Also, raw dollars doesn’t exactly tell the full story either. A better metric would be the Debt to GDP ratio. As the economy get’s bigger the gov’t role, even if restrained to only the same functions as before, will also get bigger.
A simplistic example: A population of 100 people only needs a few police officers. A population of 100million needs a lot more. Just because the raw dollar outlays for police have skyrocketed up does not imply that the population is living in a police state. The question is whether the outlays are proportional.
Now, I’m not saying that republicans have done a good job of limiting gov’t. The last I looked the debt to wealth ratios were well within historical averages and not below historical averages as I think they should be. It’s just that this particular metric, in isolation, doesn’t tell a story one way or the other.
Yu-Ain: I see what you’re saying, but I submit that there are inverse examples. (Though law enforcement is local, not federal) there will be a lower crime rate, generally, in a more affluent comminuty. Another example would be the military budget. A poor nation will have to spend a greater percentage of its GNP in order to have an effective military, compared to a very rich nation.
There is then the issue of how much government is “needed” and there is the other issue of how much government is allowed by the Constitution.
The size and reach of our federal government has in fact been growing in terms of “real power and intrusiveness” quite independent of the issue of dollars spent, and for some, it hasn’t been nearly enough. That trend sould not only be stopped, it needs a long period of reversal if we are to once again become “the land of the free and the home of the brave”.
July 2nd, 2008 at 12:15 pm
I don’t think that debt is a good indicator of scope, Not that rampant debt accumulation is necesarily a good thing, either…
July 2nd, 2008 at 2:51 pm
Also, raw dollars doesn’t exactly tell the full story either. A better metric would be the Debt to GDP ratio. As the economy get’s bigger the gov’t role, even if restrained to only the same functions as before, will also get bigger.
A simplistic example: A population of 100 people only needs a few police officers. A population of 100million needs a lot more. Just because the raw dollar outlays for police have skyrocketed up does not imply that the population is living in a police state. The question is whether the outlays are proportional.
Now, I’m not saying that republicans have done a good job of limiting gov’t. The last I looked the debt to wealth ratios were well within historical averages and not below historical averages as I think they should be. It’s just that this particular metric, in isolation, doesn’t tell a story one way or the other.
July 2nd, 2008 at 7:22 pm
Yu-Ain: I see what you’re saying, but I submit that there are inverse examples. (Though law enforcement is local, not federal) there will be a lower crime rate, generally, in a more affluent comminuty. Another example would be the military budget. A poor nation will have to spend a greater percentage of its GNP in order to have an effective military, compared to a very rich nation.
There is then the issue of how much government is “needed” and there is the other issue of how much government is allowed by the Constitution.
The size and reach of our federal government has in fact been growing in terms of “real power and intrusiveness” quite independent of the issue of dollars spent, and for some, it hasn’t been nearly enough. That trend sould not only be stopped, it needs a long period of reversal if we are to once again become “the land of the free and the home of the brave”.
July 3rd, 2008 at 1:11 am
no