Daily Kos Readers: U.S. Rep., 18th Congr.dist. PA Repub. Tim Murphy is running unopposed on Nov. 4. I am wanting a Progressive candidate I can write-in and encourage others to do the same. If you know of such a person ready and willing to run against Murphy as a write-in please let me know in the comments section below the diary. I am sure that Murphy thinks the federal government is too big and too powerful. This diary (below the squiggle) examines that contention rationally and dispassionately.
SIZE
I don't like "big". As things grow bigger they become more unwieldy and less sustainable. I am reminded of giant dinosaurs for some reason. But the subject is government, specifically the Federal Government. There is a lot wrong with the government. But is size one of those things? One can find a number of articles on the web that claim the federal government has actually been shrinking since 2008 (http://www.cbpp.org/... e.g.). That may sound positive. The government is spending less money. Yea! The question is, on what is it spending less? Less wasteful spending would be good. Less spent on ensuring every one's individual rights are protected and that every one has access to a quality Common Good, in my opinion, would be a bad thing.
Let's imagine a small town with a population of 50. Law enforcement might require one sheriff and two part-time deputies. Once the population reaches 2000, a whole police department working 24 hours/day may be needed to keep the peace. Other services provided by the local government might also be overwhelmed without additional personnel. As population increases, the growth of government is a necessary inevitability. The alternative is inefficiency and gridlock. The same people who complain about the large size of government also complain about inefficiency of government functions. While I think government efficiency could be greatly improved, no matter how efficient each employee is, there are limits to how much one person can accomplish.
Size can be a big problem at either extreme. Being too small to deal with the problems of the nation would be a negative thing. When a politician promises to cut every one's taxes by shrinking the size of government, most people think that would be a good thing. They don't consider the negative effects that reduction would have on future generations, e.g. more polluted air, higher health costs, general deterioration of the Common Good, etc.
If all citizens respected each other's individual rights; if industries, banks and corporations prioritized the Common Good and public health over profits; if state and local governments did a better job maintaining the infrastructure; if America would be more respectful of the rights of non-Americans, the Federal Government could easily be smaller but still efficient. Bottom line - the government should be as big as it needs to be to accomplish its mission as efficiently as possible and no bigger. A very significant part of that mission should be implementing the Individual Right to Health Solution (Daily Kos, 10/5/14, 12:15 P.M.)
POWER
When the Tea Party complains about the government having too much power, they are referring to those powers allegedly exercised by the Federal Government that are not enumerated in the U.S. Constitution and which are supposedly states' rights. I addressed this issue in my last Daily Kos diary (10/5/2014, 12:15 P.M.).
There are those of us that are alert to any signs of the Federal Government turning into a 1984 Big Brother type of Authority. The revelations of Edward Snowden, seem to reinforce Thomas Jefferson's claim that "Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty".
To suggest that the Individual Right to Health Solution would increase the power of the Federal Government to threaten individual rights such as the right to privacy is doublespeak and totally bogus. Certain people would disagree with that. Smokers who feel they should have the right to destroy their own health as well as anyone else's who can't manage to hold their breath within the smokers' plumes of second hand smoke, may feel that smoking bans are unconstitutional. I think people should probably have a right to suicide. But not to sudden suicide, nor to self-destruction that takes place over a number of years, if the killing endangers the health and well-being of others.
If one has a drug company and the government refuses to approve a new drug because the drug trials weren't reliable, one may feel one's right to engage in free commerce is being impeded. As if American consumers have no right to refuse to be guinea pigs for poorly tested drugs. When the government refuses to approve another toxic pesticide that would kill more bees, the agro-chemical company might feel the government is exercising draconian powers.
White racists probably think the Federal Government is exercising illegitimate power when it enforces anti-discrimination laws. If one owns an industrial enterprise, one may think the government is interfering with one's right to make a profit by imposing regulations designed to protect the environment, worker safety, the quality of goods and services, etc.
Power is neither good nor bad. But it can be used in a way that benefits everyone or in a way that favors "special" interests to the detriment of others. Individual rights and the Common Good are not special interests. If we fixed our own problems by living up to the promise of "liberty and justice for all", we could be the model to which all people in other countries aspire. It seems like the United States used to be that model when I was young. That was before the Internet revealed America's shortcomings to the world as well as to its citizens.
There is plenty wrong with the Federal Government. The main problem is not too much power. It is how that power is used or distributed. Congress passes legislation, the Executive Branch makes policies, and the Judicial Branch makes rulings that benefit Big Business and the banks and which give these institutions the power to threaten our individual rights. (For a good example check out GMO Right to Know Info Packet) Another way to express this problem is that the Federal Government takes power away from the people and gives it to the corporations.
Who or what should have the most power to protect every one's individual rights and ensure access to a quality Common Good? Private enterprise has no compelling interest to exercise that power. For reasons I explained in the section on States' Rights of the Daily Kos diary 10/1/14, 11 A.M., the states and local governments, while they ought to be supportive of individual rights and the Common Good, are not entirely reliable. The Federal Government is the entity with the greatest interest and the most potential for reliable performance.
As it is, there exists an antagonistic relationship between Upper Class earners/banks/big corporations and the rest of us. The former has more political power and more money. The government, in particular the Federal Government, is the only entity powerful enough to oppose the Upper Class/banks/big business. The Tea Party wants to make the Federal Government smaller and less powerful which will allow the Upper Class (Tea Party leaders included)/banks/big business to become even more powerful and wealthier. So, for the rich and powerful a smaller, weaker central government would be a good thing. Unfortunately, those in the lower classes will suffer greater deprivation if the Federal Government is weakened.
There is a quote that goes, "You can please some of the people all of the time, and all of the people some of the time, but you can't please all of the people all of the time." (John Lydgate) I think this is relevant to the government acting in the best interest of all the people. If and when the actions of government are directed, in an objective fashion, to preserve every one's right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness by protecting people's individual right to a healthful lifestyle and access to a quality Common Good, all of the people will not be pleased at any time. As things stand now, those with the most money and power do whatever is in their best interests and the rest of us pay the price for their privilege. And what is in the best interest of the rich and powerful? From their viewpoint, accumulating and holding on to more wealth than they need is a good thing. At the same time, there are people who are struggling just to make ends meet. The strugglers do not have the time nor energy to realize why their situation is worsening. They may think they are not working hard enough or long enough. They may have no idea the Upper 1%'s hoarding of wealth and income contributes to their deprivation (www.alternet.org/economy/5-reasons-rich-are-ruining-economy-hoarding-their-money).
So, how much power should the people allow the federal government to exercise? As much as, but no more than, is required to serve the total population responsibly, with accountability, and without favoritism.