As in all national elections, the issue of government spending and taxes comes to the fore. They are false issues. They obscure the real one: What is the true role of the federal government?
I read about Tom Dashle’s reelection bid, and how one activist plans to vote for Bush and Dashle, because Dashle brought the money home. All else was secondary. But the role of a legislator was never intended to be bringing money home in the form of pork. Their role was defined as being representative voices in Congress. The concept was that on all issues before Congress, the congressmen and senators would represent their constituents’ opinions.
The federal government, personified by Congress, has become a distribution center for money. This has become the focus in elections.
What we should really be talking about is how the federal government does the things it is chartered to do by the Constitution. I want to be clear that the Constitution applies only to the federal government, not state and local. The whole point of its ratification was to plainly state what powers and authority it has. All other authority was to reside in the various states.
We talk about conservative and liberal in code to discuss spending and taxing habits. Rather, we should be talking about involvement of the government in our personal affairs. How much involvement in your own life do you want the government to have? It has become clear that neither major party is interested in scaling back the intrusion, but Democrats seem to me to be far more interested in expanding government action in our lives.
There is nothing in the Constitution to even hint at a need for Housing and Urban Development or Education. Health Care? you must be kidding. Environmental issues? States and local governments are more knowlegeable.
The federal government was established to provide for defense and negotiate treaties that would allow for commerce with other nations. It was to eliminate any tariffs between states so as to promote commerce. Beyond those things, it has little authority.
We need to focus on that. And we need to get the major political parties to focus on that. We need to quit asking our representatives to give us something, and demand that they get the government out of our lives. We, as voters and citizens, need to rein in our Congress, not ask for more intrusion. It is oxymoronic for “progressives” to decry the losses in freedom because of the Patriot Act, yet insist on further government involvement through health care and Social Security.
Any government involvement in your life is a loss of freedom.
C’mon Bunker prior to Nixon’s creation of the EPA the states had already shown they were not going to be “stewards for conservation”. So a federal department was created to act as an oversight, and now our environment is less spoiled because of it. HUD has a purpose, but much like computer programming it has become bloated and no longer recognizable. Most federal agencies have a very goo reason for being, it is just that all of them are run by career bureaucrats, which leads to the “bloat” I mentioned.
Comment by Bubba Bo Bob Brain — October 18, 2004 @ 1:46 am
Whether the agencies do good things or not isn’t the issue. What is government for? It is NOT for those things unless you want the associated loss of freedom that goes along with government involvement. Something as apparently benign as the EPA, for most of us, restricts how people use their own property. If the EPA says your land is a wetlands, you can’t touch it. So much for freedom. That is just a blaring instance.
Again, the federal government is restricted in its power by the Constitution. That document doesn’t lay out things the government can’t do, and leave everything else open. It defines what the government CAN do, and it is restricted from doing anything else.
Do we want an EPA? Pass an Amendment. Do we want HUD? Pass an Amendment.
Philosophically, those things may be wonderful. They may be needed. But when the government implements such things, it restricts somebody’s freedom. Perhaps not yours. So you don’t care.
Until they create something that does–like the overtime laws. Where is your freedom now?
Comment by Bunker — October 18, 2004 @ 4:36 am
“The concept was that on all issues before Congress, the congressmen and senators would represent their constituents’ opinions.”
J. F. Kerry would agree with you on that. I, respectfully, do not. A congressman should vote his conscience, if his constituents don’t like it, they can vote him out.
Comment by David Boxenhorn — October 18, 2004 @ 3:17 pm
Agreed, David. That doesn’t mean to take a poll, but to be “representative”. When decisions must be made, you are absolutely correct. For that primary reason, I voted for Bush today.
Comment by Bunker — October 18, 2004 @ 4:40 pm