Why We Need a Big Government

By Broadside Opinion Columnist Brandon Cosby

This column, I feel it should be said, did not begin the way it ended. Originally it started as a scathing indictment on Libertarianism and its faults as a managerial system over a large government. In part it still reflects this, but my research led me to a slightly different conclusion.

Before getting to the meat and potatoes of the argument, let’s get the obvious out of the way. We are a big country. We are a country of over 300 million people and of over three million square miles. There is a lot to govern and we do need someone to make sure it all runs right. Well, now that we've got that all sorted out, let's take the next step: a big country needs a big government.

Now that's a tremendously unpopular thing to say, to be sure. Last week I wrote on the importance of conformity and trends. Next week: why I hate puppies. But as uneasy as it may be to say, it remains true. Let's go through some more numbers. In the year 2007, the United States spent $440 billion on Medicare and Social Security benefits totaled $577 billion. The Federal Government puts out over $400 billion in grants each year according to the Office of Management and Budget. That goes to us – our colleges and universities. So don't think of this as wasteful, ambiguous, ill-defined spending. This money does mean something. Yet, when we hear about the need for smaller government, the idea of cutting entitlements and, yes, grants, does eventually spring up. Libertarians and Republicans, when they actually believe in the tenets of their party, press the need to cut wasteful spending. That's a perfectly valid view. However, when they begin talking about supplementing government entitlements with private charity, it all seems to fall flat. Amounts such as $440 billion, $577 billion, $400 billion – all covered by private and corporate charities? Color me skeptical. It is a government's responsibility to lift up all citizens and make sure that not a single one ever goes hungry. So when talk of smaller government turns to leaving the poor in the cold, we should reject it.

Another popular idea of small-government Conservatism and Libertarianism is eliminating the federal bureaucracy. Let's go with a common and specific example: cutting out the Department of Education. Ronald Reagan pledged in his 1982 State of the Union Address to do just that. The idea of federally controlled education is repellant to many and, just as before, this is a perfectly valid view, to an extent. Yes, states and local governments may be better suited to address the educational needs of certain areas, but what does that say of national standards? How does it affect them?

That is the most basic problem of de-centralizing education. We are not just states, we are a collective country and a union. We are on the world stage together and must defend our standing. With China and India close to overtaking us in so many fields, we must ensure that certain basic standings are met nationally to keep our place at the front of the global community. Yet, when such a basic thing as learning becomes fractured and regionalized, we no longer stand as a country and risk standing confused. Education must be federally regulated to keep standards the same and make sure no one section of our country falls behind.

So after covering entitlements and education, why not the arts next? The National Endowment for the Arts was founded in 1965 as an independent and public agency dedicated to providing grants to artists. Essentially, the federal government helps starving artists and ensures the continuing quality of American culture. Now, when put that way, it sounds quite wonderful. Yet to many small-government types, the idea of tax money going to something as intangible and unsatisfying as art is repellant. Again, for a third time, this is a perfectly valid view to an extent. Not everyone will like all art, and yes, some of it will be quite bad, but the idea of not paying for something via your tax dollars simply because you do not agree with it, well, doesn't work. Not everyone agrees with the Iraq War, yet you still must pay for it. Not everyone likes President Bush, but their money still pays his salary. This is the price for living in America. We must support it – art installations and all.

Our towering bureaucracy is a sedimentary being. Layers have been slathered on over layers for decades, reflecting changing needs and rising crises facing our country. And yet, while it is often inefficient, it should never be thought of as pointless. There are reasons why our national budget balloons and grows; it doesn't just happen. It is for the simple reason that our country grows.

Now there is much we can change and much we can improve in our system, but slashing off whole departments and cutting off entitlements is not the answer. We must manage our tremendous, and yes, necessary, federal government responsibly. It is not a simple task and there will be no easy choices, but razing entire sections is certainly the wrong one. That is the basic fault with small-government thinking in a big-government world, and that is why we must reject such an idea.