The Government We Love To Hate

The tea party contingent has arrived in Washington operating under some erroneous concepts. Their philosophical underpinnings seem to be wrapped up in a simpler time when government may have been legitimately not needed or wanted.

Society, however has changed dramatically from the days of the wild west or even the family farm. A farmer with two strong sons may well not have needed government. He took his corn and potatoes to market and wanted to be left alone. His life and that of his family were in many ways self sufficient. How many families do you know who live that kind of life today? The whole issue of complex farm subsidies suggests that we live in a different world today.

Today's world is in fact much more complex. We need governemnt to do many things we can't do for ourselves. An argument focusing on the role of government during the early days of our constitution considered the issue of the banking system. The issue of whether or not to have a national bank of course takes us back to Alexander Hamilton and Thomas Jefferson. Later we had the example of Republican Dwight Eisenhower developing the interstate highway system. In each case eventually it became clear that these kinds of changes, improvements, developments were needed "to form a more perfect union, insure domestic tranquility," etc. Important decisions over the course of the history of this country were ultimately made on the practical basis of what was needed to move the interests of the people and the country forward, not rigidly on some arcane interpretation of the meaning of states rights. In general, politicians tend to favor states rights and limited governemtnt until and unless an issue comes along that is in their best interests or that demands a looser interpretation of strict constructionism in order for the country to make meaningful progress.

Why are we returning to fight these same battles today? I believe it is because of an attachment to ideology that ignores the reality of the day. Important issues need to be discussed and appropriate solutions need to be found, but it is not possible when one side uses states rights as a mantra to insist that the federal government stay out of practically every issue. The government needs to be involved when necessary and should stay out of matters if it is not needed. Yet it is also true that in this increasingly complex world fewer and fewer people can do everything for themeselves. We live in an interdependent society, and the rugged individualism of the frontier, while a nice idea, neeeds to be tempered with a healthy dose of reality which appears to be missing in a lot of the new faces in Washingtin.

Health care is an important example. The new mantra is that the individual mandate is unconstitutional even though it was initially a Republican idea. Clearly the federal government impacts the lives of individuals in many ways and has throughout our history. The federal government mandates that you provide information to census workers, that you have a social security card, that you pay into the social security system, that you pay federal income tax, that you sign up for medicare at age 65. The list goes on and on. We elect representatives to run our government and make laws and we vote them out of office if we disagree with their actions. Yet most Americans believe much of the social contract that has been established including social security and medicare conform to our beliefs as a people and are not interested in doing away with programs that have becom a part of the American system.

In a typical third world conutry like the Philippines, no one receives care without money. Recently a family member experienced the need for life saving surgery and until they could come up with more than a million pesos (around $600,000 dollars) surgery was withheld. Certainly the poor will not be among those receiving such life saving surgery. We are developing a disturbing notion among some in this country that if I have good health insurance or the ability to pay, the situation confronting others is of no concern to me. Is that the American way? I don't even think it was the frontier way. We are often told how the entire community would come together to help the neighbor rebuild his house if it had been destroyed by fire. The problem is our duty to our neighbor needs to be handled differently today because we no longer live in such self sustaining communities. We need hospitals, roads, libraries. schools, and a myriad of other services. No man is an island. The unfiltered notion that government has no role in any of these areas represents fuzzy or flawed thinking.

I can understand that if you are 22 years old and healthy you may not feel you should be forced to buy health insurance. The problem is you will not always be 22 and healthy. Eveyone is required to pay into social security because otherwwise there would be no fund for older people to draw on.

Do we not need a social compact that says we believe in the American dream and we will not put obstacles in the way of all our fellow citizens reaching that goal. Just because I have my needs met does that mean we are finished? Again. health care is a good example. No one can afford to pay today's enormous health care costs. That's what insurance is all about. We all need it. We need a system that provides everyone with coverage, and where necessary provides subsidies for those who cannot afford it. When everyone participates the cost for each of us is reduced. Why sohould you care? Do you want poor people or children sick or dying at the entrances of our hospitals? Do you want the uninsured to continue to be subsidized by taxpayuer dollars at emergency rooms; and is that the most efficient use of our health care dollars? Do you want, in a country with the best available health care resources and services, that same health care system closed to large numbers of our citizenry? Will that make this a better country and will it make you a more secure individual or family?

Going back to my example of the Philippines, I recall my visit there with my wife shortly after we were married in the early 70's. The poor living conditions and poverty were striking but perhaps not totally unexpected. What really hit me was that all of the well to do families lived in compounds with gatehouses and guards. I found that disturbing that communities found it necessary to live this way. We are seeing a good deal of this now in our own country. Instead of progressing is it our desire to become more like the Philippines, Haiti, or other such countries? Are we committed to expanding the gap between rich and poor in our country, and squeezing the middle class even further? Many of our policies and proposed policies are moving us in that direction. The House of Representatives read the constitution to begin its new session. Is that the message of the constitution - every man for himself - government need not concern itself with those in need? I hope not.