When we say "big government is the problem," should we really say "federal goverment is the problem"?

Reagan having said that, is one of the WORST things to happen to our country in the last 100 years.

A big Federal goverment is the problem.

@tedd – said what? I need more fleshing out.

They are two completely distinct issues.

Big government can exist on local, state, or federal levels. At any of these levels, a government that is intrusive into the private lives of its citizens and overburdens them with silly regulations is bad.

The issue of the federal government being bad is inherently different, and it is bad for an inherently different reason. There are things that the federal government is simply bad at regulating, because local officials are closer to the problem. But there are lots of things that the fed is much better at regulating, too.

In fact, I see one of the main roles of the federal government to guard against “big government” by state and local officials, and to ensure that citizens are not deprived of their rights by state and local governments.

@Qingu – I’m saying that people argue against big government as being unable to regulate economy, etc., or that government is bad so we should reduce it, because they’re focused on the federal government much of the time when it talks about government and business.

People can track their local politicians better than their federal ones, and have more say in their legislative actions. That’s what I feel like is part of the discussion that people aren’t really getting into. So let’s not quibble about the phrasing in the summary. ;-)

The role of the fed in supervising individual Constitutional violations is something that I see as central to its role, I agree. It’s connected to business intervention. But it’s also separate from it.

I guess I don’t really see much logical consistency or consideration among people who don’t like “big government.”

More often than not it seems like they are just repeating slogans rather than taking a considered position.

The federal government is also an easier, broader target, and national media outlets commonly create emotional propaganda to this effect.

Federal government is the problem. It is the one that has gotten too big.

much of the time this regulation ends up creating a lot of local problems as municipal business regulations can be deemed preempted by Congressionally enacted federal regulations.

When does that happen? How prevalent is it? What harm has it caused?

Government is government whether it’s Federal, State or Local. They are all crooked or greedy or controlling IMHO.

@AmWiser – Government is made of people, so you’re right. So is business.

So, that being accepted, moving on…

I’m not American, so I’m doubtless unaware of many of the intricacies, relationships and idiosyncracies of the US system of government, and, more pertinently, the US mindset with regards to government. Can you explain why it should be necessary for government to compete? I ask because it strikes me that they do. With other governments. This is why Obama spoke of a “Sputnik moment” in his State of the Union address, in my interpretation.

I know this is somewhat tangential to the question, but it might help me understand the model of government that many Americans hold in their heads, so to speak – big government is only a problem if big government is seen as a problem, isn’t it?.

It strikes me that American politics is defined and determined by polarisation. To put it another way, it seems to me that American government is perceived as a zero-sum game, which in turn makes it a zero-sum game. In the Hegelian sense, there is no resolution to the dialectic; no synthesis, only thesis and antithesis.

I’m confident enough of my knowledge of American politics to assert that the system is clearly in need of reform, although this is a truism that applies to almost any nation.. The American urge, however, seems, to me at least, to be to reduce top-down government at any cost. While empowering and promoting bottom—up government (by the people, for the people) is an admirable impulse, should the focus not be on redirecting the considerable power that the federal state holds to competition on the international level, rather than aiming to reduce its power?

Yes, I confess, my mind is controlled by slogans I have heard, like:

“Ultimate power in a democracy lies in the hands of the people.” ... and…
“That government governs best which governs least.” ... and…
“Governernment isn’t the solution, it’s the problem.”

Just have me shot at dawn along with the rest of the traitors.

Most of the rhetoric is about the federal government. There is a problem when any government becomes too large bu at the federal level there are some distinct differences. Not the least of which is the ability to print money. It makes them less financially responsible and more free to spend what they don’t have.

Compare the federal government to the European Union. I think that’s a fair comparison. The economy of all the countries in the European union compares directly with the Untied States. How much power should be transferred to the European union as opposed to retained by the individual countries? Our country was originally set up much like the European Union with the central government having a limited role and the states having more control. The federal government provided national defense (more than the European Union) and free trade between the states (much like the European Union).

The US is the most diverse population in the world having a substantial mix of Whites, Blacks, Asians, Muslims, etc. In fact by 2042, it is projected that no one race or ethnic group will have a majority. It’s is unreasonable to try and manage this diversity at a federal level and especially when they try to micro-manage it.

@Jaxk – I think that you’re completely right. And I think that the European Union offers a fair counterpart – it’s an interesting example to look at because it requires us to reverse the issues.

It seems that we do have the idea that the federal government should enact national legislation regarding things…when we should be looking at the federal government as determining whether certain state laws or regulations are in compliance with the Constitution.

I think that’s what’s missing in the rhetoric – the message is “big government is bad” and not enough “states rights are good.”

@iamthemob Reagan said that “Big Government isn’t the solution, its the problem…. the eight scariest words in the english language are ‘I’m from the government, I’m here to help’”

As a result of that line of BS, Reagan repealed boat loads of legislation, cut taxes that had existed for nearly 100 years (while still managing to increase spending somehow), and instilled the idea in conservatives and politics in general that has prevailed for some 30 years since…. that government is bad, regardless of the fact we NEED it to establish simple rules and regulations to protect the people from business. Government CAN be a problem when bureaucracy or corruption taint it, but at the same time it can be a godsend and organize us and save us from ourselves.

With that one sentence Reagan started a trend of giving giant multinational corporations who care about nothing but profit back everything we had to forcibly take from them in the 1920’s/30’s/and 40’s… even today conservatives want to shrink government to the size where it can be drowned in a bath tub….. sickens me.

@tedd – Okay…but…we’re not talking about removing controls, necessarily – but shifting them or those responsible for them.

@tedd

Whatever will you do when there’s no big daddy in DC to protect you? Tisk! Ronald Reagan was one of the best Presidents we ever had, bar none. It’s not the government’s JOB to “protect you from yourself!” It’s YOUR job!

@Jaxk, how on earth does skin color impact diversity?

You were comparing us to Europe… a political entity with like a dozen different languages and as many legal traditions. We have two of each.

@CaptainHarley

I think you may be pushing it to far if you expect us to be responsible for ourselves :)

@Qingu

Ooh, ooh, let me answer that. From Webster, your favorite:

”: the condition of having or being composed of differing elements : variety; especially : the inclusion of different types of people (as people of different races or cultures) in a group or organization <programs intended to promote diversity in schools>”

The individual COUNTRIES of the European Union are much less diverse. The are composed of French or Italian, etc. Some such as France are feeling an increase of diversity (a growing Muslim population) and it causing tremendous political strife. Diversity can do that.

But you were comparing the US to the EU.

Not to any particular individual country in the EU.

Also, let’s follow your logic to its conclusion.

As you correctly point out, many European countries have lots of Muslim immigrants.

Many of these Muslim immigrants would prefer to live under Shariah law.

So, since it’s “unreasonable to manage diversity at the federal level,” maybe France should let its Muslim citizens live under local Shariah legal systems. Why, in some localities, it could even be legal to beat your wife if she doesn’t have sex with you, or execute blasphemers—because according to local laws, those kind of things should be legal. And why should the federal government of France get to say otherwise?

@Qingu

I really, really don’t think that anything @Jaxk was suggesting by the comparison was meant to suggest that federal Constitutional restrictions regarding such things as the bill of rights or other equality-based amendments would no longer apply.

Then I fail to see the relevance of bringing up cultural diversity as a stumbling block to overarching federal regulation.

Diversity in combination with sheer size makes regulations on a federal level in many contexts unmanageable – the regulatory bodies are stretched too thing, they are applying standards that may not be proper in the local environment, and they are balancing against state government interests that may represent a completely different makeup than the body general. Essentially, I like the EU as an example to consider as it’s layering a “federal” style government over individual governments that clearly functioned previously. What laws and regulations should we start to apply if we started from ground zero, essentially – and what ones should be left to the state.

@Qingu

I should probably let @iamthemob ‘s response stand as it was quite reasonable. But, I can’t. Your examples are really quite good for making my point since those laws are STATE laws. You really do need to think before you respond.

I have banned use of the word “diversity” in my presence. : )

@iamthemob to answer the original question, yes. But the question to me becomes how do we the people, in our individual states, get the federal government under control to a point that individual state’s aren’t constantly fighting the federal government to retain their Constitutional powers and rights. I realize the answer starts with exercising our right to vote, but the federal government has gotten so out of control and so tangled into so many aspects of our lives, it will be harder and harder to get under control if the tide doesn’t turn soon. I see it on this discussion forum where a younger generation has grown up believing that certain protections and rights that should be inalienable rights and if need be should be decided by a majority on the state level are delegated on the federal level.

@iamthemob, I agree that the EU is a good example of the general concept, and shows the strengths and weaknesses of federal-level (or I guess in the EU’s case it would be super-federal-level) regulation… but I don’t think it’s that comparable to the United States, which formed from the union of entirely British colonies with the same language and no thousand-year history of constant warfare among the states.

@bkcunningham, I don’t really understand what you mean. Certain rights are inalienable… but also should be decided by the majority on a state level? Can you give an example of what you’re talking about?

The example that comes to my mind would be slavery. Conservatives have argued that its legality should have been decided on a state level, not by the federal government. Is this what you’re talking about?

@bkcunningham

The problem originates in the Supreme Court. Unfortunately we have little influence there. The Court has expanded the commerce clause to give the fed virtually authority over everything. If it can be bought, sold, or used, The courts have been very liberal in giving the Fed the power to regulate it.

The second (maybe equal) is the power we’ve given to Fed regulatory agencies. They create regulations with little or no restraint on thier power. We also have little power over them since they are political appointees.

Both cases go back to the President and that is where we have some control. Very little and indirect, but at least some.

@bkcunningham – I do think that’s the question we need to focus on. And I think that it gets lost in the shuffle because people fixate on this “government as enemy” mentality, when I think a shift to defense of federalism and states rights is important. Demanding that our state reps stand up to the fed, initiate lawsuits against them, etc., may be the way to go.

@Jaxk – The problem is not the Supreme Court. Blaming the Court is a red herring, I believe. The Court, regardless of claims about whether it legislates from the bench, does nothing og the sort. What it can do is strike down laws or aspects of laws. For this to happen, the Congress (or state) must write the law that is questioned. However, we do have no control over the body – which, I believe, is a good thing. The Court is the one area of the federal government that can actually defend the minority without fear of the majority.

Remember that the courts don’t give power. They can, however, take power away from the government.

@iamthemob

I’m not trying to get into the argument about legislating from the bench. There is however a precedent that has screwed us up on many pieces of legislation. I forget the actual ruling I could look it up if needed but it says the court starts with the presumption the the legislation is constitutional. There for it has to be proven that it is not. It makes the hurdle quite high and I think it would serve us better if the court started with the presumption that it was unconstitutional and the government needed to show that it was. It seems like a minor point but works exactly like the presumption of innocence.

You are right the the courts need to be independent and that it is the jackass (my opinion) legislation that throws us into this but given the way the constitution was designed, reversing that precedent would be a better fit (again my opinion). I think the new rule for congress that requires they spell out where they get the constitutional authority is a good one but I’d be surprised if it really has much impact.

@Jaxk – I don’t think it’s a huge point to disagree on – but I just don’t like what the message of an assumption of legislation as unconstitutional sends. It’s dangerous as the Court is the only appointed body in the big three, shielded from citizen reaction (unless it’s actions are egregious), and so to start there increases the concern about the Court privileging it’s concepts above that of the people.

Plus – it’s a presumption, true – but it really makes sense that the Court shouldn’t strike laws unless it has to. It limits the discretion, and also limits the docket (people will bring only stronger cases). Finally – that presumption is generally weakened when laws are passed regarding civil rights laws (e.g., laws limiting speech), where it becomes much, much easier to shift the burden to the government.

@iamthemob

Your points are valid but I will have to disagree. The commerce clause has been stretch beyond recognition by the presumption of constitutionality. Making the exception for the bill of rights (which they do) further advances my point. Why would you have it one way for for some parts of the constitution and the other way for the rest. Is the rest less important?

I doubt you will agree with me and that’s OK. But it would take a pretty severe beating for me to come around to your side on this one.

@Jaxk – there are no exceptions. It is merely the fact that the plaintiff needs to show less in most civil rights cases. But that always differs across case types. And there are essential and fundamental rights that are privileged – for instance, the First Amendment is often considered the essential right, from which all others flow.

@iamthemob

Sorry that wasn’t severe enough :-)

@iamthemob, don’t forget, the Supremes only rule on items after they have been through a long, long stream of lower courts. What you say is “dangerous” regarding the Supremes being appointed, must be understood from the point of their ultimate appointed power comes after many other rulings in lower courts where judicial rulings are overturned and addressed as unlawful or unConstitutional, or whatever other legal means parties have to disagree with the lower judicial branches.

I understand that once appointed it is a lifetime appointment. But the process of an appointment getting to the elected person who makes the appointment(s) is where the people have the ultimate power. That is why it is important to make every attempt to understand who you are voting into office and what they stand for or stand against.

That is why, to me at least, it is important to not allow the Constitution to be considered a “living” document for every whim, changing tide and advocate that comes along. Everything in life changes. There is an amendment process for that that the Supremes aren’t involved with if we want something adapted or changed. One day it may be someone interpreting something and setting a precedent for your benefit and one day it may not be. Let’s keep a standard that we all believe in and base laws on the ultimate freedoms for everyone involved. Not just based on your beliefs. Not just based on mine.

@bkcunningham

The only problem is what is a standard that we “all” believe in? Interpretation precludes, for me, an assertion that there’s a true “meaning” that can be expressed as anything other than a platitude.

@iamthemob the standard is the US Constitution. With it our personal liberty and freedoms are protected by popular sovereignty, limited government, separation of powers checks and balances, judicial review and federalism. I read somewhere that the best way to understand this is to understand tyranny…and then think of the exact opposite.

@iamthemob

Sounds like you and @bkcunningham are getting dangerously close to an argument about ‘legislating from the bench’. If you guys decide to argue that point, let me know I’d love to participate.

You can be the moderator. When we determine the guidelines for the debate, will you stick to them and will you make moderation decisions based on our arguments or personal backgrounds dealing with our circumstances that formed our beliefs?

@bkcunningham

The rules for the debate will be a living breathing document based on current norms and societal changes. All of which will (naturally) be determined by me. ‘I would hope that a wise Anglo-Saxon man with the richness of his experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a minority woman who hasn’t lived that life’. Very similar to the way the supreme court works.

I hope this makes everything crystal clear.

@Jaxk you make it Heller clear, if you know what I mean.

@bkcunningham – I think I see you point. Or does that statement, in and of itself, prove that I didn’t.

@Jaxk well it is an abstract question. One which I don’t believe is addressed in the rules for the debate. ; )

@CaptainHarley Hey I’m in full agreement that TOO MUCH government control and regulation is a bad thing. The problem is Reagan instilled this idea in people that ANY government was bad. Thanks to the atmosphere of deregulation he put into place, which has continued since, we saw how many near stock market crashes and recessions in the past 30 years? More than the 100 before it. Heck just during Reagans term we saw two recessions, one of them just as bad as the one we’re in now.

I don’t want government telling me how to wipe myself or where I can spend my money and such…....... but there are some things where a lack of government control means people will get hurt and things will go badly.

@tedd

I think that your argument is a common one that people mistake as a criticism of capitalism when it’s pro-capitalistic, but a recognition that we are in a capitalistic democracy and a criticism of free-market economics.