I've been debating on how small I think the government should be and I've come to a few questions. Do government jobs help regulate the fluctuations in the economy? Since the government doesn't expand & contract with the cycles of the economy, do the jobs it provides create more economic stability?? In order to drastically decrease the size of the government, it would mean firing alot of government employees. Could this over-inflate the market for employees & decrease wages in the economy? Even if it did, I think the economy would rebalance itself, but would this new equilibrium be lower than it was previously? How safe does the free-market economy allow consumers to be? Do we need the government's intervention? To what extent?
One of the problems of all forms of government is its inherent tendency to expand. Obviously, it is easy for a powerful and effective government to become too large and wasteful. Conversely it is also possible for a government to be too small to effectively get the job done. Examples of this abound in the world. The key is finding the proper balance between the two. In this very successful country it is done by periodically trimming a notoriously expansive government. But how this trimming is accomplished has always been a major issue with much divided opinion. Governments are composed of two elements. A large layer of agencies that do the actual vast work of the government, from forest rangers and file clerks to admirals and teachers. The second element is a small layer of elected or appointed politicians at the top. Here are where the important decisions are made, both the triumphs and the failures. It is important when trimming government that one doesn't mindlessly cut the bureaucracy without also cutting the political element. Some federal agencies actually need to expand to accomodate a growing situation. Transportation for instance--this country needs to start preparing to be the cutting edge of the post-oil era which is coming very fast. Other agencies have outlived much of their usefulness and need to be trimmed or eliminated. Housing and Urban Development, for instance. But it also important to cut many needless political positions, especially appointments to commissions and advisory boards that don't do much--there are many. A government which robs Peter to pay Paul, can always depend on the support of Paul. --George Bernard Shaw
government jobs that are not essential investments in our infrastructure or security or something else important are just limiters of the economy. they drag the economy down, by restricting the amount of freedom the people have to selectively spend the money paying for services that would be more efficiently provided by private industry. our economy survives in spite of, not because of, most government organizations and programs. true, which would mean alot less tax money we would have to pay, which would be money in our pocket, which we would use to buy stuff, creating more jobs. and those dudes would need services too, and they would also pay less taxes, so it trickles down, yo. the services provided by those fired employees, if it was really needed, could now be provided by by private companies, so the public could pay for it directly, which would be more efficient, because the private companies would actually have to be competitive and efficient to stay in business, unlike government beaucracies. i think the most important thing is keeping the maximum amount of money in the hands of the people. that way private citizens will find the most efficient investments and have more money to use for creating new products and wealth. new technology and innovation and and advancement will come from capitalists seeking profit. the services we need that we must collectivize are few. we only need services which keep order and provide us with enough infrastructure and security and basic education to keep the wheels of capitalism turning. that doesnt mean farm subsidies or retirement insurance. or the department of energy or the interior or the DEA or urban development, etc.
Think of it this way, would you want the government running shopping malls? Restaurants? Grocery stores? If the answer is no, why on Earth would we want it to do any more than the most base functions (e.g. protect borders)
well, we do need the government to get steroids out of baseball, and take microsoft to court for selling software.
And also to keep people from smoking in bars and to tell people what they can and can't put in their own bodies.
offtopic but govt related in a way: i was in court today (baton rouge) and a guy received a ticket for talking on a cellphone while driving. is this law? oh, he was in a school zone. maybe this is the law? anyone... bueller?
I have always believed that the Fed needs to be shrunk as much as possible.. more power should be given back to the state governments... the closer to the people the representation is, the better it represents the people.. simple..
