Editorial

Immature Government

Question:  What is the difference between the Boy Scouts and Government?

Answer:  The Boy Scouts have adult leadership.

The case for immature government

Governments are a lot like small children.  They need constant supervision, instruction and discipline by responsible adults to prevent them from doing harm to themselves and others through their ill-advised actions.

Since we live in a representational republic, we rely on the good judgment of elected officials and bureaucrats to operate our government for us.  Each election cycle brings in "new blood" to the government such that it never matures past four to six years old.  Actually, as long as responsible adults oversee the government from outside, this "immaturity" is not a bad thing.  History shows us that "mature" or long established control of government by the same people over long periods of time causes an erosion of rights as the government takes more power and authority.  Examples are the now defunct Soviet Union and the current government of Cuba, both of which replaced long standing dictatorships. However, like children, unless there is vigorous and continual outside oversight by citizens, even  immature governments can do an extensive amount of harm to society.

Effects of unsupervised government

Someone once said that Senator Hubert Humphrey, liberal icon of an earlier generation, had more solutions than there were problems. Senator Humphrey was not unique in that respect. In fact, our present economic crisis has developed out of politicians providing solutions to problems that did not exist-- and, as a result, producing a problem whose existence is all too real and all too painful.  What was the problem that didn't exist? It was a "national problem of unaffordable housing". The political crusade for affordable housing got into high gear in the 1990s and led to all kinds of changes in mortgage lending practices, which in turn led to a housing boom and bust that has left us in the mess we are now trying to dig out of.

While some areas, like costal California and a very few areas of the east coast, did have a government created "housing crisis", the vast areas of the country in between-- "flyover country" to the east coast and west coast elites-- had housing prices that took no larger share of the average American's income than in the decade before the affordable housing crusade got under way.

Why then a national crusade by Washington politicians over local problems? The answer that "It seemed like a good idea at the time." How are we to be kept aware of how compassionate and how important our elected officials are unless they are busy solving some problem for us?

Well they attempted to solve the "non-problem" by pressuring banks and other lenders to lower their mortgage requirements so that more people could buy houses causing housing prices and mortgages  to artificially rise to dizzying heights, making housing LESS affordable, requiring poor and lower income people with one recourse: buy a mortgage they could not afford. Like most political "solutions," the solution to the affordable housing "problem" took little or no account of the wider repercussions this would entail. Various economists and others warned government officials repeatedly that lowered lending standards meant more risky mortgages. Given the complex relationships among banks and other financial institutions, including many big Wall Street firms, if mortgages started defaulting, all the financial dominoes could start falling... and they did. These warnings were brushed aside. Politicians were too busy solving a national problem that didn't exist. In the process, they created very real problems. Now they are now offering even more solutions that will undoubtedly lead to even bigger problems.

Like a child

When governments are left unattended, and undisciplined for the several years between election cycles they, by the actions of politicians, become like unruly children. They drift toward self interest and perpetuate their self-importance to the exclusion of the principle of "government of the people, by the people and for the people".

Like children, governments need limits, boundaries and supervision.  They have immature voracious, harmful appetites that can only be controlled by outside watch-dog groups, lest they over-consume.  Left in the sole care of politicians, governments get addicted to the sweet snack of tax dollars just like the obese child at Wal-Mart who waddles behind its mother while sucking on a bottle of Mountain Dew.  Onlookers shake their heads at the lack of care by the parent who allows their child to become obese by inattention, lack of discipline and proper nutrition.  Its not the child's fault, he only consumes what the parent allows.

We see examples of this government addiction to tax dollars across the nation.  A local government enacts zoning and land use ordinances to "increase the tax base", that is, change the use of land to allow for land developers and industrial proponents to "develop" land solely because it will bring more tax dollars than that produced by the current land use.  Why, we must ask, does the government need more tax dollars.  The answer is simple: Government doesn't NEED more tax dollars, however, like a child having spent their allowance, they WANT more.

When raising a child, you must be concerned with who they associate. Likewise governments can be harmfully influenced by the self-absorbed "bad kids" on the block - lobbyists and lawyers. An example of this is the recently enacted "Home Rule" legislation that gives the County Commission more control over the citizens in the unincorporated areas.  This idea was hatched by politicians, lawyers and lobbyists in the State Capitol, not here at home.  Of course, local politicians supported it because, "it seemed like a good idea at the time."

Governments, like children, produce nothing, they just consume. However, unlike children, they never mature to become self-directing to engage in altruistic and beneficial behaviors and never learn to put back more than they take. The solution is not to rid ourselves of government, that would have the same effect as ridding ourselves of children: civilization would soon collapse.  The solution is to provide outside adult supervision by citizens who are therefore responsible for the actions of their government just as parents are responsible for the actions of their children.

Like a child, government and its officials may resist supervision ("Mommy, I can do it Myself!") and resent discipline when necessarily applied, however the results of not providing supervision and ignoring the problem child serves only to create and perpetuate an uncaring, heavy-handed, self-absorbed, and narcissistic government.

Only one way forward

Be a good citizen/parent...spank your Politician daily, lest they forget who is really in charge.