Americans typically have four levels of government --- Federal, state, county/township, and local/city. I believe that the foundation of government in a democratic society is that government is the way in which the people "meet" in order to discuss and act upon issues of mutual concern and interest. Hence, local government is where people of the locality meet in order to discuss and act upon issues of concern in their locality. For example, when people in my city wanted to locate a sports complex for youth activities somewhere in city limits, we met through our local city council and other local government planning commissions to discuss options and hear arguments.
Since most of our communities are way too large to have purely democratic meetings of the whole, we "meet" through our various elected representatives. These representatives are elected periodically so that they must stand before us on their records of responsible action. If they do not act intelligently and responsibly on our community interests, we can and should remove them from their offices. While this mode of "meeting" is not always adequate and, in particular, may not represent my own point of view, it is the only practical way of proceeding. Since there are issues that require discussion and action, meeting is essential to our well being.
Now, government requires money in at least two ways. The operation of government requires money for facilities, salaries, etc. Secondly, government spends money on projects for the well being of the people --- sewage and trash removal, development and maintenance of infrastructure, enforcement of laws, fire protection, public education, community centers, etc. While fees may be charged for some things, most revenues come through taxation. Here lies the great irony of our age. People hate to be taxed yet they want trash taken away, want to drive on nice roads, and don't want home invasions. If you want the benefits of government --- which is to say the benefits of activities that we need and sanction --- you have to pay for it.
So now-a-days anyone will be welcomed onto a platform by screaming for lower taxes and less government. However, none of these people --- at least none that I have heard --- are willing to take the time to spell out what "less government" means to them or just how much taxation they are willing to bear in order to allow government to act.
Since most of this screaming is aimed at the Federal government, and since reducing Federal government means meeting and acting less on Federal issues, and since radically reducing Federal taxes means tying the hands of Federal government to act or even consider issues, the single question at stake today is whether or not there really is a need for people to "meet" on national issues or to act on national issues. That is the question: Are there national issues that require collective (Federal) attention? Another side of this question is whether or not there is, or should be, a national character.
In the present round of ultra-conservative and Tea Party activism, the implicit answer seems to be that there is no national character and there are very few legitimate national, or Federal, concerns. The practical result of this movement would be to hold up in our individual states and do pretty much whatever our fellow state-citizens want. Even if the Federal government has legitimate jurisdiction over a number of inter-state activities, its hands would be tied up completely by lack of funding. Perhaps the Southern states could even return to a culture of slavery.
Personally, none of this sounds very good to me. I believe in a national character and, hence, I believe there are quite legitimate national issues for which there are appropriate Federal activities. I do not want to see my Federal government crippled for lack of funds.
No comments:
Post a Comment