Is the Goal SMALL Government or LIMITED Government? – Patriot Update

Is the Goal SMALL Government or LIMITED Government? – Patriot Update

Is the Goal SMALL Government or LIMITED Government?
Written on December 17, 2011 by David Goetsch

13


Because of the excesses of the Obama administration, conservatives are being more vocal about the concept of “small government.” I understand what is meant when my conservative colleagues use the term “small government” but am on a crusade to convince them to use the term “limited government” instead. We need to be more precise in our terminology because liberals have a well-earned reputation for co-opting terms and deceitfully transforming them in ways that suit their agenda (e.g. “progressive” for “liberal” and “choice” for “abortion”).

When conservatives use the term “big government,” they mean unlimited government—government that has grown too big. When they use the term “small government” they mean government that operates within the constraints of the Constitution. The federal government is too big because it has grown beyond the scope of its Constitutional boundaries. What was intended by the founders to be a limited federal government that carried out specific enumerated duties has, over time, become an unlimited monstrosity that goes well beyond its enumerated duties and any reasonable interpretation of the duties that were not enumerated. Hence, the term unlimited government has become synonymous with the term big government. However, the differences in the two concepts—thought subtle—are important.

The federal government should be as big as is necessary to carry out its enumerated duties and no bigger. Hence, limit the scope of government and you will limit its size correspondingly. Conservatives understand this relationship between Constitutional constraints and the size of government. The problem with using the terms big government and small government is that liberals think the best way to have “small” government is to cut the military. While there is no doubt that massive cuts to the military will shrink the size of government, one must question the veracity of this approach.

Liberals are now using the language of conservatives to justify drastic military cuts while ignoring those aspects of the federal budget that clearly exceed enumerated Constitutional limits. Conservatives must take the initiative in redirecting the course of the debate. The issue is Constitutional limits, not government size per se. When the debate is properly directed, liberals will have to justify spending billions on such governmental agencies as the Departments of Education, Commerce, and Labor as well as on regulatory bodies such as the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). In addition, liberals and conservatives will have to do the hard work of dealing with out-of-control spending in the federal government’s three biggest entitlement programs—Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid/Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP).







13
This entry was posted in Uncategorized and tagged featured, perspective. Bookmark the permalink.
26 Responses to Is the Goal SMALL Government or LIMITED Government?

nvrpc says:
December 17, 2011 at 11:02 pm
We don’t want to cut DOE i.e the miltary or its hardware, what we want to cut is social program except SS and Medicare like welfare, free college eduaction for illegal aliens, aid to foreign countries, abolish the UN, abolish the IRS, abolish IANSA.

+9

Reply
The Enemy says:
December 18, 2011 at 8:07 am
nvrpc: And we should START by de-funding the EPA to bare bones and reducing their REGULATORY authority to ADVISORY authority to Congress only. Let Congress make the decisions on what regulations are needed to balance protection of the environment with preserving a good business climate.

+16

Reply
nvrpc says:
December 18, 2011 at 9:39 am
I agree however I have no problem with CAT on vehicles and moving towards alternative energy like solar, geothermal, wave and wind and I do like the fact that they stop corporations from throwing chemicals into the ground and waterways and make people wear protective clothing when handling toxic waste, etc.. If you think about this the only reason goods are produced overseas cheaply and sold here for 1000% profit is because those countries are killing their own people by not complying to some of our EPA rules. Things won’t be so cheap once they fall under the same rules we do.

+1

Reply
sid says:
December 18, 2011 at 8:39 pm
“THE UNITED “STATES” OF AMERICA”!!!the states govern themselves, with the government, filling in the spaces!!!

0

Reply
Pat says:
December 18, 2011 at 7:58 pm
When teh EPA went so far as to decree that spilled milk was a hazardous material and requiring dairies and farmers to treat it as such, they overstepped the bounds of protecting people and went to harassing small farmers and dairies. Where are their statistics on how many thousands of people have been killed or injured by spilled milk?
I was horrified to learn that all the times in my life I have cleaned up spilled milk that I may have damaged my health and that of my children and their unborn children.LOL

+6

Reply
Dan Rykard says:
December 18, 2011 at 8:17 pm
Great start, keep on going the EPA and put Americans back to work.

+1

Reply
Rain says:
December 18, 2011 at 8:35 pm
I belive SS was part of the unimited Government problem. People could have saved for their own retirement if it wasn’t for the tax for SS. As for Medicare, that was the start of the massive Government overspending. People should be responsible for their own health. I am 82 yrs old and think all these Government programs should be done away with.

0

Reply
ldmstr says:
December 17, 2011 at 11:57 pm
To understand how the “Founding Fathers” whiched our government to function you only need to read the “Federalist Papers”. These documents were written by our leadership that wrote our Constitution. They express how our government was to be formed with the States maintaining most of the political power and the Federal government formed as a way for the states to work together for the benefit of the union. As the Constitution states all powers not given to the federal government within the Constitution belong to the states. There must be a re-writing of how our government operates. The reduction of federal government and the transfere of power back to the states will benefit all. The union was formed to allow the states to govern themselves as they saw fit within the restraint of the mutual agreements between the states.

The democrats believe reducing the size of the government means that they start with the military budget. They do not trust the military in that we pledge to “protect and defend the Constitutuion of the United States”, and then sware to obey those placed above us as commanders. The military will defend the Constitution first before following an unlaw order from the president or any leadership in the chain of command of the military.

In shrinking the military the democrats believe they will maintain control of the military by limiting how it can react to a threat against this country. The dems believe our military is a threat to world peace in that we will defend ourselves against all enemies “foreign or domestic”. Would the military react against a federal government that is violating the rights of our citizens and defend those rights. A government looking to move our country closer to socialistic ideals and “fundamentally change our country” into a more “fair and equal society” where there are no rich and there are no poor. Where everyone is treated equally under the law. The problem is that our government was not created to protect the people from want. It was created to guarentee freedom of choice where we can be whom ever we choose. Where we can invest our money to create a better life for ourselves and our families. Where people work to gain the what they want in life, not expecting these same things to be handed to them.

Federal government needs to be reduced back to the limits set by the Constitution. Get rid of the departments that are not part of the original plan of our Founding Fathers. Our Consitution is not a living document in the sence of it continually changing with time. It is the guideline in the forming of our government and the limiting document in our governments forming. Get rid of those departments that are not necessary under the Constitution and transfere those responsibilites back to the states. The federal government should maintain and protect our borders, protect us from foreign enemies, and be an arbitor between the states. The federal government should not dictate how the states govern their people or the lands within their borders. The states have agreed to come together under the Constitution and be governed by this agreement, but they did not agree to give up their rights to govern their people. It has been the federal government who has over time taken away these rights from the states and its people. Getting back to the original intent of our founding would be the greatest gift given to the people of the United States.

+9

Reply
The Enemy says:
December 18, 2011 at 8:02 am
How about using the term “Constitutional Government”? The Constitution defines the role and scope intended for the central government and Congress should be striving to put the lion (feds) back onto its cage (Constitutional box).

+9

Reply
fliteking says:
December 18, 2011 at 8:59 am
“Is the Goal SMALL Government or LIMITED Government?”

A LIMITED Govt that molds to the needs of the people rather than attempting to mold the people to the Govt needs.

Liberals: Sound out the big words.

+7

Reply
SACCI says:
December 18, 2011 at 7:25 pm
I believe you all are having a problem, Obama the kenyan british subject has had a non transparent meeting with canada’s big wig, and they have now joined in a manner at our northern border, so’s that we are almost one as called in one world government crap , the north american union, and means i think , The U K and queenie and all those to many muslims over there will be running america. Or am i only half correct? Better stop nigling about big or small fight ing Dr. Ron Paul, not if you smart. he has a good start. People are sick of the prick in the white house, with a mouse, or not Obamas is a spoiled snot spoiled snot.

+1

Reply
Adrian Vance says:
December 18, 2011 at 10:10 am
How about “Small and limisted,” that has a nice ring and it will bring back the America in which I grew up and did well.

The Two Minute Conservative at http://adrianvance.blogspot.com for political analysis, science and humor. Daily on Kindle.

+2

Reply
SACCI says:
December 18, 2011 at 7:33 pm
Sorry it is queer, did you notice the shoes on the man with the tan? Queer means different strange dictionary…gay means happy, and non of them are says an R N . They have a lot of diseases, so they cant be very happy or gy , Which Grimmes Fairy Tales, use the word often in telling the weird little English stories, people, who cant do those things except by stories, covers the word fairies. fairies are frolicy little non people flying about, and gay people they are happy people. The hell with P C , queers are sad. sad sacks.

+1

Reply
Shane says:
December 18, 2011 at 10:10 am
Yes, we do need a limited govt. but if the SC approves of Obamacare, the feds will have almost unlimited power to meddle in our lives. We must make it our first priority to support the GOP presidential candidate, even if you don’t think he is conservative enough. Allowing Obama to appoint more SC justices will have a huge negative impact on American’s personal freedom. The two justices Obama picked are liberal judicial activists.

+5

Reply
Steven F says:
December 18, 2011 at 7:15 pm
Is the Goal SMALL Government or LIMITED Government?

ONLY small government will stay limited and ONLY limited government will stay small. Without ACTIVE supervision of the citizens, NEITHER will be maintained.

OK, now to read the article and find out the authors idea of the difference.

+5

Reply
Steven F says:
December 18, 2011 at 7:20 pm
After reading the article, I don’t disagree with the argument. As pointed out in the article, the 2 concepts go hand in hand.

+2

Reply
Randy131 says:
December 18, 2011 at 7:22 pm
The goal should be both small government and limited goverment, because small government is a cheaper government and by making it easier to live within it’s means, and a limited government gets the samll government out of the lives of individual Americans and also stops the government from interfering with businesses that will create a better job creation climate without all those job killing regulations. Smaller and limited government means better government for the American people.

+5

Reply
Abigail Adams says:
December 18, 2011 at 7:50 pm
Randy131, I like the way you stated that; excellent!

0

Reply
Bruce Feher says:
December 18, 2011 at 7:29 pm
BOTH! With the exception of Defense and maybe the courts there isn’t anything the government can to better than the private sector!

+4

Reply
Dean says:
December 18, 2011 at 7:43 pm
I agree with everyone above that said: BOTH

+1

Reply
Patrick Duffy says:
December 18, 2011 at 7:44 pm
The real problem is that the people are not in control of the size of government – government is. Government WANTS to grow itself, and the bureaucrats are in control of the spending, not the voters. Every time there is an attempt by the people to limit its size (Tea Party movement for example), there is a government-employee uprising, and threats to shut it down. The Wisconsin riots are another good example. The people should be determing the size of government by the amount of tax THEY are willing to pay, NOT how much GOVERNMENT WANTS TO SPEND – PERIOD.

+1

Reply
June says:
December 18, 2011 at 8:07 pm
We want a Constitutional government and a strong military who protects us. We want the theives out of Washington, checks on them to see that they steal no more, see that they quit trying to change our laws to suit themselves for their own selfish ideals ,and our country, under God, back, as a leader of the free world. We do not want a socialist government.

+1

Reply
enough says:
December 18, 2011 at 8:10 pm
It is not an “either or”. We want a very small, limited, government.
What we have today fails BOTH tests.

0

Reply
VegasLarry says:
December 18, 2011 at 8:13 pm
Limited or smaller? Try both!

+1

Reply
Ann Wilson Kingsley says:
December 18, 2011 at 8:40 pm
Limited government does not necessarily mean “small”, so I prefer “small”. You could call it “little” government. That is even better than “small” because we want less regulation and a smaller government.

One person commented that they did not want to get rid of the DOE. When the DOE is eliminated, the plan is to move programs necessary to the military to the Department of Defense. Defense will not be compromised by eliminating the DOE.

The plan for eliminating all of the targeted government agencies calls for turning some of their functions over to other government agencies, and in some cases necessary functions will be turned back to the states.

0

Reply
Jack Hotchkiss says:
December 18, 2011 at 8:43 pm
Both!!!

0

Reply
Leave a Reply