaspar]

I don't by any means think that government is a panacea, or that all your troubles will be solved if you'd just trust it.  There's simply no reason to believe that.  And I want to make clear that I don't think there's ANY human-devised organization out there that will miraculously solve all of our problems.  Trust me, Gaspar, Gene Roddenberry was the dewiest of idealists, and his fantasies would dry up and float away if they were exposed to the air outside of a TV box.  I don't know anyone beyond the occasional 15 yr old Trekkie who might believe that.

If, like me, you believe that the world is essentially the grinding together of massive power centers (nations, religions, corporations, etc), a democratic government is the one power center that might be responsive to all of its citizens.  Other forms of government aren't made with everyone in mind; corporations certainly aren't; and international orgs (UN, World Bank, etc) live in an abstract level of the atmosphere that have little to do with real world stuff.  

At least our government gives us the opportunity, no matter how hamfisted, to address the problems of the least of us.  

And bureaucracy isn't necessarily the natural state of government.  It's the natural state of our government.  Look: we have governmental forms on the neighborhood level, the city and county level, the state level, and the federal level.  Most of that is an outgrowth of our founding documents, and the sorts of oppositions between branches, regions, and sizes that the Founders put in motion.  We're built to be unwieldy and to be checked and balanced.  Is it any wonder that all of the branches of government have grown around that?  

Also, we're the richest and most powerful country in the history of the world.  Why wouldn't the machinery needed to sustain that be huge?  

This is not to argue that our current level of bureaucracy should continue to exist unchallenged, but this is to argue that there are logical reasons for our size and cost of government that don't involve original sin.    

Very well put.  

We are not so different, the foundations of our philosophy simply make us come at things from different directions.  I find that government is very good at enforcing the law, mobilizing armies and collecting taxes.  When it comes to social issues, government continuously fails, and therefore is in a constant state of "reform."

The quality of the product produced by private endeavor far exceeds that produced by government.  We need to be careful what freedoms we are willing to hand over to government.  There is no turning back.  You can not revoke something once it becomes an entitlement.

[Conan71]

And Conan:  I think one of the biggest threats to our country is the total disintegration of fact. Discourse in our country has mutated to the level where two smart, well-read and educated, good looking guys (like you and me) can, based on the reporting we see and read, believe exactly opposite things about what's happening with the climate.  You can base your considered opinion on facts and so can I.  I feel like we're stuck in a Kafka novel, where no one can agree what color the sky is, or if water's wet. 

This is the biggest threat to the country because there's no way we can agree to govern together if we can't agree on what planet we're living on.  IMO, there are several global problems confronting us over the next few decades.  My facts tell me that.   I know your facts tell you different, but it freaks me out to think that we'll be risking approaching my problems without the least bit of a plan.

Actually approaching it from two differing conclusions isn't the real problem.  Not reaching compromise is.  And maybe that's what you were getting at.

CF nutted it: The two party system means it's become a binary system of political thought and action.  

The real problem is the lack of compromise.  Each party seems to be defined by it's extreme wings which really comprise of no more than 20 to 25% of their membership.  At least it's viewed that way by the opposing party and certainly characterized that way.  Well over 60% of our population is either apolitical or those who are more interested in politics are quite moderate in their views and simply want constructive solutions even if they are not the solutions endorsed by their own party.

I hear it all the time.  Because I'm a registered GOP, I'm mischaracterized as a neo-con, Tea Partier, or RWRE.  I'm none of the above.  I'm one of the more moderate people I know with strong libertarian leanings as personal liberty is very important to me.  I don't automatically assume every Democrat is a flaked out liberal either but I hear the stereotype anytime I tune in to a conservative-leaning commentator.  Your thinking is definitely to the left of mine while Hoss and I think pretty much the same with minor issue differences.  I'm willing to see those degrees in others, I simply wish our politicians would as well.

[carltonplace]

What *SHOULD* the role be?  

Not a simple answer in my book.  In some areas the solution is probably either LESS government and let the system sort it out, or to just admit government is so intertwined they may as well take it over and stop pretending.   The outcome of more Federal Government has been both beneficial (no slaves, rising standard of living, greater influence of the US globally) and negative (inefficiencies, directed taxation and regulation causing poor decisions [not saving, buying a home when you can't afford it, subsidizing one thing so you have to subsidize another]).

Wow, that was very well done CF. I thought there might be some merit in expanding on this part.

Other Benefits of more/bigger government:
Child labor laws
Protections for citizens from corporate entities (cleaner air, water, credit laws, safer planes ((Odd that goverment has to play a role to protect a business's customers from the business itself)))
Fewer Senior citizens without homes/means
Fewer families without access to basic needs
Public Education
Infrastructure
Safer food sources



Negatives of more/bigger government.
Legislating morality
Public Education
Redudant Government agencies with similar objectives
Trillions of dollars of national debt
Nuclear weapons
Sarah Palin