Smaller than what?

“Small” is a
relative term. If one is 6 feet tall and plays in the NBA, you would be small.
If you are 6 feet tall and in the 6^th grade (11 years old), you
would not be small. Small portions of food are variable as you might note
whenever you attend a family gathering. Small monthly payments can become quite
hefty after a few months as can small tax increases. The term “small” is
defined by the standard and the context used for its comparison. Take “small
government” for example. Compared to California, Wyoming has a small
government. Compared to the state government of 1920, Wyoming’s government
might be considered as bloated or huge. You should have a clear enough picture
by now to know that advocates of “smaller government” aren’t really saying very
much. In fact they probably have their fingers crossed behind their backs when
they utter those priceless (or worthless) words.

If I were to
magically become king for a day and eliminated the subsidy for the National
Endowment for the Arts and nothing else, I would have kept my promise of a
“smaller government.” Not much would change, however, for most of us. A few
struggling artists and musicians would have to struggle harder, but most of us
would not detect a difference in the size, scope or intrusiveness of our
government. Even if the promise of a smaller government is carried out, but the
costs of operating the remainder are the same as before, we may be somewhat freer,
but the concentrated power and lavish expensing for the governmental remnant
will still have minimal positive impact for most American citizens. When
considering the impact and size of the United States federal government,
relative terms are meaningless. One must deal with absolutes….clearly defined
limitations, responsibilities, duties and powers. One of the most egregious
reasons for our present fiscal condition is that government has consistently
used relative definitions for determining eligibility for transfer payments.
For example the current income for the “poverty line” for a family of four is
more than $20,000.00 per year. As a consequence, despite our nearly 50-year
“War on Poverty,” the rate of those below the poverty line hasn’t changed. The
line of demarcation is raised to reflect inflation and other cost increases
which in turn is inflationary. As the government pumps more money into
non-productive or low-producing sectors of the economy, there are more dollars
competing for goods and services without having a corresponding impact on
productive output.

This one
example should be sufficient to illustrate that “smaller” is meaningless. If we
agree that we need absolute or concrete parameters for government’s size, then
the next step would be to identify the clear-cut limits for our federal
government. Obviously the template that we presently have should be our
starting point ….and, personally speaking, our end goal. The Constitution of
the United States is broad enough to adapt to changing times and specific
enough to limit government’s natural inclination to grow more powerful…if we adhere
to it. There have been numerous efforts to change the Constitution through
formal means or via unconstitutional legislation and rulemaking that goes
unchallenged. In 1974 Rexford Tugwell penned The Emerging Constitution wherein he suggested that the U.S.
version be more globally oriented and embrace a broader definition for
“citizen.” Nearly every alteration that has been suggested or surreptitiously
implemented has resulted in greater power for government and loss of freedom
for our sovereign states and citizens.

Personal
liberty is a gift from God, a Natural Right and an inherent desire of people.
The Founders and the Framers recognized that the natural inclination of any
government…monarchy, oligarchy, democracy…whatever…is to increase size, power and
control. As a result of their insight, they devised a system of checks and
balances among three co-equal branches that are (were) subservient to the
people and their respective sovereign states. The interaction and oversight
among the stakeholders should have insured that individual freedom would not be
imperiled. Throughout the history of our nation the states and the three
branches of the federal government have jousted and competed for preeminence in
the federal power structure. The three federal branches have traded places at
the pinnacle of influence and power from time to time, but it’s the states…the
50 sovereign entities who have fallen behind the power 8-ball. Often they did
so willingly in exchange for federal revenue sharing….the modern equivalent of
beads and baubles for Manhattan. Many state politicians lusted to serve in
Washington D.C. so they were reluctant to take a stand against federal
encroachment on states’ rights.

In a
previous column (“Defining and Weaving” www.littlestuff-minoosha.blogspot.com
11/4/2011) I suggested that the Congress is the logical focus for a
constitutional restoration effort. The drive to re-establish the Constitution
as the sole arbiter of federal action and involvement must include a
corresponding devolution of federal power and oversight back to the respective
states. This can be accomplished in the form of diminishing block grants over a
short period of time. I would suggest 2-5 years. Simultaneously, federal taxes
should be reduced in a corresponding manner. Some states will choose to
continue the many federal programs that they will inherit. Others will seek to
pick and choose which programs are necessary or desirable for their states and
will jettison the others. The end result is predictable.

The states
that choose to pick up the myriad programs will suffer fiscal, economic and
social distress (see California and New York). The states that choose wisely
and discriminately will do “OK.” The states that choose to absorb very little
of the former federal portfolio will thrive. Their economies will flourish.
Their populations will grow,….and their power in the Electoral College will
increase. It’s really no big deal. Throughout our history people have moved
from state to state seeking opportunity and liberty. As long as we have some
states that are committed to liberty and prosperity in lieu of oppressive
federal dominance, we can survive and succeed. Let’s do it.

Comment:  cearlwriting@hotmail.com

www.littlestuff-minoosha.blogspot.com

This Week:
Wed. only, 6-7:00pm. 1370 WSPD, Toledo www.wspd.com