What You Believe About Limiting Government Doesn’t Make You Anti-Government
By: Doug Busselman, Executive Vice President
While reading this editorial from today’s Las Vegas Sun I was struck with the notion that another myth needs to be dispelled…a proposal which attempts to discredit those of us who consider limited government as a worthy goal to advance. Simply put, our values of government which fit within the boundaries of constitutional parameters and the ability of citizens to afford doesn’t make us anti-government. Government has proper roles and responsibilities to fulfill – and if they were staying within those constraints and additional tax revenue were required to meet the obligations – then prudent action would be for the tax increases to be levied, with all citizens making contribution to cover the costs.
It is our serious contention that such is not the case with the expansions that have been taking place in the size and scope of government. Various “services” made possible by taking money in the form of taxes from one group to cover the wishes or perhaps even needs of others is not the role government is supposed to play, given the nature and construction of the government we have. Our concerns over the transition of government to the role of sole provider to any number of individuals demonstrates the conflicts which exist between what government is supposed to be and what it has become (with the anticipation of even more).
The advancement of the philosophy that the private sector owes government is part of this same misplaced attitude, placing government at the core of our society, using its powers to tax as the funding source and its regulatory authority for expansion and control beyond the limits of appropriate government. We are being forced to serve government’s wants and needs, supposedly for the benefit of those who are unable or unwilling to take responsibility for their own needs or wants. Charity belongs in the private sector’s realm of responsibility not as part of a government mandate.
Problems which are portrayed as government having a lack of resources to provide services imply that all services provided or desired from government are “essential” services. Here is where the public focus needs to start…identifying what the services deemed “essential” are to be. Then the criteria need to be developed which provides the basis for evaluating how public objectives will be measured in order to make certain we are getting our money’s worth. Throughout this process the consideration of private sector and individual roles/responsibilities need to be the benchmark against which need for government involvement has to be weighed. If an individual taking responsibility for themselves or their family’s needs/wants will preclude a government program – there should be no reason for that type of government program to be instituted or maintained. Likewise, if a private enterprise venture can accomplish the benefits of a service provided by a government sector bureaucrat – replacement of the bureaucrat or not ever starting the bureaucracy should be the approach to be taken.
The constant refrain of needing government to do more and the automatic response of requiring more tax revenue to accomplish these perceived needs must be met with the simple and direct reply of “No”. Yes, I was there when one of our state Senators made the pronouncement on the Senate floor this past Special Legislative Session that “No” is not a responsible or appropriate point of view to have. However, I also suffer from the misconception that government is accountable to citizens – not the other way around…
While reading this editorial from today’s Las Vegas Sun I was struck with the notion that another myth needs to be dispelled…a proposal which attempts to discredit those of us who consider limited government as a worthy goal to advance. Simply put, our values of government which fit within the boundaries of constitutional parameters and the ability of citizens to afford doesn’t make us anti-government. Government has proper roles and responsibilities to fulfill – and if they were staying within those constraints and additional tax revenue were required to meet the obligations – then prudent action would be for the tax increases to be levied, with all citizens making contribution to cover the costs.
It is our serious contention that such is not the case with the expansions that have been taking place in the size and scope of government. Various “services” made possible by taking money in the form of taxes from one group to cover the wishes or perhaps even needs of others is not the role government is supposed to play, given the nature and construction of the government we have. Our concerns over the transition of government to the role of sole provider to any number of individuals demonstrates the conflicts which exist between what government is supposed to be and what it has become (with the anticipation of even more).
The advancement of the philosophy that the private sector owes government is part of this same misplaced attitude, placing government at the core of our society, using its powers to tax as the funding source and its regulatory authority for expansion and control beyond the limits of appropriate government. We are being forced to serve government’s wants and needs, supposedly for the benefit of those who are unable or unwilling to take responsibility for their own needs or wants. Charity belongs in the private sector’s realm of responsibility not as part of a government mandate.
Problems which are portrayed as government having a lack of resources to provide services imply that all services provided or desired from government are “essential” services. Here is where the public focus needs to start…identifying what the services deemed “essential” are to be. Then the criteria need to be developed which provides the basis for evaluating how public objectives will be measured in order to make certain we are getting our money’s worth. Throughout this process the consideration of private sector and individual roles/responsibilities need to be the benchmark against which need for government involvement has to be weighed. If an individual taking responsibility for themselves or their family’s needs/wants will preclude a government program – there should be no reason for that type of government program to be instituted or maintained. Likewise, if a private enterprise venture can accomplish the benefits of a service provided by a government sector bureaucrat – replacement of the bureaucrat or not ever starting the bureaucracy should be the approach to be taken.
The constant refrain of needing government to do more and the automatic response of requiring more tax revenue to accomplish these perceived needs must be met with the simple and direct reply of “No”. Yes, I was there when one of our state Senators made the pronouncement on the Senate floor this past Special Legislative Session that “No” is not a responsible or appropriate point of view to have. However, I also suffer from the misconception that government is accountable to citizens – not the other way around…
Posted by Doug Busselman at 3/9/2010 6:20 AM 
Categories: Government
Tags: Nevada Budget State Spending Taxes Nevada Legislature Government
Categories: Government
Tags: Nevada Budget State Spending Taxes Nevada Legislature Government
Comments