This American Life aired this weekend as usual. And like many of its shows, the topics are always compelling and definitely entertaining to listen to. This week, the discussion is What Kind of Country. In it, we're exploring the results of smaller government in the lives of people. There are three acts to the topic, and each one yielding questionable results: 1. The Sound of Sirens: Exploring the effects of lesser government in parts of New Jersey, people have differing opinions on whether in order to bring back some services, pay more taxes or keep cutting? 2. Grover Norquist: Back in the 1980s, Norquist came onto the scene and as a staunch advocate for lesser government and continues to this day. Ira Glass interviews him and ask him questions about what programs would be cut and how would smaller government work better in the environment we're in now. 3. Do You Want to Take a Hit?: Colorado Springs, known for being conservative in all facets, especially in economics. When the recession took its toll, they managed to find innovative ways to make do without having to raise taxes. Then there's the experiment - privatization. And it's all thanks to one man. Did it work? Well, listen and find out. In summation, many people like to tout smaller government, but does it really work in the end? Some still believes so and others feel that people should consider paying more taxes, thus a bigger government body. Either way, it's a powerful debate on the role of government and there won't be an end until there's a resolve. So what do you think? Do you all favor a smaller government? And if you do, what programs would you cut or take away? Are there ways to meet a balance in the topic at hand? Sound off!
This is a good discussion. I favor an efficient government that is neither to small nor too big. Most people favor small and limited government when it's cutting other peoples programs but not there own. Remember some of the Tea Party Slogans that stated "Get the Government out of my Medicare"; the irony. I also think an efficient and strong government is needed as a protection against powerful private enterprises. An example of this was the case of the BP oil spillage that caused so much damage to the coastal water of New Orleans, killed sea animals and disrupted livelihood of fishermen. How would a small and limited government be able to protect citizens when such incidences occur? At least with a strong and efficient government you can force this companies to take responsibility in terms of cleanup and compensation.
Agreed 100%. This is the main issue I tend to have with people who want smaller government...they don't seem to realize that some of the things they favor are of the government persuasion. There is a need of a balance and too much of either side is problematic ultimately. Sustainability is the key, but for some reason...people like Ron Paul often ignore this reality.
