HOW MUCH GOVERNMENT IS TOO MUCH?

Can government in this country ever be simplified to essentials?

Probably not.

Should we who care for the beauty and presumed workability of the Constitution even try?

We must.

Government is necessary. That cannot be doubted or denied.

Too much defeats government’s purpose.

Too little government brings political disorder, violence. Too much can bring anarchy, which is defined as absence of government or political disorder.

Problem: how much is the correct amount or force of government?

One of Thomas Jefferson’s quotations about government is this: “A wise and frugal Government, which shall restrain men from injuring one another, which shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned. This is the sum of good government, and this is necessary to close the circlue [sic] of our felicities.”

Enough government maintains order; discourages yet deals with disorder, which includes crime as well as unfairness; permits the pursuit of livelihood plus savings; protects individual freedom and liberty that do not impinge the commonweal, ensures private property. Such a description comes close to enough is enough, but can be debated. Admittedly, achieving the correct imposition of governmental control is Solomonic. One citizen’s wisdom is another’s folly.

Also, it seems logical that the various levels of government should have their place and their legitimate jurisdictions --- from sewerage and fire districts in some states, to town, village, city, county, state and national governments. That brings to mind the adage about government closest to the people. Henry David Thoreau said, “That government is best which governs least, because its people discipline themselves.”  But then there is the recent example of a small city in California that paid its officials salaries usually restricted of business magnates. And, there are some indications that Washington has taken over functions better fitted to lower governmental units that failed in those responsibilities.

In today’s United States, conservatives believe too much government weighs down its citizens; liberals believe only government that addresses all public and private concerns can suffice. Conservatives see a surfeit of government has already been imposed and few if any new laws are required; liberals are convinced halcyon days of governing are yet to be realized. In fairness, neither conservative nor liberal wants dictatorship, yet any agreement on outside limits of governmental control of citizens’ lives seems beyond reach.

Regardless of one’s perspective, no serious measure has been taken of government by elected officials at any level of governance. That may be going too far, but over the years, how many examples can be cited? Some states have had study committees or commissions, some even have rewritten state constitutions, but most states have constitutions that are as bulky as a statute book¸ and which require frequent amendment. From time to time, even the federal government has studied taxes, or health, or budgeting. But most studies get nowhere after publication. Some jurisdictions have offices that prepare bills making routine changes in existing laws, so routine that little notice is paid.

Complaints are heard from time to time about 70,000-plus pages in the federal tax code, hundreds of programs that duplicate governmental functions, rule-making that multiplies the bulk of legislative measures that gained passage without being read by the elected lawmakers. Page after page could be written here reminding readers of examples they have heard about: irrigation waters cut off to farmers, oil leases not issued, endangered insects given priority over human beings, completed factories stopped from opening, additives mandated that actually negate their purpose. Endless examples could, and are, argued over every day somewhere. Yet hardly anything is ever resolved. Nearly every day a legislator proposes a hearing or a law because of a news item and the opportunity to make political hay; and someone – entrepreneur or politician or academic or victim or newsmaker – stands to win or lose should that proposal become final.

How might meaningful reform come about? Leadership is the one-word answer. Yet leaders are few. Real leaders are just about always found to have feet of clay. Or their virtues are turned into liabilities. A presidential candidate would find it hard to center his or her campaign on governmental reform. Other urgent topics would necessarily impose themselves.

Reformation issue by issue may be the only answer. Take something such as cigarettes. For maybe a century everybody knew that cigarettes were bad fer ‘ya. “Coffin nails.” Who hadn’t heard that phrase? Out came the surgeon general’s report on the dangers of smoking in the ‘60s, and the assault began to have some impact. Now, a half century later, cigarette smoking in the United States is down, but not out. Cigarette makers are dependent upon smokers in other lands and other cultures for their profits. But cigarettes and other tobacco products, although regulated, are still legal and public treasuries are still dependent upon tobacco tax revenues. The point is that a common sense issue has been dealt with more by public self-discipline than by governmental action. Warnings on cigarette packs remain controversial and advertising limitations haven’t stopped a significant minority from stepping out into the cold weather for a drag or two.

And maybe some governmental regulations do help. One of those may affect automobile and truck tires. Older drivers remember when they replaced tires often, perhaps every 10,000 miles, because of wear. Manufacturers have made strides, and better cars require better materials between wheels and road, but surely the safety regulations must have something to do with tires now lasting 50,000 miles and longer.

Those kinds of material matters are easier to perceive than philosophical concerns, such as fair trials, public union representation, immigration law and its enforcement (another beginning of a list that could entail thousands of words). The essentials of government encompass concrete and abstract ideas and ideals. Most people, regardless of their political leanings, should agree that our governmental foundation in the United States of America is sound although needing some mortar at the joints. The superstructure, however, is appearing more and more to be jerrybuilt.

A correct amount of government will require some demolition, some reconstruction, and, of course, a blueprint.

No real hope in renewing the structure can be had until enough citizens – voters – start to take responsibility for the work ahead. No good to worry about a time-line for completion. There should be worry, nevertheless, about making the start.