2016 Voter's Guide: How Big Should Our Government Be?

     This question spilled plenty of ink as congress debated adopting our present constitution.  Two camps formed.  The Federalists, led by James Madison, Alexander Hamilton, and John Jay, believed a stronger Federal government could make our government stronger when dealing with world problems and repairs some of the weaknesses we faced in our domestic policy.  The Federalists knew the dangers of power and influence.  They proposed a collection of arbitrary checks and balances so that a growing government could be protected from ambition and lust for power.
     The other camp, represented by men like Patrick Henry and George Mason, believed that a bigger government was a threat to their individual liberties.  Patrick Henry saw his role of statesman as a kind of night watchman, whose sole purpose was to keep his eye on the precious jewel of liberty.  He was suspicious of any movement toward the jewel.  Liberty, in his mind, was more important that international prestige or prosperous commerce.  Each movement toward increasing the power of government brought a quick and fiery word from the impassioned orator. 
     Every generation should wrestle with the question of the size of government.  Every time we ask the government to take care of issues like poverty, education, and medicine, we transfer power and resources out of our hands and into the hands of government.  Who is better able to address the issues of poverty?  Individuals, local communities, churches, the state, or the federal government?  Who is better able to address the educational needs of my daughters?  Individuals, local communities, churches, states, or the federal government?  What about health and medicine?
     I can bring pressure to my local school board or city council if I want to oppose a decision they make.  I know their names and can lead an opposition in the next election.  Local candidates feel a need to respond to my interests.  Not so with the federal government.  I have much less power and influence at the level of the federal government.
     One question we must answer in the coming election is a question of freedom and paternalism.  Should government play the role of a father, making sure the needs and wants of Americans in areas like education, medicine, retirement, and welfare?  Our uncontrolled national debt is proof that this is our direction.  As a result, individuals have less money, more regulation, less freedom? 
     For example:  Suppose our taxes were not reduced but flipped!  What if most of my tax dollars went to my local government?  Would we have better roads, schools, and development?  What if the state received the same share and the federal government received what my local government gets?  In that scenario, you can see the issue clearly.  Would we have better accountability?  Better effectiveness?  It's worth thinking about.
     This fall, vote for the person who sees value in local communities and has natural suspicions when it comes to the need for a bigger government.