this is crap. i can't deal with people who get so mired in ideology that they fail to see the big picture. government gets bigger when there is a need, and when the need is lessened, it shrinks. it's simple.
in the 1980s, reaganites balked at programs like the new deal. the new deal was put into place to counter the effects of the great depression and to make sure that something like that wouldn't happen again. in the 1980's there was no depression, so the danger seemed far removed. shrinking the government - or at least reigning it in - was inevitable and probably appropriate. even clinton cut welfare benefits, because many of those benefits weren't necessary. now, we have two wars and a huge natural disaster on our hands. it makes sense that government would expand - not because of ideology - but because it is necessary.
every action has an equal and opposite reaction, you know.
people just need to learn how to go with the flow, look at the facts and circumstances before making a decision, and not get mired in ideology. why some people praise those who stick with ideology and who "stay the course" even when "staying the course" would result in absurdity or harm is beyond me. sandra day o'connor got in trouble for appearing "fuzzy" in issues. that's because she actually looked at the facts, balanced the hardships and then made a decision on what she felt was the most appropriate outcome. meanwhile scalia is an ideologue who drew bright lines like an automaton.
but i digress.
so here's the deal: when shit is broke, fix it. when shit isn't broke, don't try to fix it. but now, shit is broke, so we have to make it better.
okay?
2 comments:
when does government ever actually 'shrink'? it just seems to get bigger and bigger, regardless of who controls the spending and the power.
perhaps i made an overreaching statement. let me rephrase.
certain parts of government "shrink" when there is less of a need for a particular program - like clinton cutting welfare benefits in the roarin' 90's. then i'm sure the surplus is redistributed somewhere. but when there is a need again (or elsewhere), spending goes up. however, it seems that clinton did a fine job of balancing the budget - and even ending his second term with a surplus - take that, fiscal conservatives! (but then again, maybe things were hunky dory in the 90's and there was no real need for a lot of spending. i think that had a lot to do with it.)
the 80's brought a "trim the fat" ideology, which worked for a while, but now, it seems that this ideology went a little too far when it came to things like FEMA. now the tinkering will have to go the other way to find a balance. especially with all hundreds of thousands of people displaced. financial assistance for them will be necessary.
it's a constant tinkering process, even with non-economic governmental concerns... like with certain civil liberties, in times of war, the government expands as a result of increased national security concerns. in times of peace, it backs off. achieving that balance in light of the prevailing circumstances has always been a struggle. going too far in one direction (or staying put when the circumstances call for a move) is something that should be avoided.
and blah blah and so on.
Post a Comment