Bigger Isn't Always Better

The key to effective and efficient government is small government. Government that is large and bloated is by nature inefficient and throughout history has been shone to lend itself more easily to corruption.

As I mentioned yesterday, once government expands, it is very hard to contract. Once additional government positions are created, they are very hard to remove simply because they are not measured by efficiency and productivity on a normal basis, like any private industry position. This fact alone means that governments are bloated beyond reason; restricted and governed by rules that were created without logical intent. The systems are inefficient because they are not judged by their efficiency, nor in many cases even there effectiveness.

The recent financial collapse is a perfect example. Government regulators at Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac blew the whistle years ago and said that these institutions were acquiring too many subprime loans and they were operating from a very week cash position. Quite frankly they were headed for the devastation that we all witnessed with great horror. However, the regulators soon found that their authority was very limited. In fact, they were completely dependent on the congress to actually take action. The system was then crippled by congressmen who were receiving campaign contributions and “special loans” with below market interest rates. Not that the government should have been nor should be, involved in the mortgage industry, but the system that they created to regulate the industry was weak, ineffective, and easily subverted by executives and congressman who benefited from the sheer idiocy of the system.

This is just a brief and very painful example of how government systems work. Why have regulators if they have no real authority? Why allow for a feedback loop between the industry that is being regulated and the elected officials with the ultimate authority over that industry?

The conservative answer would be to dissolve Freddie and Fannie, or force them off into the private sector economy. Government has no business being in business. No bailouts. No government intervention. That would eliminate the need or temptation for these industries to try and court political favors and it would require them to stand on their own merit. They would be forced into efficiency or forced out of business. You could then dissolve the position of the regulators, which weren’t effective to begin with. In the end you have a company that will either thrive or bust, a government that is no longer meddling in private affairs, and you have now decreased the size and cost of the government.

The liberal answer to this problem exasperates the problem. Instead of privatizing, you nationalize. Instead of removing the regulators, you increase the regulators but don’t increase their authority. Instead of realizing that the government was a big part of the problem, the belief is that the government is the only solution to the problem. A government trying to improve the efficiency, stability, and liquidity of an industry, all while running a crippling and irresponsible deficit of their own, makes no sense. More importantly the main issue of ineffectiveness and corruption was never dealt with. No accountability, no repercussions, and nothing to prevent it in the future.

Acknowledging this, why would a conservative, who believes in smaller, limited government, ever become a part of the government? To move into the public sector, all the while decrying the size and scope of the public sector almost seems hypocritical.

True.

This is the problem and the struggle that many conservatives have. It is also one of the things that prevents some conservatives from getting involved.

Unfortunately they are sorely needed. Conservatives that do it well move in and make or at least propose sweeping changes that center around smaller government, lower costs, lower taxes, federalist principles (restoring power back to the states rather than centralizing it), and above all liberty for the people. Along with that is a desire not to become part of the problem and so many impose term limits upon themselves. Which is a noble but crippling measure when you have well connected moderate and liberal politicians who stay in positions for decades sinking roots of influence that expand ever deeper into the Washington soil.

We need conservatives that will hold their ground because we are in a constant struggle between ideologies. We need people that can get into the system, but not become a part of the system. People who can point out the inefficiencies and slowly dismantle them; stripping away public sector jobs while cutting taxes to encourage the private sector to expand.

The change we need is not a big government solution, but a smaller government revolution.