Government is too big, too obtrusive, the critics say. The only solution is to rid ourselves of the rats in office and pare back the bureaucracy.
But how did government get this way? Has it really ceased being of the people and for the people? Maybe not.
Take this tale as an example.
A bunch of cotton farmers grew tired of old boll weevil eating up their profits, so they banded together and decided on a plan to eradicate the bug.
In order to do this effectively, a whole bunch of factors had to come together. And pretty much the only way to make the whole thing work was to involve the government. Only the government could pass the laws that would ensure that everyone participated in the program because the program only works if every cotton farmer participates. And only the government could enforce penalties for failing to participate.
Funding for the program intially came mostly from the farmers, but government funds, state and federal, would be needed to fully fund operations. In case you didn't immediately think it, government funds mean taxpayer dollars.
Eventually, to convince all the state's farmers to participate, more and more government funds were needed. Yep, that means more taxpayer funds.
In addition, government agencies would need to provide oversight. This didn't necessarily mean that new employees would be hired, but the time they spent on this program would be footed by taxpayers as well.
To accomplish all this, the cotton farmers had to convince legislators to pass the necessary laws and work to obtain the necessary funding. They would be sweet-talked and pressured, whatever was needed to bring about the enabling legislation.
That's an abbreviated version of the process, but think about this: Groups of people in every state work on their elected representatives from every level -- from city councils to the U.S. Congress -- to convince them that in the case of whatever they want, "there oughta be a law."
And when the law is passed, often money has to be spent, and that money comes from us.
So, I ask you, gentle reader, where does the problem lie?
Now add to that the services we think we have to have. Public schools, libraries, infrastructure, police and fire protection -- the list goes on and on.
Residents of a town say, "Hey, we need a new water tower." (Or something else; pick your own example.)
They go to the city and say, "Buy us a new water tower," and city officials say, "We can't. We don't have the money. We can raise your taxes."
The residents say, "No way, but you better get us a water tower, or we'll find a new council."
So the council calls its state officials who may find funds to help out. If not, council members go to the feds.
I ask again, where does the problem lie?
Is it possible, to badly paraphrase Shakespeare, that the problem, dear friends, lies not in the politicians, but ourselves?
