OPINION | The High Cost of Small Government

by Lola E. Peters

Before declaring whether government should be large or small, don't we need to determine what, exactly, is government? Most people think of the various agencies and legislative bodies as government, but are they government, or just manifestations of government?

What do you and I have in common? Our gender? Maybe. Our lifestyle? Maybe. Our religion? Maybe. Our education? Maybe. Our moral compass? Maybe.

In reality, we all have some things in common, but the one thing we all share, absolutely, is our residence within certain geographic boundaries. Yes, those boundaries are artificial and created by generations long gone, but they are the active boundaries of our existence. So how do we come to agreements about the way we share the space within those boundaries? If your way of life impinges on mine, how do we decide which, if either, prevails? How do we decide on the consequences for any damage I may cause you or your property?

That is government. It's the method we use to agree on how we live together within the geographic boundaries we inhabit, and what happens when those agreements are broken.

Since the founding of the United States of America, there have been those who argue for small government. Their argument boils down to this: Fewer agreements and fewer avenues or methods of accountability are better. This argument may make sense in a small, agrarian society with fewer than 250 people, but how do you live in a region with hundreds of thousands or millions of people with few agreements and few methods of accountability?

If one person wants to dump all their trash in a local river, and their downstream neighbors suffer the consequence of pollution, wouldn't it make sense to have an agreement among all those along the river about how it is and isn't to be used? Wouldn't there need to be a mechanism for enforcing that agreement, and consequences for breaking the agreement?

If one religious community believes children should be beaten and another does not, who decides how children are disciplined in school? Shouldn't the entire community create those standards as well as consequences for breaking them?

If an employer pays workers so little that they can't afford shelter or food, causing them to be homeless, desperate, and reliant on the rest of the community, doesn't the entire community benefit from agreements requiring employers to pay a livable wage?

Doctors who do harm to their patients should be held accountable. Construction companies shouldn't be able to build shoddy structures without consequence. Car dealerships shouldn't be able to sell dangerous vehicles.

From how we live in our shared environment to the ways we drive and how business is conducted, we have the choice of making agreements with one another or leaving things to chance. Because it would be unwieldy for all of us to meet up and make those agreements, we've created a system where we choose people to represent our point of view. Those people are called council members or legislators, depending on what geographic entity they're representing us in. And the agreements they make on our behalf are called laws. The mechanisms for enforcing those agreements are called agencies or departments. The people who enforce the agreements are called staff. The more agencies and departments, the more agreements we've made and the clearer the methods of accountability.

Those who advocate for small government are actually asking for fewer agreements and systems of accountability. For example, they want to dismantle the Environmental Protection Agency, which has responsibility for ensuring individuals and corporations don't destroy the quality of the waters, air, and earth within our boundaries. They also want to disassemble the federal Department of Education so all education will be privatized and capitalized rather than a product of our long-standing — though not yet fully realized — agreement that every child should have the opportunity to learn and develop their innate skills and talents.

Imagine the cost to our society of removing just these two agencies. Then think of all the other services, from Seattle City Light to Washington State Parks to the design and maintenance of roads and bridges, that would be impacted.

The people who want to shut down the federal government want to erase all those agreements and remove all avenues of accountability, otherwise they threaten to halt funding to all federal agencies and departments.

Military staff and veterans, who have already put their lives on the line on behalf of our country, wouldn't get paid. They wouldn't be able to pay their mortgage or rent. Landlords or banks wouldn't get their money. Grocery stores would have fewer customers. Car loans would go into default. This is the true trickle-down effect that would erode the economy.

Now imagine this scenario for employees of all the other federal agencies as well as any state and local agencies relying on federal funds to operate. The entire financial recovery would tank, and we'd be back where the nation was in 2020, at the beginning of the pandemic.

And that, dear reader, is the point. The MAGA Republicans in the House of Representatives want this to happen. They believe their fellow citizens will blame the current president for the ensuing disaster. Aware of the impact it will have on the entire country, they forge on. They eventually want to destroy the agreements made over nearly 250 years. This is just the next step in the march they began in the 1980s.

I, for one, want big government if it means clear, precise agreements on how we share these city, county, state, and federal boundaries. I want big government to enforce environmental laws, bring us working roads and bridges (maybe effective railroads), ensure we have electricity, and provide nationwide education standards. In exchange, I'll tolerate (but ask more of) those parts of government others deem important but are less so to me. That's how it works. That's democracy.

The South Seattle Emerald is committed to holding space for a variety of viewpoints within our community, with the understanding that differing perspectives do not negate mutual respect amongst community members.

The opinions, beliefs, and viewpoints expressed by the contributors on this website do not necessarily reflect the opinions, beliefs, and viewpoints of the Emerald or official policies of the Emerald.

📸 Featured Image: Photo via Brandon Bourdages/Shutterstock.com