Big Government vs Small Government

If ever there was an argument that PROVED that neither the extreme Left nor the extreme Right holds the moral high ground, the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina reveals it.

Boiled down to its barest essentials, the extreme Liberal viewpoint believes in Very Large Government, government which intervenes in every aspect of society, evening out the inequities such that no one is fantastically wealthy and no one is dirt poor. This is simplistic at best and ignores human nature. If everyone gets the same for their work, regardless OF that work, then there is little incentive to better oneself or work harder. Hard work deserves to be rewarded.

On the other hand, the extreme Conservative viewpoint (and that held by the current Administration and it's neo-conservative base) is typified in Grover Norquist's statement that they wanted to reduce the size of government until it was small enough to drown it in the bath tub. Do away with government entirely. But this loses the reason why we have government in the first place: to pool resources.

When it comes right down to it, the role of government is to pool our varied resources and do things that benefit everyone and can't (or won't) be done by anyone in the private sector.

Rush Limbaugh missed this when he said on his radio program:

“But if your city believes that it's entitled, if that's, if that's the worldview of the leaders of a community, then I don't care what their race is -- if their worldview is that this is a welfare state -- "the government needs to protect us. The government needs to feed us. The government needs to transport us. The government" -- well, guess what? The government needs to build the levees. The government needs to make sure the levees are -- the government. You're passing the buck all over the place and accepting all the money that the government's sending in to you, ah, and then something like this happens and then you start, you know, wringing your hands.”

There are elements of society that need to be maintained in an orderly fashion, which benefit us all, and which are best done using a pooling of resources. The road and highway system, for example. Huge levee systems to protect inhabited areas from rising waters fit in there as well. Governmental oversight of those too large to be overseen by the private sector (major corporations) fits into this nicely.

Police, fire and rescue, homeland security, international relations, disaster preparedness and mitigation, these are all functions which REQUIRE the combined resources of us all for the good of us all, and "drowning government in the bathtub" ends up where we are right now in New Orleans: With huge loss of life and property and a lot of people pointing fingers at other people about who should have acted differently.

There are times to be conservative, such as when the income tax reaches near 70% at the highest levels (as it did early in my lifetime).

But the ideals of this country should be that we're each entitled to what we've earned. They should not be that we should be entitled to set our family up as a dynasty for years to come. Bill Gates, through skill and luck, has managed to amass a huge fortune, and good for him, he deserves to reap the benefits of his hard work.

Paris Hilton, on the other hand, has never done anything even moderately like work ("The Simple Life" tv series notwithstanding), and there's really no reason why she should be given the FULL value of the hard work of her ancestors while producing nothing but the occasional moment of entertainment to those who fancy downloading home made porn from the internet.

We need government. We need state government and federal government. We need pooled resources and people to administer those pooled resources. And sometimes we need to pay into the system. And who best to tax but those who have no more need of their money?

Raise the limit on the inheritance tax to $10 million or even $50 million and we will barely put a dent in the government's take from this tax. And there's absolutely no reason why Paris Hilton can't live out her entire life on $10 million dollars if she's not willing to gain the skills to draw a continuing paycheck for actually working the family business. But should she and her children and their children and so on be set up as a perpetual source of nothing and consumer of everything dynasty? No.

Don't repeal the estate tax. It's not unfair taxation, it's simply a recognition that once the person who earned the money is gone, the person who EARNED the luxury that comes along with it is also gone. It's a transfer tax. Perhaps a steep one, but we aren't supposed to be a nation of dynasties and class systems.

Liam.