1. Government should be the "solution of last resort"

At what level of Government does the best fit soultion lie?



"The United States - a federal system in which the citizens of each individual state are sovereign - has been replaced, over time, by a unitary and imperious federal government that is daily becoming more intrusive. As a consequence we are rapidly losing touch with our democracy, for deciding issues of political significance on a human scale - where both the causes and the consequences of collective action are within ordinary citizens' grasp - is the oxygen of democracy"Prof. Frank Bryan, UVM Professor of Political ScienceDamn, that rings true doesn't it. Prof. Bryan has been quite supportive of a long standing Vermont movement to secede from the union. Vermont was once an independant republic, prior to becoming a state. Only Texas shares that unique claim to fame. Think about it, when you really get down to the heart of most any political debate, the idea of more localized government seems to be at least part of the solution, sometimes all of it. Pick a hot topic: health care, welfare, taxes, education. Now...wouldn't it be easier to find a workable solution to the problem at hand if the scope was just your municipality or state? Yes, is the answer i come up with 90% of the time. Furthermore, there is a legitimate body of thought that believes this is exactly what the founding fathers intended. Certainly in some cases, it makes sense to let Washington handle the problem (Defense, certain business regulation etc..) There do exist efficiencies and practical reasons to leave something up to the Feds. I am not quite sold on the idea of secession, but taking the middle road: I propose two tests before handing a responsibility or task to any governement entity, particularly to Washington:Does the government really need to be doing this? Is the free market failing in this function. Are non-profits, business, communities, families etc.. proving to be unable to achieve a goal that the majority of voters believe should be achieved. Too often, I hear politicians rationalizing the need for new government program or regulation simply based on the presence of a problem. But just because a problem exists..it certainly doesn't mean that the solution should be the responsibility of government. There are many ways to solve a problem...lets not forget. But We the People are so susceptible to instant gratification, that when a politician says they are going to take care of everything, we are too ready to abide. There are no easy solutions. Just like the fraud awareness public service announcements: "If it sounds too good to be true, it probably is"2.So let's say we passed the first test and we agree that we have an issue that is most efficiently handled by government. Don't just allow Washington to deal with at a federal level, passing one law or regulation that applies to Arkansas and Alaska, East L.A. and Liberty, Vermont. Start local and move on up until the best fit is found. I have worked in government, and can see that adding laws, employees, departments etc.. is largely a one way street. Hiring someone and starting a new governmental program is easily done once the public is behind the goal. But when it fails to deliver, trying to shrink government is a monumnetal task. So, let's not add to the beast unless we are darn sure it's a good deal for all. Lets take our time. Do it for the children!