Posted on 08/23/2011 2:18:01 PM PDT by Starman417
Conservatives are constantly being accused of wanting no government. When we talk about wanting to eliminate things like the IRS, the Departments of Energy and Education or rein in rouge agencies like the EPA and the NLRB we are accused of wanting no government at all. That’s simply false. I don’t think I’ve ever heard a conservative speak about wanting to eliminate all government, or even the federal government.
Most conservatives understand that the absence of functional government brings chaos. In an environment where chaos reigns, at some point someone will step in and impose order. That person or group then becomes the de facto government. Perhaps the clearest example of this in recent history was the Taliban takeover of Afghanistan in the mid 1990’s. Although pockets of resistance remained, by the late 90’s the Taliban were firmly in control of the country. Most Afghanis didn’t like the Taliban, but they appreciated the relative order they brought to the country.
Here in America our problem is not a lack of government, but the opposite, too much of it. The strings of regulation end up wrapped around the wheels of the American economy and ends up clogging what might otherwise be a well oiled machine. An unfettered economy would not be flawless, but it would be far more dynamic than the straitjacketed one we have today.
To put this in perspective, take the IRS tax code. According to the Heritage Foundation, it will cost America just more than $400 billion in 2011 to comply with the tax code, and that does not include the cost of the actual taxes themselves. Given that the federal government will take in approximately $2.2 trillion in taxes this year, that means Americans will spend an additional 20% of their tax bill just trying to figure out how to pay the bill in the first place!
How is that even possible? Well, the tax code is approximately 72,000 pages long and it’s broken down into 750 subchapters. Imagine if you are a widget manufacturer with 10,000 employees spread out over 20 states. How many employees would you need to have on staff to make sure that that company was complying with the regulations written on every one of those 72,000 pages? How much time (read: money) would your accounting and legal staffs have to spend to ensure that everything you did was within the IRS’s guidelines? How much time would management have to waste evaluating what product or service to provide or what energy provider to choose depending on what provides the best tax advantage? How about deciding how employee benefits should be allotted between taxable and non-taxable to maximize employee compensation?
As difficult as scenario is, at least large companies can pay for the necessary accounting and legal staffs. Imagine you are a struggling businessman with 5 employees who has to choose between spending money on another employee to help him compete in the marketplace or on someone to decipher the 72,000 pages of the IRS tax code. The fact that an employer (or homeowner or parents of a college student or someone approaching retirement…) has to base many of their financial decisions on what the IRS rules are is bad enough, but for the rules to be so numerous and incomprehensible that it restricts productivity borders on criminal. And to put a cherry on top of it, all of that effort is spent just to figure out how to give the money to the government so they can spend much of it on stuff you'd never pay for if you had the choice.
(Excerpt) Read more at floppingaces.net...
Eliminating all federal funding to local governments (regulatory, environmental, HUD, public ed., extraneous police funding, social work, etc.) would solve the problem and leave enough federal government intact.
How bout we split the difference and go for REALLY small government?
A strong military and properly functioning infrastructure(police, highway maintenance,sanitation, services for AMERICAN citizens who TRULY need them,etc) should be the gov’t’s only purpose. These things alone cost tons and tons of $$$ I have no objection paying my fair share, as long we’re getting the most bang for the buck.
The Founding Fathers were trying to find the golden mean between tyranny and anarchy. Tyranny is statism, and anarchy is just another form of statism of warlords or tribal gangs in the long run.
Those are certainly socialist/communist red agencies, but I've never heard them referred to as "Rouge" before.
things like the IRS, the Departments of Energy and Education or rein in rouge agencies like the EPA and the NLRB
Oh, and I'm not for reigning in the EPA and NLRB. Those are also on the elimination list on my wish list.
That has to be accomplished locally.
familyop wrote:
Eliminating all federal funding to local governments (regulatory, environmental, HUD, public ed., extraneous police funding, social work, etc.) would solve the problem and leave enough federal government intact.
In my state, our city council, county commission and all state officials also swear an oath that includes upholding and protecting the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of our State.
We (my local TEA Party patriots and 9-12ers) actually go to our county commission and school board meetings and ask our commissioners and board members, "Where in Article 1 Section 8 of the Constitution did We the People give Congress the power to tax us at the federal level for (education, parks, local roads and projects)? How are you following your oath of office accepting (or worse, requesting) "federal grant money?"
they may want smallER government, but in no sense do they want “small” government.
We are in no danger of getting anywhere near anarchy even if we eliminated 99% of the federal government.
We want a government of LIMITED and ENUMERATED powers - rather than one of limitless powers unnumbered.
Our Constitution outlines a government of limited and enumerated powers.
Just because something is worth doing doesn’t mean the government should be doing it.
Once we get to where we all know we have nowhere near enough government...well, that’s something of a beginning, and we can start some major cutting from there...
NOPE!! UNACCEPTABLE!!
I say we split the difference with YOU, and go with really really small government.
Deal!
No Government = Anarchists
Bare Minumum Gov = Libertarians
Small Government = Conservatives
Actually, the Constitution does a very poor job of that, as was noted at the time of ratification. Too bad no one listened.
"[The government under the Constitution] will introduce such an infinite number of laws and ordinances, fines and penalties, courts, and judges, collectors, and excisemen, that when a man can number them, he may enumerate the stars of Heaven." Taken from "Brutus" fifth essay, The New-York Journal of December 13, 1787.
No, the Constitution does a great job of listing the enumerated powers. Congress, for example, has them all listed in Article I Section 8.
Not by any means a long list.....
The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;
To borrow money on the credit of the United States;
To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;
To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;
To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;
To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin of the United States;
To establish Post Offices and Post Roads;
To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;
To constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court;
To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offenses against the Law of Nations;
To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;
To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;
To provide and maintain a Navy;
To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;
To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;
To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;
To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings; And
To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.
I’ve read it. I’m sure you didn’t read what I posted. Hence, you still don’t know.
I know that the problems with our Republic is not our Constitution - but rather the fact that its simple black and white meaning is widely ignored regularly in all three branches of our Government.
But by all means, keep talking down the Constitution. It will be interesting to see the response you get at this Pro-Constitution Conservative (conserving and preserving our Constitutional Republic and values) location.
How do you expect to do that, when the framers themselves couldn't agree on the "intent" and meaning? Ever heard of the First Bank of the US?
George Washington and Hamilton on one side, saying that the implied powers (ever heard of that?) allowed for the creation of the bank. Jefferson and Madison argued that it did not.
Washington and Hamilton prevailed. Madison, as president, flip-flopped and decided it WAS OK, and created the 2nd Bank of the US (to pay off war debts.)
So Washington, Hamilton, Madison, and Jefferson couldn't find plain obvious meaning, but you can?
The best part of the Constitution is that it can be amended. That is the only way to fix its glaring errors that have led us to where we are today.
How about Gonzalez v Raich? Ever read it? Scalia on one side, Thomas and Rehnquist on the other. And yet the meaning is plain black and white? lol.
I am interested in your ideal system.
I am of Churchill’s opinion that it is the worst form of government except all the others that have been tried.
Our founders too were of the opinion that government was a necessary evil.
Thus one of limited and enumerated powers is my ideal.
What is yours?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.