Conservative follies

In his first inaugural address, President Ronald Reagan made a bold declaration that would presumably set the tone for his administration – “government is not the solution to our problem; government is the problem.” The next seven years saw a massive growth in the federal government, the likes of which were unparalleled. Money allocated to programs such as the Department of Education and foreign aid increased manifold, helping account for a 3 percent increase in government spending during the Reagan years. \nDemocrat presidents don’t fare any better. In a 1996 radio address, President Bill Clinton announced that the “era of big government” was over. His 1997 budget proposal called for a $361 billion increase in federal spending over the next seven years. On an elemental level, this peculiar pattern highlights the near impossibility of achieving a “limited government” and, as expected, I’m not complaining. \nThis notion of the government as an inefficient and abusive institution that should be feared is just not borne out by the historical record. Indeed, the implementation of successful programs such as Social Security and Medicare necessitate a large governmental presence. James Galbraith, son of renowned economist John Kenneth Galbraith, put it best when he wrote that the “proper government of the United States must be big, demanding, ambitious and expensive.” \nIn contrast, conservatives and libertarians want to bleed the government dry. Operating under the guise of promoting “balanced budgets,” Republicans have been successful in dismantling governmental programs. An obvious example is the government response to Hurricane Katrina. The mismanagement of emergency services and the appointment of a crony such as Michael Brown as the head of FEMA suggest a general contempt for the proper role of a government. \nEven more recently, the tragic collapse of an I-35 W bridge in Minneapolis last year can be traced back to the limited government ideology. In 2005, the Republican governor of Minnesota, Tim Pawlenty, vetoed a bipartisan transportation package that would have invested more than $8 billion in the state’s public infrastructure, which includes bridges. This move by Pawlenty was praised for his adherence to fiscal conservatism. \nIn an ideal world, as envisioned by Republicans, government functions would be outsourced to private entities. In the last seven years, President Bush has expressed desires to privatize Social Security, FEMA, air traffic control, the postal service – even the national parks system! Such actions are congruent with the conservative ideology, which places private profit over public good. Consider the Republicans’ reaction to State Children’s Health Insurance Program, or SCHIP. Party members feared that, in addition to high costs, SCHIP would lead to a “federalized” health care program. Where, then, is the hysteria over the government’s recent bailout of Bear Stearns, a Wall Street investment bank? Government bailing out corporations is acceptable but government “handouts” for the poor is going too far? \nUltimately, it’s incompetence of public officials, not the government itself, which is to blame for institutional failures. And if we continue to elect individuals who buy into the myth that government can’t work, don’t be surprised when it doesn’t.