LOGO: Truthdig: Drilling Beneath the Headlines. A Progressive Journal of News and Opinion. Editor, Robert Scheer. Publisher, Zuade Kaufman. Winner 2013 Webby Awards for Best Political Website
May 19, 2013

 Choose a size
Text Size

Trending:     chris hedges     economy     elizabeth warren     politics     robert scheer
Most Read

Letter From Birmingham Jail

Chilling: Arctic Tundra ‘Will Turn to Forest’

Truthdigger of the Week: Sen. Angus King

'The Daily Show': Stewart Slams Hypocrites Cheney and Rumsfeld

'Left, Right & Center': The White House Scandal Trifecta

Most Comments
Most Emailed

Reports
 * NEW! * Chilling: Arctic Tundra ‘Will Turn to Forest’
How the IRS’ Nonprofit Division Got So Dysfunctional

Ear to the Ground

A/V Booth

Arts & Culture
Act of Congress
Daily Rituals
The Girls of Atomic City

Digs

Truthdig Bazaar more items

 
Reports

An Absurd Debate

Email this item Email    Print this item Print    Share this item... Share

Posted on Jul 31, 2007

By E.J. Dionne, Jr.

HARBERT, Mich.—One of the most predictable arguments is also one of the most useless: that politics come down to a choice between being for “big government” or “small government.” Those catchphrases explain remarkably little about what politicians do, or what voters want. 

    Could there be any more of a big-government endeavor than the invasion and reordering of Iraq, pursued by a president from the party of small government? Do the domestic spying programs have anything to do with a small-government agenda?

    The big-government framework was almost entirely irrelevant to last week’s debate in the House over the farm program. Many farm-state conservatives are resolutely opposed to “welfare” programs but passionately favor big-government subsidies to farmers, even rich ones.

    In the meantime, the coalition against excessive government entanglement in the farm economy crisscrossed all ideological boundaries, running from Rep. Jeff Flake, R-Ariz., to Sen. Richard Lugar, R-Ind., to Rep. Ron Kind, D-Wis.

    Kind’s amendment to reform the farm program attracted an admirable band of supporters, including some of the most liberal and most conservative members of the House. Yet it was overwhelmingly voted down because a slew of farm-state conservatives uncharacteristically joined the Democratic leadership in opposing it.

Advertisement

    Rep. Robert Goodlatte, R-Va., said Kind’s proposal “rips out the safety net for American farmers and ranchers.” At last, a safety net many conservatives love. Democratic leaders, for their part, opposed Kind because they wanted an electoral safety net for their vulnerable members from farming districts.

    The same inconsistencies apply even to that dreaded concept, “socialized medicine.” Last week, the American auto companies opened what will be difficult negotiations with the United Auto Workers union. The toughest issue will be healthcare. General Motors paid $4.8 billion for healthcare last year, including $3 billion for retirees. Is it any wonder that the good capitalists at GM and the other car companies would love the government to pick up some of these costs?

    “There’s been an enormous paradigm shift in the business community,” says Gov. Jennifer Granholm, a Democrat who has led Michigan during the crisis in the auto industry. Healthcare, she said, has “gone from being a moral issue to being an economic issue,” meaning that business leaders who once had objections in principle to government-led healthcare reform now have a powerful interest in making it happen.

    Shrewd industrialists who love the free enterprise system have noticed how “countries that have big-government healthcare” are at a competitive advantage, Granholm said in a telephone interview, and “they’re asking government to help them out.”

    The argument about “big” versus “small” government rages in state politics around the country, but the fights closer to the ground tend to be less ideological. Unlike the federal government, most states face strict limits on their ability to run deficits, so the relationship between the taxes that citizens must pay and the government programs that voters want is much more explicit.

    “For us, it’s either slash education, higher education, healthcare for seniors or for the disabled, or let people out of prison,” said Granholm, who is in the midst of a battle with Republicans who control the state Senate over whether to raise taxes—and which taxes to raise—to cover a state deficit.

    Posturing on taxes will probably continue until very close to the state’s fall budget deadline. But because the trade-offs between taxes and spending are clear, politicians can’t afford to be too rhetorical. For example, Granholm has said the state could save as much as $100 million a year in prison costs by making some nonviolent felonies misdemeanors and changing sentencing guidelines so the least dangerous criminals could get shorter sentences.

    It’s the sort of choice that states all over the country will have to face because criminal sentences were ratcheted up almost everywhere in the 1990s. This is a particularly nice example of where the labels fail: Is it “conservative” to want to cut prison costs, or “liberal” to want to cut sentences? Where, exactly, does big government come into this picture?

    Granholm argues that the United States is “never going to be the cheapest place to do business,” in part because of its high labor and environmental standards relative to many of the emerging economies. She suggests that improving the country’s competitive position will require “investing in education, higher education and healthcare.”

    Is that big government? Does it matter? “Let’s put all that old stuff aside,” Granholm says. Given how irrelevant the old debate was anyway, why not?   

    E.J. Dionne’s e-mail address is postchat(at)aol.com.   

    © 2007, Washington Post Writers Group


New and Improved Comments

If you have trouble leaving a comment, review this help page. Still having problems? Let us know. If you find yourself moderated, take a moment to review our comment policy.

By ardee, August 3, 2007 at 11:01 am Link to this comment

#91920 by Skruff on 8/03 at 5:40 am
(Unregistered commenter)

Ardee

“Everyone in the US should have access to health care, but only those who cannot afford it should get it for free.”

....
Sorry Skruff, meant to say and those who cannot afford it should get it free…not only. Though free health care for all is a nice idea it is far more likely that a universal medicare system is the solutiopn, cheap and efficient.

Report this

By Skruff, August 3, 2007 at 6:40 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Ardee

“Everyone in the US should have access to health care, but only those who cannot afford it should get it for free.”

History tells us that programs expressly designed for “poor” are subject to on going attack, perform less well than average, and are removed when the budget demands.

If only “the poor” recieced social security or Medicare, they would have been removed by the presidents who followed their authors.

Programs need to be designed to serve all, or they are useless.  The “poop” get enough stigma from food stamps.

Report this

By ardee, August 2, 2007 at 5:36 pm Link to this comment

#91664 by mary on 8/02 at 7:11 am
(2 comments total)

Since we’re never going to get politicians who truly support our middle class if we don’t make some changes at the top, let’s start with term limits (I once opposed term limits!)
I do not understand this desire for term limits, frankly. In what other profession does one become more experienced, better able to do ones job, and then be disallowed from using that experience?

I don’t mind paying these people a decent wage, but do they really need tax payer funded healthcare.
Everyone in the US should have access to health care, but only those who cannot afford it should get it for free.

Absolutely do away with pensions.
Do you have a pension? Would you like to lose it? Neither do politicos. Of course that pension should be more in line with the average than it is today. Most of our legislators are rather rich, eliminate pensions and you eliminate any not rich from being able to run for office…..

  And of course we must reform the election process, starting with funding campaigns. 
With this I agree wholeheartedly!

Report this
Leefeller's avatar

By Leefeller, August 2, 2007 at 1:33 pm Link to this comment

Billy,

You still out there?  Thinking about you because we are puttn on a new roof and hammering in morse code.

Tortillia Strips and tomatoes

Report this

By mary, August 2, 2007 at 8:11 am Link to this comment

Since we’re never going to get politicians who truly support our middle class if we don’t make some changes at the top,  let’s start with term limits (I once opposed term limits!)  I don’t mind paying these people a decent wage, but do they really need tax payer funded healthcare.  Absolutely do away with pensions.  And of course we must reform the election process, starting with funding campaigns.  Do we really want history to see our generation as “The Worst Generation”?  It’s not too late to at least start the process, our democracy depends on it, our children and grandchildren deserve no less.  Do we have the will!  It’s not a matter of ‘big gov vs small gov’, it’s a matter of ‘good government vs inefficient, poor governing’  How about starting with educating our children.  Our kids are smarter and stronger then we give them credit for.  Let’s give them the tools to help put this country back on track.  The religious community has been using limiting education to promote their agenda for too long.  Heaven knows the baby boomer generation has been more then a little short-sighted.  Why have we allowed pundits and the news media to divide us into red state vs blue state anyway?

Report this

By P. T., August 1, 2007 at 3:55 pm Link to this comment

Karl Marx said:  “Democracy works until people find they can vote themselves money.”


Source?

Report this

By P. T., August 1, 2007 at 3:49 pm Link to this comment

Got a majority of crooks, call Mayflower and your real estate agent . . . and leave the country.

Report this
Outraged's avatar

By Outraged, August 1, 2007 at 9:19 am Link to this comment

My comment: #91307 by Outraged, should say Colorado City, UTAH.  My bad.

Report this

By Skruff, August 1, 2007 at 5:17 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

“America would not and could not in fact be a unified nation.”

My town (Whiting Maine) has just under 400 people.

As to local crookery it can not exist without support from a majority of voters….that’s “Democracy”  don’t like crooks get the majority to vote ‘em out.  Got a majority of crooks call Mayflower and your real estate agent.

In My humble estimation, moving control to the federal level does is transfer control from people you know to machines. managable problems become unmanagable.

We had a mormon here but Massachusetts had enough of him, so now he’s running for president.

Report this
Outraged's avatar

By Outraged, August 1, 2007 at 1:41 am Link to this comment

In reference to:

#91007 by Skruff

“We must shut off 65% of the money going to Washington.  Central government should be incharge of our defense (Not foregin aggression) and interstate and intracountry commarce

Everything else should be done at the State and local levels”

I guessing you’ve never lived in a very small town, say like, a couple of hundred people or less.  There are some things that you just do not want “the locals” in charge of.  Have you caught any of the reports of Colorado City, NV.?

I’ll agree that SOME things should absolutely be local, but some “locals” are just plain crooks running amok without oversight.  All Mormon based towns and communities I’ve encountered sell it to you this way ” Our way or rot in hell”.  No one sits in a leadership position unless, they are a “good” Mormon.

In several towns and cities across the west you will not be awarded a contract by bid unless you have made “donations” to the church.  These are “soft porn” mafia style tactics.  Without federal legislation and oversight they will continue to exercise their “authority”.  They have a long history of this and it hasn’t stopped at all, they’ve just changed the parameters in regards to how they carry it out.

It isn’t just the Mormons (although I would consider them one of the worst offenders).  Look at the bible belt, they wanted to endorse the ten commandments in their courthouse even though the supreme court ruled it unconstitutional.  Remember when African American CHILDREN had to be escorted to their classrooms by the NATIONAL GUARD! What you are proposing would mean your civil rights, afforded to you by the constitution, would depend on which town or part of the country you lived in.

America would not and could not in fact be a unified nation.

Report this

By DennisD, July 31, 2007 at 8:04 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

What we have now is NO government - just one big happy corporate boardroom.

Report this

By P. T., July 31, 2007 at 5:42 pm Link to this comment

If we can find the money to kill people, we can find the money to help them.

Report this

By ardee, July 31, 2007 at 5:18 pm Link to this comment

The real argument here is not who is in favor of big or small government but who is in control of the government we have.

This administration has, as has no other, discovered how to loot our treasury to benefit the very few who in turn pay for those politicos to remain in power…endless cycle anyone?

Farm subsidies, like oil subsidies, go chiefly to those who need it least. Charles Schwab ,for example, has a duck club up near Sacramento. In order to attract the ducks he likes to shoot he plants rice on his modest ten thousand acre hunting preserve. Thus he qualifies for farm subsidies, no shit! To the tune of half a million bucks too.

I fully understand Skruff’s desire to shut off the cash spigot to our government but I would say that there are much more relevent spigots that should be dried up, that election reform would almost single handedly end or at least drastically reduce the power of greed over legislation. It is not our government that needs the hatchet, it is the caliber of folks we send to run the thing.

Report this

By THOMAS BILLIS, July 31, 2007 at 2:43 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Dear EJ both paries support big government.Both parties support activist judges.If government is benefiting your side the other side is for small government.If the judges are activist for your side the other side wants judges that are not activist.The amazing thing is that the republicans have framed the arguement and if you asked the average voter who is for small government and wants to curtail activist judges most people would say the republicans.Madison Avenue could learn from the republican PR machine.

Report this

By Skruff, July 31, 2007 at 2:33 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

91118 by felicity on 7/31 at 11:16 am

“Curious that the so-called ‘red’ staters scream bloody murder about illegal aliens when a large reason they’re coming north is because, thanks to NAFTA, our cheap government subsidized food stuffs have been flooding Mexico closing down small farmers because they can’t compete.”

Wouldn’t it be simple if it was a “red state” “blue state” argument? Fact is, Bush Senior got the Nafta Ball rolling, Clinton moved it along, and gave China MFN status, then Lil BUSH tried to expand it to Central America.

Reagan signed the last Amnesty bill (in 86) and that one was a “bipartisan” (fuck-the-US-Worker) bill. 

So Felicity, Tell me what red state Ted Kennedy represents, and in which Blue State John McCain resides? Is Bush (who pushed the Amnesty bill) red state Texas, or did he return to his blue (as in blood) Connecticut roots? And how does all this square with Blue Maine with two Republican Senators who split their votes on this bill?

It’s not politics, it is (as usual) the trickle down philosophy…there is only one relevant question: What is trickleing down, and where is it landing?

Report this

By Scott, July 31, 2007 at 2:01 pm Link to this comment

I think this debate, like the debate between left versus right, distracts from the unacknowledged clash between governments and the governed.

If push ever really came to shove in the clash between reason and superstition, I would expect religions to rally around each other in self defence against disbelievers. I expect governments would also rally around each other in similar fashion if faced with something like the ability of Internet technology to make transparency and total public awareness a real possibility.

Besides the profit motive that’s probably another reason net-neutrality is so endangered.

Imagine the temerity and the gall to suggest people use the technology of the Internet to wire their governments to security monitors and effectively create a Little Brother that keeps an eye on Big Brother?

I think Orwell had it all ass-backwards.

Report this

By felicity, July 31, 2007 at 12:16 pm Link to this comment

Curious that the so-called ‘red’ staters scream bloody murder about illegal aliens when a large reason they’re coming north is because, thanks to NAFTA, our cheap government subsidized food stuffs have been flooding Mexico closing down small farmers because they can’t compete.

This is a blatant case of government policies getting labels which have little or nothing to do with the substance or potential outcome of the policies.  Big government is bad/small government is good is absolutely meaningless.

Report this
mackTN's avatar

By mackTN, July 31, 2007 at 11:00 am Link to this comment

Amazing, isn’t it, how people are fed concepts and ideas, and you take a camera into a diner somewhere in Ohio, and you’ll hear a tired farmer spouting them off in disjointed array, desperately trying to connect them to his values and life experience.  This is the negative of television, 24-hour television that broadcasts these concepts day and night, argues them on news shows using uncredentialed pundits whose agendas are suspect.

Last week I watched Chris Matthews take apart a young woman’s viewpoint on “socialized medicine,” which she opposed in favor of our free market system. “Well, what about medicare?  What about the armed forces? What about the health plan used for congress? Should we let people die who can’t afford health care?”  This snooty, privileged, highly educated white girl who had not suffered one moment yet in her life was so sure how the world should work for everyone, but once she was required to think for herself and not by script, she deflated instantly. 

It’s almost impossible, however, to argue with people who have been programmed so deeply.  They believe they are thinking for themselves and resist the notion that they are not. 

The good news is that now that Big Business has decided that socialized medicine will improve their profit margin, Bush and the like will amass a movement to install it just like he did a few weeks ago with amnesty.  What Big Business wants….

Report this
Leefeller's avatar

By Leefeller, July 31, 2007 at 9:22 am Link to this comment

Big government or small government, a big government is any government bigger than yours. And so it goes!

Report this

By KISS, July 31, 2007 at 6:40 am Link to this comment

Big government is strictly Smoke and Mirrors. Every small government repug president has increased government in modern history. Reagan is a perfect example of the phony lies of conservatives.
Why has big business been so slow to go for universal health care, when the will benefit so greatly? Oregon has no corporation taxes and yet complains how little money they have for schools and health programs…and the dimmos control the politics, guess corporate owns them too. We have a major war and the repugs cut taxes to the rich and than have the nerve to say there is no money for social services? Yup, old father Bush was right, his timing was off..Voo-Doo economics is well and alive.

Report this

By Skruff, July 31, 2007 at 5:19 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Things change EJ, and if you are to blind to see that, maybe you should take up art!

I consider myself a fiscal conservative, but Have not voted Republican since Reagan’s first term, and I regretted that vote.

BOTH major political parties are behaving like hogs at feeding time. Ted Stevens has just had his house ransacked by the FBI looking for documents which would prove he was in bed with some defense contractor for his own profit.  Isn’t anyone embarrassed by this behavior.

We must shut off 65% of the money going to Washington.  Central government should be incharge of our defense (Not foregin aggression) and interstate and intracountry commarce. 

Everything else should be done at the State and local levels.

Corporate welfare millionaire lobbiests, bought and sold campaigns are all a product of big government and greed.

Karl Marx said:

“Democracy works until people find they can vote themselves money.”  Are we there yet?

Report this
Newsletter

sign up to get updates


 
 
 
 
Join the Liberal Blog Advertising Network
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

A Progressive Journal of News and Opinion. Editor, Robert Scheer. Publisher, Zuade Kaufman.
© 2013 Truthdig, LLC. All rights reserved.