It strikes me that Reagan plays in the modern conservative movement a role analogous to that of FDR. Though he wasn't an intellectual, he communicated and condensed a lot of what conservative theorists had been saying for a number of years (people like Friedman and Buckley).
And now the quote, to perhaps start some conversation:
"Government does not solve problems; it subsidizes them."
I looked it up to make sure I got it right, and found another one that I liked:
"Government's view of the economy could be summed up in a few short phrases: If it moves, tax it. If it keeps moving, regulate it. And if it stops moving, subsidise it "
(And if you like the man, or just want to see some of his words, you can go
here.)
Before we go off talking about welfare, let us remember that it underwent considerable reform in the 90s. It's no longer a perpetual free-money handout program. There are education and work requirements attached. I'm not saying there aren't loopholes, but welfare is not the handout program it used to be.
Government efforts to reduce its own size tend to have either mixed success, or none at all!
As Reagan said:
"No government ever voluntarily reduces itself in size. Government programs, once launched, never disappear. Actually, a government bureau is the nearest thing to eternal life we'll ever see on this earth! "
This is a structural political problem. When a program is cut, everyone in the country saves about $5 (or whatever small amount), but a small number of people who benefit from it, or who work in it have very big incentives to work very hard to keep the program. Even if it is wasteful or unnecessary, programs exist because they seemed like a good idea at one time.
I think it's true that some government programs are bad or wasteful, but they are inevitable in a democracy. It's the cost of the American way. Moreover, I think the proposition that government is useless while businesses are paragons of effeciency is just plain wrong. Lots of bad businesses continue to operate for various reasons. It might take 10 years for a wasteful business to finally be driven out of business. People say the government's problem is no competition. The number of failed privatization projects shows that competition isn't a simple answer. Just look at Enron. Besides, no one pretends that businesses don't go to great lengths to insulate themselves from competition and the threat of going out of business. Diversified companies have less incentive to innovate and excell, because other sectors can bear the cost of relatively poor performance.
Ok, I'll shut up now.