jla, by a 'more powerful', more intrusive state, I was referring specifically to the freedoms of the (non-privileged) individual; as against the protections granted. The former fall mainly into social practices disapproved of by the religious wing (related to sex, drugs, censorship &c) and also the invaluable freedom to think differently; the Democrats are also intrusive in this area - for example, smoking, online advertising practices - but act rather with the rationale of limiting the rights of business over the consumer, rather than restricting individual behaviour.
Since you mention education, I'll use it as an example.
One problem with 'local control of education' is that it works only in areas that are already relatively rich and have an active, educated parent base. Education is valued most highly, on the whole, by those who have it - or whose parents did. Hence policies of this kind lead to neglect of schools and lack of opportunity in poorer areas, simply because the parents etc. are less rich, less skilled at using the system to work for them, and have less time to spare (since they earn less) to improve things - even if they recognise the problem.
Meanwhile the wealthier in such areas use their 'freedom' (lower taxes = more money) either to send their children to private school, or move away...
This is all fine - if you happen to be one of those with plenty of $$, and are now paying less tax.
There can also be problems with local funding/control (as against administration) of schools. It becomes very difficult to monitor education levels, and judge best practice; schooling in particular areas may be downgraded if its lobbying voice is small - especially if the individual voices lack influence; curriculae become vulnerable to specialist local influence, which may not be for the good of the child (or the US); and above all, it is likely to be less efficient since monopsonistic ability is lost. Of course, this last may be balanced if the bureaucracy supporting education is smaller... but will this really be the case, or will some functions simply be lost?
Lastly, do you believe that if taxes are cut then less will need to be spent on education? Or will you, the consumer, simply have to carry out more of the work carried out by government and locating and assessing a good school, AND spend the tax saved on funding it, and so on?
Incidentally, my personal preference would be for a relatively small central body, with a budget from central taxation, mandating standards, best practice, and rules: this also funds local authorities and/or schools directly. Probably better to go via authorities, to allow sharing of specialist resource and sufficient size to justify advanced and remedial facilities as well as just 'average' ones. This avoids the inequitable funding which would otherwise ensue if local taxation were needed - equality of opportunity, rather than outcome.
[No, we don't quite have this in the UK, either].
From what I've seen, proponents of 'smaller government' rarely end up seeing spending fall as such. Some spending may be diverted - from state-funded medicine to private - but it doesn't get less, often the reverse. The one large exception I know well is via the Thatcher privatisations of the 1980's which greatly decreased the size of the 'state', per se: and saved money to some extent as loss-making enterprises went into the private sector (and frequently, though not always, became profitable).
Whether it actually saved money for the country overall is harder to tell: a lot of people (about 10% of the workforce) thereafter became unemployed, so no longer paid any tax, consumed benefit, and contributed greatly to social problems in former industrial areas... this may or may not have been inevitable eventually anyway, who knows.
Attempts by the Major government to reduce spending to match tax cuts simply ended up in vastly increased government borrowing - hardly fiscal prudence.
Did federal spending, per capita, as a % of GDP, or in absolute terms, fall or rise under Reagan & Bush(Sr)? How about if state & local spending are included - what then? And at what cost in terms of fiscal surplus/deficit?
<edit: completely accidental grubbage> |
