Big government isn’t just a federal problem
January 26, 2006 | By Nathaniel Ward
When someone says the words “big government,” you probably think of ineffective and wasteful federal programs and the 25 percent or 30 percent or 35 percent of your paycheck that the government takes each month to pay for everything. These are indeed all symptoms of big government at the federal level.
But there’s an equally worrisome trend towards ever-larger government at the local level. Liberals and special interest groups figured out that many of the spending programs they favored were too lavish even for Congress, so they worked to adopt their agenda bit piecemeal. Liberal activists got themselves involved in small-scale politics and now dominate local governments. As author Stephen Malanga explained in a lecture at The Heritage Foundation, special interests and their allies on the Left have been infiltrating local government for decades—and dug themselves in.
For example, labor unions have in recent decades organized almost 70 percent of state workers in New York state. The unions then used their enormous influence to elect politicians who increased their members’ benefits (at taxpayer expense, of course) and passed other laws friendly to big labor. And in Los Angeles, the new mayor is himself a former organizer for the teachers union.
The big federal government
This isn’t to say that all is well at the federal level; far from it.
The size of the federal government continues to grow, and politicians are increasingly using the budget to buy votes and curry favor, Heritage’s Grover M. Hermann budget fellow Brian Riedl reports. “If pork-barrel spending will buy votes back home,” Riedl asks, “wouldn’t an expensive farm bill also buy rural votes? And perhaps a Medicare drug benefit will buy senior votes?”
Pork-barrel spending poses a real threat to our system of government, Riedl explains. Congress’ earmarked grants dilute our federal system by giving the national government control over purely local matters. Why should Congress get to tell Briarcliff Manor, NY where to build a stoplight? It shouldn’t, plain and simple.
Worse, the tremendous power given lawmakers invites corruption. Pork gives individual Congressmen the power to direct federal money to individual organizations or single municipalities. What lobbyist in their right mind wouldn’t want to influence someone that powerful—illegally if necessary?
How to solve the lobbying problem
In its zeal to show action on the recent corruption scandals, Congress remains intent on regulating our Constitutional right to petition. Perhaps they simply wish to divert our attention from the real corruption problems in Washington, DC—the use of federal money to buy votes and the attractiveness of influencing Congressional power.
Brian Riedl lays out six basic steps Congress can take to truly reform the process:
- Ban pork projects
- Add “sunshine” to spending bills so we know what earmarks are for and who sponsored them
- Make federal grants public so there can be accountability for spending
- Term-limit appropriators so the lawmakers don’t get too comfortable with taxpayer money
- Rewrite the outdated 1974 Congressional Budget Act, which maximizes federal spending
- Enact a federal Taxpayer’s Bill of Rights to limit federal spending
Proper limits on the size and scope of government would mean that Congressmen can’t buy votes and that lobbyists can’t buy Congressmen.
The era of big government is certainly not over
In 1996, President Clinton famously declared that “the era of big government is over.” Liberals have again and again come back to this statement as evidence that conservatives in Congress have cut away at government. President Clinton could not have been more wrong.
That is a liberal myth. These are the facts:
- In 2003, federal spending topped $20,000 per household (inflation adjusted) for the first time since World War II
- Spending growth is accelerating even in non-defense areas
And even if the federal government were smaller than before, that’s not necessarily a reason for local governments to get bigger.
Federalism in action
There are some functions, like regulation, that naturally belong to states rather than the federal government. So it is only proper that when the federal government de-regulates certain industries, as it should, state legislatures should step in and impose rules as they see fit. That’s how the system was designed to work, and competition between states could help ensure that no state did too much or too little.
But this basic function of our federal system continues to surprise liberals. The Washington Post reported that several states and municipalities have adopted their own pollution controls after some easing of Washington’s rules. The newspaper’s tone suggested, though, that the federal government should relieve the states of the burden of making laws.
In fact, the Tenth Amendment deals with this very issue: “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.” It says nothing about Congress taking on extra duties, like excessive regulation, just because the states don’t want to do it themselves.
The Washington Post could probably use a refresher on the Constitution. I recommend The Heritage Guide to the Constitution as a good starting point.
In other news
- The Senate is continuing debate on Judge Alito’s nomination to the Supreme Court. The Associated Press reports that he enjoys support from more than the 50 Senators required for confirmation. But liberals continue to hint at a possible filibuster, which is patently unconstitutional.
- Last week, a court in Maryland overturned the state’s traditional marriage laws. Now state Democrats are scrambling to make sure the case can’t be appealed before November’s elections because they’re worried that judicial activists in the higher court will impose an unpopular policy on an unwilling populace. They’re not concerned about upholding traditional American values, though. The Washington Post reports that they’re concerned voters will choose conservatives at the ballot box to restore marriage. But if liberals delay the court’s decision until after the election, unpopular laws can be imposed without regard for the will of the people.
- Next Tuesday, President Bush delivers his annual State of the Union address before Congress. The President should lay out an agenda addressing the war on terrorism, keeping taxes low, reducing federal spending and reining in entitlements, Heritage President Ed Feulner writes in The Chicago Sun-Times. Look for more recommendations next week from MyHeritage.org.
Nathaniel Ward is the Editor of MyHeritage.org—a website for members and supporters of The Heritage Foundation.
