A recent AP poll concluded that the American people think the federal government is too big, and they express little faith that government can seriously address complex problems. These conclusions are not surprising.
Response to questions on attitudes toward government depends on how the question is asked, and how respondents interpret it.
For example, if one thinks of the Supreme Court's "Citizens United" decision that essentially says, "corporations are people," and "money is speech," there will be a negative response.
More likely, a respondent will think of the Congress and/or the executive branch with its myriad of departments, bureaus, and agencies. And if a respondent has had a negative experience with the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) or has a bone to pick with the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the response to a question on government in general will surely be negative.
Yet even as people express a negative attitude toward government, many think it should be doing more to solve complex problems. The current water pollution crisis in West Virginia, a state that harbors an anti-regulation culture, illustrates the conundrum. West Virginia may be a scenic state, but don't drink the water.
And, of course, there is the nearly universally held attitude that "the government is too big and spends too much."
In the "good old days," that in some ways were not so good, a basically rural society could do well enough with simple streets and roads and one-room schools. But in a modern, urbanized complex industrial society a more complex, costly publicly financed infrastructure is unavoidable. Individual simple water supply and "sewage disposal" systems of the individual farms don't cut it in an urban society. One-room schools, perfectly adequate in their day, no longer suffice.
A growing national economy gives rise to countless complex regulatory functions ranging from food inspection to financial regulation. Bill Clinton was an intelligent president. But when he said, "The era of big government is over," however well intended, he was way off the mark. He went along with deregulation of Wall Street, but so did nearly everyone else.
Regulation is held by its opponents to "stifle innovation." There are some kinds of innovation we don't need, such as derivatives with no foundation that collapse like a house of cards. There is only one entity powerful enough to regulate banks that are "too big to fail," and that is the federal government, and then only if there is the political will to do it.
Many agencies and programs are taken for granted and are appreciated only when the government is shut down, as occurred in late 2013. Readers will recall the scene where a congressman was reading the riot act to a federal employee following orders, denying citizens access to a veterans' memorial.
Maybe these activities should have been exempted from the government shut down. But the same argument could be made for any number of other activities, depending on individual preferences and priories. Like much else in life, benefits are appreciated only when deprived of them.
One could assert that just because the "era of big government" is not over, it could be reduced in size. This is not as simple as critics seem to believe.
An economic truism, often not appreciated, is that at the macroeconomic level aggregate expenditures equal aggregate income. That is, expenditures by one entity represent income to another. Cut expenditures, and you cut income to somebody.
I recall an occasion when driving across Kansas it was announced that Boeing had beat out another competitor for a defense contract, the result of which would mean additional employment in Wichita. Kansans, not noted proponents of big government and federal spending, were ecstatic. Of course the beneficiaries of this contract would argue that this contract was essential to the national defense, whereas other expenditures are wasteful.
All this gives politicians the incentive to campaign on "cutting the pork," while their re-election depends on their ability to "bring home the bacon."
We all can think of government programs and expenditures we don't like and of which we don't approve. Decade long wars with fuzzy objectives, and snooping by the National Security Agency, top the list for many. Others don't like programs on food stamps, unemployment payments, or any other forms of public assistance. And naturally, there are always a few who will "game the system," even though the vast majority of recipients may be deserving.
Many of us can name a few things on which government might spend more, such as repairing our decaying roads, bridges, water and sewer systems, and especially, on early childhood education.
Economists generally think of this in terms of which activities are most efficiently left to the private sector, and which activities for one reason or another should be handled by the public sector. In practice, many functions are a combination.
Financing and providing for national defense is clearly a public sector responsibility. But production of the planes, tanks and guns is by the private sector. Even many defense functions are increasingly contracted out to private contractors - not necessarily a wise move in the view of some of us.
The public clearly has an interest in ensuring basic education available to all. But this does not rule out private colleges and universities.
Access to health care is the latest issue of controversy. Apart from the Veterans Administration facilities, health care is basically provided by the private sector and doubtlessly will continue to be. With the exception of Medicare and Medicaid, health insurance is still provided by the private sector and doubtlessly will continue to be. It is over the role of the federal government in ensuring access to insurance and health care that the current debate rages.
These matters involve issues of both efficiency and equity, or fairness, regarding the nation's citizens. And they illustrate the national ambivalence over government and its role in our society and economy.
- John Waelti's column appears every Friday in the Times. He can be reached at jjwaelti1@tds.net.
Response to questions on attitudes toward government depends on how the question is asked, and how respondents interpret it.
For example, if one thinks of the Supreme Court's "Citizens United" decision that essentially says, "corporations are people," and "money is speech," there will be a negative response.
More likely, a respondent will think of the Congress and/or the executive branch with its myriad of departments, bureaus, and agencies. And if a respondent has had a negative experience with the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) or has a bone to pick with the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the response to a question on government in general will surely be negative.
Yet even as people express a negative attitude toward government, many think it should be doing more to solve complex problems. The current water pollution crisis in West Virginia, a state that harbors an anti-regulation culture, illustrates the conundrum. West Virginia may be a scenic state, but don't drink the water.
And, of course, there is the nearly universally held attitude that "the government is too big and spends too much."
In the "good old days," that in some ways were not so good, a basically rural society could do well enough with simple streets and roads and one-room schools. But in a modern, urbanized complex industrial society a more complex, costly publicly financed infrastructure is unavoidable. Individual simple water supply and "sewage disposal" systems of the individual farms don't cut it in an urban society. One-room schools, perfectly adequate in their day, no longer suffice.
A growing national economy gives rise to countless complex regulatory functions ranging from food inspection to financial regulation. Bill Clinton was an intelligent president. But when he said, "The era of big government is over," however well intended, he was way off the mark. He went along with deregulation of Wall Street, but so did nearly everyone else.
Regulation is held by its opponents to "stifle innovation." There are some kinds of innovation we don't need, such as derivatives with no foundation that collapse like a house of cards. There is only one entity powerful enough to regulate banks that are "too big to fail," and that is the federal government, and then only if there is the political will to do it.
Many agencies and programs are taken for granted and are appreciated only when the government is shut down, as occurred in late 2013. Readers will recall the scene where a congressman was reading the riot act to a federal employee following orders, denying citizens access to a veterans' memorial.
Maybe these activities should have been exempted from the government shut down. But the same argument could be made for any number of other activities, depending on individual preferences and priories. Like much else in life, benefits are appreciated only when deprived of them.
One could assert that just because the "era of big government" is not over, it could be reduced in size. This is not as simple as critics seem to believe.
An economic truism, often not appreciated, is that at the macroeconomic level aggregate expenditures equal aggregate income. That is, expenditures by one entity represent income to another. Cut expenditures, and you cut income to somebody.
I recall an occasion when driving across Kansas it was announced that Boeing had beat out another competitor for a defense contract, the result of which would mean additional employment in Wichita. Kansans, not noted proponents of big government and federal spending, were ecstatic. Of course the beneficiaries of this contract would argue that this contract was essential to the national defense, whereas other expenditures are wasteful.
All this gives politicians the incentive to campaign on "cutting the pork," while their re-election depends on their ability to "bring home the bacon."
We all can think of government programs and expenditures we don't like and of which we don't approve. Decade long wars with fuzzy objectives, and snooping by the National Security Agency, top the list for many. Others don't like programs on food stamps, unemployment payments, or any other forms of public assistance. And naturally, there are always a few who will "game the system," even though the vast majority of recipients may be deserving.
Many of us can name a few things on which government might spend more, such as repairing our decaying roads, bridges, water and sewer systems, and especially, on early childhood education.
Economists generally think of this in terms of which activities are most efficiently left to the private sector, and which activities for one reason or another should be handled by the public sector. In practice, many functions are a combination.
Financing and providing for national defense is clearly a public sector responsibility. But production of the planes, tanks and guns is by the private sector. Even many defense functions are increasingly contracted out to private contractors - not necessarily a wise move in the view of some of us.
The public clearly has an interest in ensuring basic education available to all. But this does not rule out private colleges and universities.
Access to health care is the latest issue of controversy. Apart from the Veterans Administration facilities, health care is basically provided by the private sector and doubtlessly will continue to be. With the exception of Medicare and Medicaid, health insurance is still provided by the private sector and doubtlessly will continue to be. It is over the role of the federal government in ensuring access to insurance and health care that the current debate rages.
These matters involve issues of both efficiency and equity, or fairness, regarding the nation's citizens. And they illustrate the national ambivalence over government and its role in our society and economy.
- John Waelti's column appears every Friday in the Times. He can be reached at jjwaelti1@tds.net.
