What do you think of when you hear "Big Government?" Less power in the hands of the government, more individual freedom, less taxes, etc.? In actuality the process of creating "Smaller Government," is called devolution. It is the shift of power from the federal to the state government.
When states are given more power, and more responsibility, there is less consistency of quality of services from state to state.
"Is the movement toward devolution more of a threat or an opportunity for federal government agencies?"
This is a very hard question to answer because as I see it the problems that devolution seeks to solve are circular in nature.
To simplify the issue, my understanding is that devolution is the movement of power, including responsibility, to the states from the federal government.
in actuality when people vote "republican" or "libertarian," they are usually voting to take away federal government control. The thinking is "lower *federal* taxes, decrease federal involvement." What happens as a result is the burden of meeting the needs of society falls on the states. With less federal involvement, the state's have more freedom to control things. So it seems to me, that in practical terms, votes for less federal government increase socialistic politics.
If the question is simply, "is this good for the federal government?", I am inclined to answer yes.
With devolution, the federal government can step back and look at the big picture. It can focus on what its inherent responsibilities are to the nation, mainly security and upholding the legal rights of the Constitution.
With devolution, the federal government can better judge where it needs to focus its energy.
It seems pretty simple in a way. In a large corporation, if the executives are responsible for everything, down to managing people's time cards, they will have less time and energy to spend on advancing the company, which would benefit everyone.
If the states were more independent, self-sufficient and effective at managing their budgets, the federal government could focus on things like energy independence and preservation of our natural resources, to name a couple.
On the other hand, if the federal government is less involved in state level government, the people are dependent on their state legislators to provide the goods and services they expect in exchange for their taxes. In the individual's perception, their quality of life is a reflection of the entire government. People don't really think about whether it is the federal or state government that is providing them with this or that. They just know what they want and whether they are getting it or not.
If the states are not effective, then individuals will suffer, and the blame will ultimately fall on the federal government. If there is major disparity of goods and services between the states, the question of equal rights is raised, and people expect the federal government to intervene to ensure that the basic rights afforded to all by the Constitution are upheld in every corner of the nation.
The key to all of this is to have *effective* governments on all levels. A government of any sort is only as strong as its weakest link. One thing that would help would be for individuals to get more involved in their state elections. So much focus goes into the national elections, but in reality, the quality of life on my street is a reflection of my local and state governments more that one of the federal government.
A small state like Wyoming has very different needs then a huge State like California. The Federal Government tends to go at things with a one size fits all approach and it is often inappropriate for different states with different needs.
Also people tend to have very different ideas about the role of government. Californians have apparently decided they want a very high level of social services from their government. Consequently they have imposed on themselves about the highest income taxes, sales taxes, licensing and administrative fees and well above average property taxes. That's fine with me if it is what Californians want.
But here in Wyoming we mainly want the government to only do a good job of building roads, taking care of our wildlife and making sure the energy industry behaves responsibly and giving our children excellent schools. We therefore have repeatedly voted down a state income tax, keep our sales tax middle of the road and put pretty high taxes on energy extraction. We don't have a lot of California's problems like people who won't learn English and people who won't work and WE DON"T WANT THEM. We therefore keep our State somewhat unattractive to these people by offering them very little in the way of social services. In general Wyomingites have decided that the appropriate role for government is to be small, untrusive and to place a minimal burden on people trying to earn a living.
For example there would probably be an armed rebellion (and we have lots of firearms) here if our government tried to burden us with taxpayer funded sex change operations for people in prison.
I favor a Federal Government that actually stuck to its responsibilities as defined in the Constitution. It would be a MUCH SMALLER Government and it would need to collect a lot less taxes. Lots of the things that the Federal Government is doing would be discontinued. To some extent these things would be picked up by the States. It would be up to the people of each State to elect a government that reflected their wishes in terms of the level of taxation and services provided. This is what Federalism is all about and it is the arrangement which delivers the greatest happiness to the greatest number of people because Californians who want big government can have it while not tryanically imposing their desires on Wyomingites who want small government. If an individual Wyomingite feels he would be happier in a State that offered higher levels of service they can move and the same for Californians who want smaller government.
The Constitution never promised that each state would provide the same services to its citizens as every other State. The Constitution promises that the Federal Government will treat each citizen the same and also guarantees that the States must treat all their citizens equally but not necessarily the same as other states treat their citizens.
By the way here in Wyoming, we are going to run a big budget surplus again this year. How is that budget process going out there in California? It is almost a universal principle of government that places (towns, states, countries) with more people have higher taxes and places with less people have lower taxes. The only exception I can think of to this rule is Texas. The higher costs do not translate into better services. For example Wyoming schools are much better than Los Angelos schools. California should break itself into at least three and maybe 5 or six states and then maybe you all would get some decent and effective governance. Also the people in rural California who probably have values much closer to those of us in Wyoming then they do to the people of urban California would have some say in how they were governed instead of being over-whelmed by the cities.
I'd rather pay high taxes on the local level than on the federal level. That way, I know my money is going to repair the roads or fund the schools in my community, and not, say, fund a bridge to nowhere or some other project which I will never benefit from.
To me, small government applies to foreign relations too. A small government doesn't post hundreds of thousands of troops overseas in non-combat zones (like Japan or Germany) and it doesn't preemptively strike other nations (like Iraq).
"To me, small government applies to foreign relations too. A small government doesn't post hundreds of thousands of troops overseas in non-combat zones (like Japan or Germany) and it doesn't preemptively strike other nations (like Iraq)."
I am growing to like you more and more despite your party affiliation. I am seriously thinking of inviting you to work with me.
If you like this post, please tip me. All tips will be forwarded to ProgressiveU.org. Keep the site alive!