I’ve written, ad nauseum, about the economic impact of excessive government spending.
But I’ve also acknowledged that Article I, Section VIII of the Constitution grants specific powers to the federal government.
What I’ve neglected to explore, though, is the key issue of how today’s bloated welfare state interferes with and undermines the government’s ability to competently fulfill its legitimate responsibilities.
Imagine, for instance, if we had the kind of limited federal government envisioned by the Founding Fathers and the “best and brightest” people in government – instead of being dispersed across a vast bureaucracy – were concentrated on protecting the national security of the American people.
In that hypothetical world, I’m guessing something like the 9-11 attacks would be far less likely.
I’m mostly thinking about reducing the inefficiency and incompetence of Washington, but the same principle applies to other levels of government.
Using lots of humor and sarcasm, Mark Steyn elaborates on this issue.
In political terms, Hurricane Sandy and the Benghazi consulate debacle exemplify at home and abroad the fundamental unseriousness of the United States in the Obama era. …John Brennan, the Counterterrorism guy, and Tony Blinken, the National Security honcho, briefed the president on the stiff breeze, but on Sept. 11, 2012, when a little counterterrorism was called for, nobody bothered calling the Counterterrorism Security Group, the senior U.S. counterterrorism bureaucracy. …our government is more expensive than any government in history – and we have nothing to show for it. …one Obama bill spent a little shy of a trillion dollars, and no one can point to a single thing it built.
“A big storm requires Big Government,” pronounced The New York Times. But Washington is so big-hearted with Big Government it spends $188 million an hour that it doesn’t have – 24 hours a day, seven days a week, including Thanksgiving, Christmas and Ramadan. And yet, mysteriously, multitrillion-dollar Big Government Obama-style can’t doanything except sluice food stamps to the dependent class, lavish benefits and early retirement packages to the bureaucrats that service them, and so-called government “investment” to approved Obama cronies. …Last week, Nanny Bloomberg, Mayor of New York, rivaled his own personal best for worst mayoral performance since that snowstorm a couple of years back. This is a man who spends his days micromanaging the amount of soda New Yorkers are allowed to have in their beverage containers rather than, say, the amount of ocean New Yorkers are allowed to have in their subway system – just as, in the previous crisis, the municipal titan who can regulate the salt out of your cheeseburger proved utterly incapable of regulating any salt on to Sixth Avenue. Imagine if this preening buffoon had expended as much executive energy on flood protection for the electrical grid and transit system as he does on approved quantities of carbonated beverages. But that’s leadership 21st-century style: When the going gets tough, the tough ban trans fats. Back in Benghazi, the president who looks so cool in a bomber jacket declined to answer his beleaguered diplomats’ calls for help – even though he had aircraft and Special Forces in the region. Too bad. He’s all jacket and no bombers. This, too, is an example of America’s uniquely profligate impotence. When something goes screwy at a ramshackle consulate halfway round the globe, very few governments have the technological capacity to watch it unfold in real time. Even fewer have deployable military assets only a couple of hours away. What is the point of unmanned drones, of military bases around the planet, of elite Special Forces trained to the peak of perfection if the president and the vast bloated federal bureaucracy cannot rouse themselves to action? What is the point of outspending Russia, Britain, France, China, Germany and every middle-rank military power combined if, when it matters, America cannot urge into the air one plane with a couple of dozen commandoes? In Iraq, al-Qaida is running training camps in the western desert. In Afghanistan, the Taliban are all but certain to return most of the country to its pre-9/11 glories. But in Washington the head of the world’s biggest “counterterrorism” bureaucracy briefs the president on flood damage and downed trees.
Amen. Four Americans are dead in part because the idiots in Washington are focused on things that are not the proper responsibility of the federal government.
I don’t know if this was his intent, but Steyn just made a very compelling argument for the libertarian vision.
Here are a few of my favorite examples of Steyn’s writings.
- Obama’s empty posturing on fiscal policy, along with some biting commentary on the fawning coverage from the court eunuchs in the media.
- How the welfare state erodes social capital and leads to societal collapse.
- Describing how Obamacare was a political victory for the left, notwithstanding the 2010 elections.
- The subtle link between porn and government-run healthcare.
- An argument for libertarian foreign policy.
- Why America is different – and better – than Europe.
This post is about the link between effective government and small government, with the obvious implication that the current federal behemoth is largely incapable of handling its legitimate responsibilities. Well, the flip side is that doesn’t do a good job in areas where it shouldn’t be involved, as cleverly illustrated by this cartoon.
P.S. Speaking of libertarianism, here’s some self-mocking humor. We’ll start with a video portraying Somalia as a libertarian paradise, followed by cartoons on libertarian ice fishing and libertarian lifeguards, then an info-graphic showing 24 types of libertarians, and close with a poster showing how the world sees libertarians.
[…] good thing about being a libertarian is that real-world events repeatedly demonstrate that your skepticism of big government is fully […]
[…] Samuelson and Mark Steyn have made the same […]
[…] a government that does less and does it better deserves to be emphasized. Observers ranging from Mark Steyn to Robert Samuelson have pointed out that the federal government is more likely to do a good job […]
[…] observers ranging from Mark Steyn to Robert Samuelson have made the same […]
[…] “strong state” means government re-focusing on provision of genuine public goods, I’m very […]
[…] an inverse relationship between government efficiency and the size of government. And Mark Steyn made the same point, using humor, back in […]
[…] Mark Steyn llegó a la misma conclusión, usando el humor, en […]
[…] Mark Steyn made the same point, using humor, back in […]
[…] These studies echo what I wrote, using the Ebola virus as an example, about how smaller government is naturally more competent. And Mark Steyn made the same point, albeit in a more entertaining fashion. […]
[…] me, this is a reminder that the natural incompetence of government becomes worse the bigger it […]
Is this not perfectly obvious?
[…] Mark Steyn made the same point in a much more amusing fashion. […]
[…] As Mark Steyn has noted, what’s the point of having a bloated and sclerotic public sector if it doesn’t even do the […]
[…] Mark Steyn made the same point in a much more amusing fashion. […]
[…] As Mark Steyn has noted, what’s the point of having a bloated and sclerotic public sector if it doesn’t even do the […]
[…] As Mark Steyn has noted, what’s the point of having a bloated and sclerotic public sector if it doesn’t even do […]
[…] legitimate functions of government. Not just in Belgium, but all over the world. Here’s what I wrote on this issue back in […]
[…] should be given added power to extract more of our money and manipulate our spending is absurd. Laughably absurd if you read Mark […]
[…] should be given added power to extract more of our money and manipulate our spending is absurd. Laughably absurd if you read Mark […]
[…] argument that you get more sensible decisions when the public sector is limited (as Mark Steyn humorously explained) and there is clear responsibility and accountability at various levels of […]
[…] argument that you get more sensible decisions when the public sector is limited (as Mark Steyn humorously explained) and there is clear responsibility and accountability at various levels of […]
[…] of which, as government gets bigger and bigger, it becomes even less competent about fulfilling legitimate responsibilities such as thwarting people who want to kill […]
[…] of which, as government gets bigger and bigger, it becomes even less competent about fulfilling legitimate responsibilities such as thwarting people who want to kill […]
[…] of which, as government gets bigger and bigger, it becomes even less competent about fulfilling legitimate responsibilities such as thwarting people who want to kill […]
[…] my humble opinion, the most important point from the interview is that (as Mark Steyn explained in amusing fashion) you can’t have effective and competent government unless it’s also small […]
[…] my humble opinion, the most important point from the interview is that (as Mark Steyn explained in amusing fashion) you can’t have effective and competent government unless it’s also […]
Small government is a cart that requires a number of horses to make it actually work. First on that list is to design and implement properly designed social marketplaces that are driven by individuals and local communities, not centralized one-sized fits all programs.
The problem with the ‘small government’ mantra is it’s a horribly flawed concept that the politically bigoted left will rightly AND quickly jump on as a crazy idea that would take away all the centralized social marketplace benefits of the current one-sized-fits all centralized socialist social marketplaces.
Going to a small government first is like going naked out into a blizzard and then deciding how to design a coat, gloves, warm shoes, and pants. It’s only something that nutjobs would do.
So focus first on developing and implementing individually and locally driven social marketplaces. When that is achieved, small government will be the happy result.
[…] Steyn made the same point in a much more amusing […]
[…] For an amusing, yet insightful, look at the connection between government size and government competence, Mark Steyn nails it. […]
[…] only feasible answer is to have small government, as Mark Steyn has explained with his usual dose of sarcasm. A bloated public sector guarantees slipshod performance everywhere. […]
[…] only feasible answer is to have small government, as Mark Steyn has explained with his usual dose of sarcasm. A bloated public sector guarantees slipshod performance everywhere. […]
[…] is not a novel observation. Mark Steyn humorously observed, “our government is more expensive than any government in history – and we have nothing […]
[…] is not a novel observation. Mark Steyn humorously observed, “our government is more expensive than any government in history – and we have nothing to show […]
[…] to have competent and effective government if it is limited in size and scope. Or, as Mark Steyn humorously observed, “our government is more expensive than any government in history – and we have nothing to show […]
[…] to have competent and effective government if it is limited in size and scope. Or, as Mark Steyn humorously observed, “our government is more expensive than any government in history – and we have nothing to show […]
[…] government is the best way to achieve competent and effective government. Coolidge and his team were able to monitor government and run it efficiently because the federal […]
[…] Steyn has a much more logical analysis on this topic, writing that you’re much more likely to have competent government when you limit the power […]
[…] I want their efforts to be concentrated and effective. And if our government is so big and bloated that we can’t monitor and stop known bad guys […]
[…] quoting from a very funny Mark Steyn column, I explained last year that there is an inverse relationship between the size of government and its competence and […]
[…] government is the best way to achieve competent and effective government. Coolidge and his team were able to monitor government and run it efficiently because the federal […]
[…] government is the best way to achieve competent and effective government. Coolidge and his team were able to monitor government and run it efficiently because the federal […]
To quote George Washington: Government is not reason. Government is not eloquence. It is Force. And, like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master.” …. No administration illlustrates this quote better than the Obama administration.
Please remove my name from your mailing list and discontinue sending me email. Thanks.
Reblogged this on Gds44's Blog.
There’s a section giving compelling reasons for why government should leave business to business in the articles exploring your approach to life at:
http://www.lifestrategies.net/secret-of-success/approach-to-life/is-their-approach-viable/#business
When bureaucrats have no penalty for failure, they can’t be fired, and the people who pay them are not the ones who receive the “service” they provide then, as Professor Thomas Sowell points out:
“It is hard to imagine a more stupid or more dangerous way of making decisions than by putting those decisions in the hands of people who pay no price for being wrong.”