The original Constitution divided authority and power between the
federal government, the state governments and local municipalities.
The purpose of this division of power was to prevent consolidation of power
in one authority that may become oppressive.
The Feds were authorized power to levy taxes, borrow, declare war and
raise armies, coin money, regulate commerce, etc.
The states and local governments control (and tax) for all other matters
not specifically designated to the federal government; education, social
welfare, healthcare, fire, water, police, etc.
Suppose you lived in a small community of ten people and all of you
earned the same ($10,000 each). Now let's say you all agreed to hire
a teacher for your children, at an annual salary of $10,000.
You set your tax rate at 10% each ($1,000) to cover the teacher's
salary and each of you are left with $9,000 to support your families.
In this sample, it is pretty easy to decide how much you would be willing
to take away from your family to pay for a teacher, or a fireman, or a
policeman. Or, if you could afford two or three teachers, or maybe all
of the above.
The same type of decision applies to welfare, unemployment benefits,
food stamps, etc. How much of the income you earn are you willing to
take from your family and give to others? Or to protect yourself and
your family if you fall on hard times?
But, this simple calculation can become infinitesimally more complicated
and confusing, when the groups become larger, and the information becomes
more hidden to the average taxpayer.
How many teachers does your school district need? Why? Are they all
necessary? What are they paid? How do their pensions and benefits compare
to yours? Where exactly does the money come from that pays for the teachers?
Who is responsible to raise the taxes that pay them...the local, state, or federal government, or some combination of all three?
Government workers, teachers, firemen, the police, the military, FBI agents,
politicians, congressional offices, etc., are necessary and important. No one
would argue that they are not, or that they shouldn't be fairly paid for the work
they do.
The other side of that argument is that the money that pays those workers is,
one way or another, coming out of your money that you earn to take care of
your family. The overriding concerns should be...Can you afford it? Are they
using your money wisely? Are you getting your money's worth?
Unfortunately, the more that unions, politicians, special interest groups, trade
associations, business cronies, and all sorts of other advocacy groups become
involved in spending that money, the less likely it is that there will be a clear
accounting of where your money is being spent, and who is getting it.
And, the further away those decisions are being made from your local
community, the less likely you will ever know what is going on.
To keep perspective in the midst of confusion, remember the ten people
and their teacher as an example of how politicians should be required to
justify their spending to you. What are you getting for your money?
Politicians tend to excel at touting the proposed benefits of the service
but rarely disclose the source of the money or how much the service costs
the taxpayer. In a true and honest discussion of government services,
the cost and source of the funds should be budgeted, along with an
explanation of the benefits of the service.
Governments do not create money. They get their money by (1) taking
it away from citizens, either in taxes or in fees, or (2) by borrowing money
that the citizens pay back with interest. The federal government has an
additional option of printing money, but that eventually leads to inflation.
All of the above options can lead to severe consequences for governments,
just as they can for individuals and businesses, if they are hidden, overdone,
and not controlled.
As a general view, those who believe in "Big Government" believe that a
governing class made up of a well-educated, well-intentioned, elite, will be
better at promoting the general welfare of the country...if they have the
authority to enforce proper behavior on the rest of the country, and if they
can take enough money to fix the problem.
Those who believe in "Small Government", believe that governments are
made up of people, and, the greater power those people are given, the more
likely they will be to abuse it, regardless of their good intentions. Human
beings are not smart enough, or incorruptible enough, to be entrusted with
the power to take away the individual freedoms bestowed in the Constitution.
"Big Government" wants to consolidate as much power in Washington as
possible, in order to control as much of the country as possible. "Small
Government" wants to disperse as much power to the states, local
governments, and individuals as possible...to more closely follow the
original Constitutional concepts designed to prevent consolidation of
power in Washington.
"Big Government" is about control. "Small Government" is about liberty
and freedom from control.
At the time of its founding, this country was the only country to limit
federal authority and declare individual liberties. It remains to this day
an on-going experiment in the proposition that a limited government of
a free people can survive and thrive.
From the time of its founding, this country has been a battleground
between these two, completely different, completely incompatible, concepts.
The country has lurched, back and forth, as different politicians,
political movements, and philosophies have pulled it one way or the
other in this ideological battle.
Social Security, Medicaid, and Medicare were steps toward centralizing
control in Washington, either by direct federal control, or by providing
federal funding from Washington to indirectly control state-administered
programs. As massive and expensive as these programs are, they
started, and remain, as programs that provide benefits to only a SMALLER
portion of the population of the United States.
And now, comes Obamacare...the culmination of generations of political
efforts to consolidate political control of ALL healthcare in Washington,
to dictate the benefits that ALL of the population receives and pays for.
The size of the program (and potential cost to citizens) is staggering.
The perfect storm of ego, power, and arrogance, cloaked in good intentions...
hidden behind lies that misrepresented the true intentions and effects of the
program.
But, there's a good side to everything. The beauty of Obamacare follows...
No comments:
Post a Comment