|
Have you ever had what you thought was a good idea, but nobody else agreed with you, and they became annoyed when you tried to push it on them. That's the position Republicans find themselves in with respect to their "starve the beast" policy. "The beast" is the size of government. Starving the beast refers to reducing the size of government by denying it revenue. If the money isn't available, then branches, bureaus, departments and agencies of government will be terminated.
Reducing the size of government isn't necessarily a bad idea to my thinking. There are always parts of it that are wasteful, unnecessary, or ineffective, and should be pruned. But, the starving the beast policy is yet another example of Republican overreach. In the extreme, the plan produces the same end results advocated by New Hampshire's controversial Free State Project.
The Free Staters seek to reduce government "to the minimal functions of protecting life, liberty, and property." (Jason Soren, 2001). That sounds very patriotic and appealing until it is realized that this definition does not include such commonly-accepted functions of government as providing public education, protecting consumers from corporate abuse, and the care of the elderly and disabled.
Republicans have been actively promoting their starve the beast policy for some time. The tax cuts passed with the blessing of the George W. Bush administration ballooned the national debt by $2.6 trillion between 2001 and 2010. That was not necessarily a bad thing from the GOP's point of view because it created a financial crisis where government spending absolutely must be cut (and, thus, the beast starved) to reduce the deficit, resulting in the likely elimination of governmental programs. "Hooray," cheers the GOP, "Starve the beast is working. The size of government will be reduced."
Even today, Republicans fervently advocate additional tax cuts to solve the nation's financial problems. Those cuts will further reduce federal and state revenue, and create more pressure to shrink the size of government. And, the GOP reasons, added tax reductions will be popular with the public, for who doesn't like more money in their pockets?
But, here's where Republicans overreached, and went astray. First, they attempted to privatize Social Security during George W. Bush's term in office. That move was met with hostility and resistance from the general public who (surprise! surprise!) liked to invest in a social program during working years that resulted in a modest, reliable pension during retirement.
Not in the least deterred, the GOP recently tried to end another social program, Medicare, by advocating a voucher plan conceived by Congressman Paul Ryan. Ryan's proposal would give individuals $6000 each to negotiate their own health insurance policies with private companies. Yikes, the public is to be delivered to the not-so-tender mercies of insurance companies! We've been down that road before. Good luck with that, Mr. and Mrs. USA.
Again, to Republicans' surprise, Ryan's plan was met with hostility virtually everywhere. It turns out that older Americans very much like government-run Medicare.
On June 1 through June 8 of this year, the UNH Survey Center conducted a poll in New Hampshire for the Boston Globe. One might have thought that libertarian New Hampshire would confirm the GOP's fondest dreams, both endorsing tax cuts and condemning government-run social programs like Social Security and Medicare. Not so.
The Globe (6/12/11) writes, "Also striking are the remedies that poll respondents said they would prefer to deal with these problems - responses that run counter to the rollback of social program spending and tax cuts that most candidates in the emerging Republican (presidential) field now advocate. Despite the state's antitax reputation, most poll respondents said that they would prefer to reduce the deficit by raising taxes on the wealthy, rather than by eliminating federal agencies or cutting spending on Medicaid, Medicare, and Social Security."
It must be disheartening to Republican ideologues to discover that Americans are not yearning for a free market society where people must fend for themselves without the aid of government. While people understand that private enterprise is the engine that powers the nation's economy; nevertheless, they support federal and state programs that help assure their financial and medical well being, as well as that of fellow citizens.
That curious blend of faintly socialistic programs and bully boy capitalism has coexisted productively and beneficially for our country for many years. If the average citizen has the subtlety and flexibility of thought to comprehend that these two approaches can work together fruitfully, then one might hope that politicians would stop trying to ram either pure Ayn Rand capitalism or unadulterated socialism down our throats. Are you listening Tea Partiers and Free Staters?
|
