Smaller Government/fewer services?

[Bob Jentges]

A recent Washington Post/ABC poll indicating that 58% of Americans polled want a smaller government that provides fewer services caused me to look a little further into the issue.

According to the Bureau of Labor statistics, from 1939 when they started keeping records on the topic until recently, the number of goods producing (private sector) jobs exceeded the number of government jobs by a significant margin. From 1939 until about the mid 1970's the rate of increase in both catagories remained about the same. Subsequently the rate of increase in government jobs has gradually increased to the point where it appears if the trend continues they
will soon exceed the private sector jobs, if they have not already.

Recent statistics also demonstrate the total unemployment rate is 10%+ while the employment rate for government workers is about 3%, and the average annual salery for private sector workers is about $40,000 compared with about $70,000 for government workers. Seems to me we are on the wrong track---things are upside down.

The way I see it their is a limit to the amount of wealth the government can take from the private sector and then redistribute back to some in the private sector and expect the economy to grow.

Are the 58% of those polled corrrect in their wants i.e. smaller government/fewer services?

[Bob Jentges]

This relativly new thread has had 20 visitors, but no replies yet. I will not be so presumptious to think that everyone agrees with me. In an attempt to get some activity here is a recent article by Ron Paul titled: "Government Is Too Big to Succeed"


http://www.campaign for liberty/article.php?view=542

[Bob Jentges]

I will keep trying for a reply to this thread from someone other than myself.

I was not among the handfull of viewers that saw it, but I read that on MSNBC Tuesday a comentator said: "I look at the numbers and I'm worried. I'm worried about this government committing itself to so many entitlement programs and committing itself to such a level of taxation that support those entitlement programs."

Multiple choice---who said it?

A.Dan Conner
B.Keith Olberman
C.Ed Schutz
D.Chris Matthews
E.All of the above

The correct answer is Chris Matthews. Maybe Scott Browns win Tuesday, which the mainstream media has called a "stunning" loss/upset, etc., has struck some classic liberals with a touch of reality.:) As for the so-called "far left" progressives, I think it might be a different story---yesterday they proposed a $1.9T increase in the federal debt limit!.

[Bob Jentges]

President Obama has said in 2010 the concentration will be on the economy and jobs. That concern was also expressed at many caucaus sites across the state last night.

This morning I read that the Obama Administration is saying the Federal Government will grow to 2.15M employees (1.43M civilian) this year, topping the 2M mark for the first time since President Clinton said over a decade ago: "The era of big government is over".

It was recently announced that Federal Government employees, many who already have anual incomes in excess of $100,000.00 will recieve a 3% increase in pay this year. Because of the state of the economy many in the private sector have lost their jobs, and I doubt many wage earners that still have jobs have/will receive a 3% pay increase this year. A recent Gallop Poll indicated 35% of those polled would rather work in the public sector than the private sector. Our country would definetly be on the wrong track if people were so short cited that they think an increase in government jobs combined with a decline in private sector is the way to prosperity

The Federal Government has been trying to spend our way out of this recession with various "stimulous" packages for about one year now, with very little to show for it. I think the government getting out of the way and allowing growth in private sector jobs that produce products to be sold domestically, or exported, is not only the American way, it is the only way to grow the country out of this recession.

[Bob Jentges]

There has been suprising silence from others in this thread, but I continue to see articles in a variety of publications discussing the topic.

The first two articles I read this morning were by Rich Lowery in Real Clear Politics titled "It's Boom-Time For Public Employees" and Peter Schill in Campaign For Liberty titled ""More Government Equals Fewer Jobs".

I will not take time to list the links, but anyone interested can read the articles by going to the respective web sites and looking for the articles.

[Bob Jentges]

I was doing some research on the Stimulus Bill to see where some of the money was being spent. Shocking as what I found was, after I learned Earl Devaney was the "Stimulus accountability czar" I decided to change course to see if I could find out how many different czar's President Obama has appointed so far. Would you believe I counted 31?

I thought I would instead post that rather staggering figure in this "Smaller Government fewer services" thread.

Who is in charge of the country, the Administration, Congress, or czars? Are the unelected czars accountable to we the people, to Congress, or just who?

[Bob Jentges]

Short editorial: "The Welfare State of America".

"Socialism is not just sombody elses problem anymore".

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/apr/16/the-welfare-state-of-america/

[Bob Jentges]

An article in today's NPR web site titled "Majority Of Respondents Don't Trust Washington" discusses a recent Pew Research Center survey. It says 4 out of 5 people do not trust government---most distrust in 50 years!

I do not think hardly any people would consider NPR or Pew "right-wing" organizations, and I am not sure if that should give the article/study more or less credibility. But it does provide very interesting information and graphs for review.

I can imagine the partisans analysis. The Democrats might suggest the TEA Party people are responsible for influencing distrust of government, while the Republicans might suggest the distrust of government is responsible for the formation of TEA Parties.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story/php?storyId=126101559

[Bob Jentges]

I just heard that the newley elected government in the U.K. is cutting 300,000 public services jobs in an attempt to solve their economic problems, which reminded me of the title of this thread.

Not nice, but apparrently they think it's necessary. Compare the population of the U.K. with the USA and consider whether it might be necessary that we consider a comparable ratio of cuts here as a start to addressing our economic problems.

[Bob Jentges]

"Congress Says 'Yes' Too often".

http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=37652

[Robert Redding]

How about a re-prioritized government with different services?

It boils down to minimizing coercion. Period.

This guy (http://humanknowledge.net/) articulates the topic (http://humanknowledge.net/Thoughts.html#PurposeOfTheState) well.

The trick is making it all work despite counter-productive manifestations of instinctual survival mechanisms such as greed for money or power, arrogance, narcissism, and a general belief in absolutes. Throw absolutes alone out the window and we just might have a chance. Until then, it's a slow road to collapse, revolt, revolution, submission, etc...

[Bob Jentges]

Robert, I agree with your comment: "It boils down to minimizing coercion".

I think the larger the size of government the more oppertunity for the government to use force or intimidation to obtain compliance over how free people should be able to live under our Constitutional Republic form of government.

The founders designed a limited form of federal government for a reason. The way I see it they understood the larger the size of the government and it's regulations, the less freedom is left for "We the people". If one prefers smaller/limited government (and I do) they need to be prepared to accept fewer services from government. Those services would need to be prioritized, and the prioritization would need to remain fluid as situations change.

I planned to read the link you provided, and as I almost always do before reading any link I scrolled through it to see how lengthy it was. This link must have been more than one hundred pages long---I was discouraged from reading it!

[Bob Jentges]

Article: "Gulf Crisis Exposes Failure of Centralized Power"

Layer after layer of bureaucracies is paralyzing!

Probably not directly on-point with the title of this thread, but as the saying goes--close enough for government work.:)

http://www.campaignforliberty.com/article.php?view=1007