The Next Time a Republican Brings Up the Need for “Small Government” — Show Them This

The role of government is one that’s always a hotly debated topic.  Liberals often lean towards “more government” while conservatives make the claim that they’re the party of “small government”—which is of course laughable.

I have never understood those who see the government as the enemy yet big business as the answer.

Let me break it down simply.

Government is a grouping of elected officials that are put in their specific offices by winning elections.  These people, good or bad, do not obtain whatever position of power they occupy without being put there by the voting public.

Many who oppose “big government” do so because they claim government is inefficient, corrupt and inhibits growth.

These people believe the betterment of our nation is best served by handing it over to the private sector and removing government altogether.

My question to these people is simple: What makes government inefficient and corrupt?  

The most common answer: Politicians.

Which I follow up with: Well, what makes politicians inefficient and corrupt?  

The most common answer:  Special interests and money.

Then I follow that with: Then tell me, what controls the special interests and money which makes these politicians, and in turn our government, inefficient and corrupt?  

This is where they usually get stumped.  But the answer is pretty simple and obvious.

Wealthy donors and big business.

But wait, I thought advocates for “small government” claim that our economic prosperity is best served by giving more power to those who already have power (the wealthy and big business)?   How can our best chance at economic success be found by giving unchecked (and unregulated) power over to the very same people and big businesses which, by using their money and influence, make our government corrupt and inefficient?

Doesn’t the fact that these people use their power and money to make our government corrupt and inefficient prove that if they were allowed to sidestep government altogether (by way of a smaller government with fewer regulations) they would then become even more corrupt than they currently are?

Currently they have to answer to politicians which in turn, through elections, do have a responsibility to answer to voters.  Yet without government regulations, these people and businesses would have the flood gates opened to do whatever they wanted, when they wanted and how they wanted.

After all, isn’t that why they pump so much money into government in the first place?  To buy politicians, which will support policies that benefit them?

Do these “small government” advocates really think that by removing government oversight governing these rich and powerful people and businesses, they’ll suddenly behave more morally and ethically?

These people are kidding, right?

Because let’s face it, most regulations and laws currently exist because some business, person or entity abused the system before they were put into place.  We only have child labor laws because businesses exploited children.  We only have laws which require safe working conditions because companies were putting employees at risk.  We only have laws which prevent big tobacco from gearing ads towards children because big tobacco was creating ads which targeted children.

These laws weren’t crafted because someone said, “Screw you, I want more laws!”  They were passed because someone, or something, took advantage of a system that hadn’t prevented the unscrupulous or unethical behavior.

And these same people, businesses or entities spent (or are spending) millions upon millions of dollars to lobby politicians, and in turn our government, to either prevent these laws from being passed or to have them repealed.

So they can continue unethical and unscrupulous behavior.

It’s just never made any sense to me that while we have a government which is often full of crap, those with positions of power are only there because we voted for them.  At least at the end of the day, and the end of their term, they are only given power by the voters.

We as Americans just can’t seem to get beyond mostly electing morons.  We elect the very people we claim we can’t stand.  The candidate who raised the most money, ran the dirtiest campaign and manipulated the most voters by telling people what they want to hear instead of the truth.

Then we have millions of Americans who complain about politicians, rally against our government — which are both made inefficient and corrupt by big business and money in politics — saying our best course of action is…

Deregulating the very people and businesses that are making our government inefficient and corrupt.

It makes absolutely zero sense.

July 17, 2013 By Allen Clifton 

Originally published at Forward Progressives

Roger Ebert Takes Glenn Beck Down A Few Notches

Let's face it; Glenn Beck is an ignorant, maladjusted, racist, conspiracy theorist on the far right wing of political and religious beliefs. His rhetoric, however, has become so mind-numbingly face->palm lately that it's, well, mind numbing. So, if we are to understand Beck's latest rants against progressives, we should believe that "social justice" and "economic justice" are code words for communism and fascism? Sorry Beck, but that just doesn't make any sense at all.

Social justice and economic justice are pretty simple to understand actually; the concept is that people who live in communities (that would be a majority of the population) should work together and help each other out when necessary. This is how the human race flourished throughout history and continues to flourish today; if not for mutual cooperation, the human race would not survive. At our lowest common denominator human beings can be classified as "social mammals"; in that regard, we are no different then wolves, penguins, whales, dolphins, meerkats and other social animals whose survival depends on the cooperation and support of everybody in their community. I think we can all agree that this was the one good aspect of Communism; of course, the bad part was all the rest of Communism which includes the fact that Communist governments invariably ended up with too much power. The US government, on the other hand, has checks and balances to ensure that power is balanced; therefore, it would never get to the point of outright communism or fascism unless an out-of-control zealot seized control and nobody stopped him ("Executive Privilege" ring a bell for you Beck?). We were actually in more danger of that during the Bush-Cheney administration than at any other time in recent history. The Obama Administration hasn't tried to use Executive Privilege to get away with or cover up anything.

The reforms that Obama and progressive Democrats want to enact are justified and do not come anywhere close to being communist, socialist or fascist. Listen up people; if you are a fan of Glenn Beck you need to get your heads out of your asses and think for yourselves! If you are convinced that health care reform has anything to do with socialism then you have not read up on it and you are misinformed. Do yourselves a favor, stop listening to the talking heads on cable news and start doing your own research; go to opencongress.org where you can read up on all of the bills currently being proposed by your congressional representatives.

OK, now that I've had my time on the soap box let's hear from Roger Ebert in regard to Glenn Beck's recent idiotic blatherings:

What are the words "social justice" code for? Why, Nazism and Communism, says Beck: "Social justice was the rallying cry--economic justice and social justice--the rallying cry on both the communist front and the fascist front." Beck even went so far as to cite Jesus Christ, saying, and I quote: "Nowhere does Jesus say, Hey, if somebody asks for your shirt, give your coat to the government and have the government give them a pair of slacks." Well, Beck has me there. It is quite true that nowhere does Jesus say that. Nor, for that matter, does he ever say, A wop bop a lu bop, a wop bam boom!

What I would enjoy hearing is one single clergyman from any faith in America, appearing on Beck's program to agree with him and denouncing social justice. Such a person might be a real piece of work. I suspect he might currently be in between congregations. Beck's oversight is that all religions teach social justice. That's sort of what they're about. "My church doesn't," said Beck, who is a Mormon. Not for the first time, he was dead wrong, and the mountains of Utah rang with the thunder of outraged Mormon elders. I know now, and did not know before, that before statehood the Mormons in the Utah territory provided universal health care and care for the poor as a matter of their duty.

Thank you Roger!

Creationists unveil 'God Lab'

From NewScientist.com

THE cat-and-mouse contest between science and creationism took a new turn this week with the unveiling of a "God lab" ostensibly set up to search for scientific evidence for intelligent design. The move follows a 2005 US federal court ruling that ID is a religious idea not a scientific one.

The Biologic Institute in Redmond, Washington, has been shrouded in secrecy since it was established more than a year ago by the Discovery Institute, an organisation which claims ID is a scientific theory (New Scientist, 16 December 2006, p 8). Its existence was finally made public on 10 May, when details of the project were published online at www.biologicinstitute.org.

Most scientists remain unimpressed. "A cursory inspection of its staff roster reveals the same ID creationists whose work has already been critiqued and discredited, with a couple of new faces added for novelty," says Barbara Forrest, a philosopher who studies the creationist movement at Southeastern Louisiana University in Hammond.

From issue 2656 of New Scientist magazine, 14 May 2008, page 7

This will be a bigger waste of time and money than any other of man's follies throughout history. The Fountain of Youth, Holy Grail, Atlantis, and El Dorado have nothing on this lark.