Getting To Smaller, Responsible Levels Of Government Takes A Lot More Work
By: Doug Busselman, Executive Vice President
While watching an elected Nevada representative last night on television, being grilled by a Southern Nevada political pundit (who thinks he has all the answers, but has to ask others for theirs) it struck me that supporting less government isn’t actually the easiest thing to do.
Supposedly, if you don’t think that government is and should be all things to all people, providing a wide range of services – from jobs to health care…handouts from cradle to grave – you are not only plain wrong, you are also uncaring, greedy and someone who old people should fear. If you believe and advance the cause that government is the central reason anything can happen that’s worthwhile and businesses should simply fork over whatever their profits might be to support the government’s ability to provide – we’re supposed to call your office and thank you for being so wonderful. (In case you haven’t noticed this is what we are supposed to understand the entire U.S. Senate election is all about…and possibly all of the November election choices.)
Someone once said, “Socialism is a great system – until you run out of other people’s money.” This is about where we are with the state of our government – nationally and statewide here in Nevada. Those who are seeing their money run out from a devastated economy or concerned about whether the government takers are going to take all that remains – are miffed and hopefully agitated to the point of un-electing the legislators who have gotten us to this place.
Meanwhile, those dependent on or supported by the checkbooks of government (state or national) can’t seem to fathom why paying more taxes is such a problem. They see things in the context that those who have should be giving…because those who take need more.
When this philosophy is so rampant and thought to be the only rationale way of seeing the world, suggesting otherwise isn’t all that easy. It requires thoughtful responses (which the crowds of “just give us more” aren’t interested in hearing anyway) to say, “Let’s spend some time in setting priorities on spending, make sure we’re getting our money’s worth for what is being spent – and then see what extra (if any) tax dollars might be necessary.”
It’s obvious that isn’t where the political party in charge of government today would like to see things go and so their campaign messages are simply on trying to build up the shortfall, rant over how sorry things are that more isn’t being just automatically bestowed and vilify any who even consider less as being the appropriate direction. Their power comes from being in charge of handing out and having the authority to take – handing out less and taking less is perceived as retraction of that power.
Again, supporting less and developing the components of more meaningful public services which deliver specific outcomes and are held accountable for meeting needs on a limited/sustainable basis, is just a lot more work than ducking responsibility and demanding more.
As we look to November it would be encouraging to discover that voters aren’t going to continue to fall for the faulty choice of bigger government. A much better course would be buying into the concept of electing thoughtful representatives who understand that limited, constrained government and advancement of opportunity for the private sector is the answer.
While watching an elected Nevada representative last night on television, being grilled by a Southern Nevada political pundit (who thinks he has all the answers, but has to ask others for theirs) it struck me that supporting less government isn’t actually the easiest thing to do.
Supposedly, if you don’t think that government is and should be all things to all people, providing a wide range of services – from jobs to health care…handouts from cradle to grave – you are not only plain wrong, you are also uncaring, greedy and someone who old people should fear. If you believe and advance the cause that government is the central reason anything can happen that’s worthwhile and businesses should simply fork over whatever their profits might be to support the government’s ability to provide – we’re supposed to call your office and thank you for being so wonderful. (In case you haven’t noticed this is what we are supposed to understand the entire U.S. Senate election is all about…and possibly all of the November election choices.)
Someone once said, “Socialism is a great system – until you run out of other people’s money.” This is about where we are with the state of our government – nationally and statewide here in Nevada. Those who are seeing their money run out from a devastated economy or concerned about whether the government takers are going to take all that remains – are miffed and hopefully agitated to the point of un-electing the legislators who have gotten us to this place.
Meanwhile, those dependent on or supported by the checkbooks of government (state or national) can’t seem to fathom why paying more taxes is such a problem. They see things in the context that those who have should be giving…because those who take need more.
When this philosophy is so rampant and thought to be the only rationale way of seeing the world, suggesting otherwise isn’t all that easy. It requires thoughtful responses (which the crowds of “just give us more” aren’t interested in hearing anyway) to say, “Let’s spend some time in setting priorities on spending, make sure we’re getting our money’s worth for what is being spent – and then see what extra (if any) tax dollars might be necessary.”
It’s obvious that isn’t where the political party in charge of government today would like to see things go and so their campaign messages are simply on trying to build up the shortfall, rant over how sorry things are that more isn’t being just automatically bestowed and vilify any who even consider less as being the appropriate direction. Their power comes from being in charge of handing out and having the authority to take – handing out less and taking less is perceived as retraction of that power.
Again, supporting less and developing the components of more meaningful public services which deliver specific outcomes and are held accountable for meeting needs on a limited/sustainable basis, is just a lot more work than ducking responsibility and demanding more.
As we look to November it would be encouraging to discover that voters aren’t going to continue to fall for the faulty choice of bigger government. A much better course would be buying into the concept of electing thoughtful representatives who understand that limited, constrained government and advancement of opportunity for the private sector is the answer.
Posted by Doug Busselman at 6/23/2010 5:43 AM 
Categories: 2010 Elections
Tags: Nevada Budget State Spending Taxes 2010 Election Government
Categories: 2010 Elections
Tags: Nevada Budget State Spending Taxes 2010 Election Government
Comments