Here's the basic contradiction: "When government is too small, it cannot provide basic enforcement of property rights and personal safety or the infrastructure necessary to facilitate markets."I do agree with Miller's assertion that the term "right sizing" is ambiguous, though I think Governor Fallin made her meaning clear in her State of the State address when she said that "the growth of government shouldn’t outpace growth in the private sector."
A small government can provide effective protection of individual rights if it focuses exclusively on doing ONLY that. It's way past time to cut loose the idea that infrastructure is government's responsibility. It's not. Private citizens took care of it before. They could do so again if the government would just get out of the way.
"Public sector size" IS the main problem. It is the source of "non-essential" services & agencies. It is the cause of government inefficiency.
Don't be afraid to cut too much. The federal budget was cut by two-thirds at the end of World War Two. I'm sure some people at the time were sorry to see the government let go of all those lovely tax dollars and the power that went along with it. Fortunately, they were not in the majority.
This, by the way, is one of the reasons why fiscal conservatives should reject social conservatism, which leads to more government, not less.
This does not sound to me like a commitment to smaller government. Given her recent statements regarding state-based health insurance exchanges, I fear Governor Fallin may be turning out to be another Mitt Romney. She certainly has no understanding of what a genuinely free market is.
(Here's someone who does: Michael F. Cannon - Obamacare Can't Be Fixed, and Now Is the Time to Dismantle It
Rather than beat their plowshares into swords, Obamacare opponents in most state capitols are laying the bureaucratic foundations for the law's new entitlement spending and lending it legitimacy by accepting its debt-financed federal grants.)
No comments:
Post a Comment