What should government do and not do?
 

There's another thread currently discussing neo-liberalism and higher education. The discussion there got me thinking what do people think government should do for people. I mean most people seem to be ok with government programs of some kind or another. Which government programs do you think your tax dollars should be going to fund?

Personally I like funding things like-

The military (though I think we could pay our troops more and the contractors less.) I include funding veterans benefit programs in this desire. Telling people your going to care for them if they get hurt in battle then supplying with shit care is, well shit IMO.

I like funding education, lots and lots of education. Well educated people are a benefit to the country. Personally I'd trade smart bombs for smart people any day of the week. IMO, more of the latter leads to less need for the first. I'd like to see it possible for every US citizen to go from K to a BA fully funded. people taking advantage all the way to a BA should be required to partake in some type of civil service program for two years in an area of their studies. If HS grads are not interested in college a trade school should be an option. Anything beyond HS should be an option.

Police and Fire. If my house is burning or getting robbed I'd like the appropriate agency to show up and help out. I include in this the prison system(s.) I'd like murders and rapists to have a place to go. I'd like to let all the drug abusers out and I'd like to stop this BS war on drugs. Put them in a clinical setting if they have a major problem, if not leave them alone like we do with social drinkers.

Health care. Health Ins. in the US is a joke. It causes more people to go bankrupt then any other issue. Getting ill should not send you to the poor house.

Mass transit. If more people had access to cheap easy mass transit the level of dependency on foreign oil would drop, IMO.

I'm for funding Social Security, but I think a lot could be cut. People making over X amount don't need a freaking 900 check every month from the government. Most people get their input back in a few years and keep drawing on it for years after. I think there's cuts that could be made there.

Job training, lots and lots of job training programs- give a man a fish... teach a man to fish.

Scientific Research- I think we should be developing a whole bunch of things. From Cancer cures to Alt. Energy. Making progress in science could/should benefit all.

I'm also for funding things like sewer and water. I also like good roads... infrastructure, lot's and lot's of infrastructure. Having it in good safe condition benefits all. Building it keeps people working.

I'm sure I left stuff off but that's, I think, the main things I'd like to see the government funding with my tax dollars.

Anyone else have a list.

Anyone hate my list?

Fire away.

For the record my list is in no certain order.

Healthcare and education top the list. A healthy and well educated population is a more productive and, ultimately, more prosperous populace.

Security comes next. Emergency services are obviously important. Then comes civil engineering for roads, sewers and the like. After that comes military. A strong defensive force is important, and things like educational incentives encourage more young people to defend their country.

Note the emphasis on defence.

Last but not least is social services. I believe that a society can best be judged by how it takes care of those least able to take care of themselves.

I'm probably missing a whole big pile of stuff, but those are the most important responsibilities in my mind. Note that these are the responsibilities of a state as a whole; the government exists only to implement and guide these things, and is ultimately beholden to the will of those governed.

Exactly, well said.

In order of importance:
Education: there's nothing more important. It's the single most important contribution to society and our economy by a long shot. Our schools should be mansions with the best teachers in the world teaching the best information. There should be people from outside of the US fiercely competing to get in just so they can go to our public k-12 schools.
Science: it follows education. Once we've got them educated, we need to get them dragging us kicking and screaming into the future, regardless of whether the market thinks the investment is reasonable or not. There have been way too many accidental discoveries to excuse allowing the market to determine what should or shouldn't be pursued. And every time we make a breakthrough, we add something new to the world and to the economy, adding to our worth.
Health: we can't function if we're sick. We can't function if we're constantly feeding our money into a bloated system. Imagine where we'd be without the human genome project.
Military: it doesn't take a genius to see that private military is a disaster waiting to happen, and we'll need the military either until the entire human race grows up (pfft) or until we get wiped out.
CDC: One word: malaria.
Police/Fire/Ambulance: emergency services shouldn't come COD.
Regulating food, drugs, weapons, and goods for safety: I can't test my food for salmonella. I can't test a child's toy for lead. I can't demonstrate that the OTC for my grandparents' ulcers is going to do what it promises. That requires infrastructure that only an independent party like government can ever provide.
Utilities (Water/Electric/Gas/Bio or Hydrogen): I remember California before we privatized electricity. It was a utopia.
Transit/Transportation: It's time for mass transit to make a big comeback. We need electric infrastructure, and the auto industry clearly isn't interested.
Internet regulation: Equal access to the internet should be established and enforced by the government.
Employee Rights: We got elimination of child labor, creation of the 40 hour week, overtime pay, paid vacations, minimum wage, workman's comp, SS, health laws, and organized labor rights from the government. They know what they're doing.
Americorps: We need an organization to balance the military. Americorps and the peace corps are a perfect machine of good will and a great opportunity for volunteerism.

And there's a lot more. FAA, EPA, CES, SEC, NWS, national parks, NASA, GI Bill, and NAS just to name a few. I mean this would have to be a big, big list.

Being a progressive, I expect the government to tuck me into bed at night...

But seriously...

I pretty much agree with Tully's points. A couple of my own:

o The military. The US spends more on our military than the rest of the world. Combined. Yes, defense is unfortunately essential, and when push comes to shove, we should be able to defend ourselves and then some...but do we really need this level of spending? Also, I think military spending is absurdly politicized, and essentially used as a way to throw money around - even for all those congresspeople who get all aflutter over 'pork' - military spending never counts as 'pork' to them. I also think military spending is far too often directed towards glitzy high-tech weapons instead of the soldiers themselves. Sure, we need high tech weapons, but we need good soldiers who are well taken care of more.

Unfortunately, any trimming of the military budget is almost politically inconceivable - remember how The Right went absolutely apeshit over Clinton's very, very modest cuts to the military budget...they even blame him for the Bush administration's 'handling' of Iraq.

o Regulation! Nobody likes to be 'regulated', but it's an absolutely necessary function of government. However, regulations should be clear, fair, and subject to review and comment by the public.The EPA, FDA, and even the much-maligned IRS help keep the country running. Their operations and the regulations that govern them should be streamlined and simplified. One would think that deregulation would be a dead cult by now, but...no such luck.

o The courts. An easy branch of the government to forget, but a strong and independent judiciary is one of the things that has kept our country on the right track.

Oh, and I almost forgot - I think that providing a safety net is a vital part of government. For whatever reasons, some people simply aren't able to provide for their own basic needs. We as a society should do that, and Government is the most efficient way to do so. Yes, I used 'government' and 'efficient' in the same sentence. Suck it, neocons. Free food, housing, and health care if you can't provide it for yourself. Of course, it should be relatively shitty food, housing, and healthcare, to encourage lazy people to get off their asses. :-)

---------- Post added at 10:54 PM ---------- Previous post was at 10:41 PM ----------

I mostly agree with Will, but to nitpick, I don't think malaria is a huge problem in most of the US, even without the CDC. Polio, influenze, smallpox, & co, however, are. Or were. Except for ignorant sluts like Jenny McCarthy and Jim Carey and those who listen to them.

Oooh, this is a good one!

2008 Americorps budget: ~$800 million
2008 Military budget: ~$800 billion (not counting Iraq & Afghanistan

I should have been more clear. Had it not been for the CDC, malaria would have been a very, very, very big problem. The CDC demonstrated clearly it's ability and necessity in it's dealing with malaria. That's all I meant.

I think that discussing government in the abstract is of limited usefulness, because I think politics has an inherent pragmatical bent, and thus universal statements are often ill suited to address particular issues.

Just to give a few examples: I think most people would agree that the government should not determine how parents raise their children. But what about parents who sexually abuse them? Maybe that is a little extreme, but then what about parents who neglect to give their kids medical treatment? Vaccines? Education? Soon, an abstract statement gets lost in the fuzziness of reality.

My point being that things need to be discussed in context. Let's take for example the Scandinavian countries. Often heralded as the mecca of social democracy, when it comes to business and regulations they are just about the most libertarian places there are in many respects. Sweden, Norway, Finland, are all in the top 20 in terms of "ease of doing business." All three have fewer restrictions on international trade than the US. Most of them have fewer restrictions on registering property, getting building permits, and even closing a business. They have tax codes that are generally simpler than the US.
Heck, the whole voucher system that Bush and so many conservatives have proposed for so long is a reality in Sweden.

From that angle, there are a lot less government intervention than in the US. But they are able to take such a position because the generous welfare state means that the consequences of failing, of being driven out of business, of international volatility and competition, are not as severe.

i'm good with most of the elements listed above.
one thing that's kinda interesting, i think anyway, is what we're talking about when we say "the state"--it really isn't obvious. for example, one way of referring to the period from ww2 through the early 1970s is "fordism"---i've probably mentioned this before, but maybe you've heard the term---this in the regulation school sense as a way to describe the form of capitalism that took shape during that period, and which mutated into "flex accumulation' when mutated into "globalizing capitalism" and so forth. anyway, one of the main structural characteristics of fordism was networks of overlapping transnational institutions that functioned to stabilise nation-state levels of capitalist organization---imf/wolrd bank; nato seato etc.---within nation-states, a parallel movement took place, such that you had any number of mechanisms on the order of that which shuts down stock trade if there's a drop of more than 500 points in a day i think--not explicitly regulatory, governance in the sense of a governor on a motor, state institutions that are invisible in a sense as state institutions...

many of these mechanisms remain operative even as the form of capitalism has mutated--largely as it turns out by moving outside the nation-state as an organizational horizon (this requires lots of changes, but you can sum it up that way)...

another version of the same question: state social services are bureaucracies that organize the world in ways that mirror how information is processed within the bureaucracy itself, and which by their normal operations impose that organization on users because they have to know a minimum about it in order to get services---but that organization extends beyond the interactions inside of office buildings into the way in which aspects of everyday life is understood. so what is the state? is it the administrative apparatus? well, that apparatus exists as a function of a particular rationality, and it' operations extend the reach of that rationality--and the administration is not an end in itself, but is a way of doing something, and that something comes with the way it is organized--so what is the state? what it organizes, what it does or the people who do the organizing? do you "enter" the state when you walk into an office building and leave it when you leave?

when we're talking about the state doing things, what are we actually talking about?
just wondering.

The government should be funding:

1) The military (which includes securing our borders).

2) Police, fire departments and emergency services.

3) Infrastructure (roads, water treatment plants, etc.).

I'm not sure what else I could philosophically justify...

The government should provide necessary services that the free market will fail to provide. Not everything that is necessary is profitable. Roads, fire, police, education, research, heath care, and mass transit have all been previously mentioned.

The problem with private industry is they only provide services to those who can afford it. Thus when something is necessary it makes sense that the government provides it and not private industry. Thus if you argue that private industry should run one of those things I mentioned then you must by definition agree that those services should only be provided to the privileged.

For those of you against government ran health care, do you believe the poor should not get good health care?

For those of you in favor of socialized health care, do you believe that the poor should be absolved of the responsibility of paying their own way? Do you believe that Person A should be enslaved for the sake of Person B?

The poor would be paying in taxes, so suggesting that they'd be absolved of paying is dishonest. They'd pay, they'd just pay a bit less. Of course we'd all be paying a lot less than we pay now, so the truth is that there's nothing to complain about.

BTW, that mention of slavery was wonderfully dramatic. You should mention rape, too. As an illustration.

Maybe we can find a compromise? Those who are too poor to pay for their own health care can sign up for a government program available ONLY to them and is funded ONLY by the tax dollars of those who sign up for the program. The poor can get their cheaper medical care without the risk of others having to pay for it against their will.

Interesting conversation. Define poor and I'll gave you my answer(s.)

You'll have to ask Rekna.

And you can't answer as to your definition of poor because?

You know that's not how it works. We all pay a fair share, and that means progressive taxes.

I guess my question is this: why are you against paying less money for health care? Why is your ideology more important than having more money in your pocket? We all know that even in countries that have wildly better health care systems than the US, they only pay half of what we pay in insurance in their taxes. It doesn't make sense. You're acting like you're trying to defend your hard-earned money, but you're doing the opposite.

I can't imagine how miserable a person would be worrying about how every cent of their taxes is spent and what they wish to support or not.

I also can't imagine how miserable person HAS to be to have the attitude of "fuck the poor, I'm not giving them a dime".

And some people would argue that their "fair share" includes only as much as it takes to fund their own health care.

Sometimes principles mean more than money. I would opposed to a government policy requiring Bill Gates to give 25% his yearly income to me, even though it would result in more money in my pocket. Why? Because such a policy simply isn't right.

---------- Post added at 11:03 AM ---------- Previous post was at 10:59 AM ----------

Also of great concern, President Obama will increase federal funds going to religious organizations without first changing the Bush-era rules allowing federally-funded religious organizations to apply religious hiring tests to employees.

Does this mean the ACLU is run by miserable people?

I prefer to think of it as 'fuck the rich, i'm not giving them a dime'.

We should extend this kind of nonsensical thinking to other things too. You should refrain from driving, calling the police or fire department, or drinking tap water anywhere where you haven't paid taxes. And I don't even want to get started on higher education, with the exception of saying that employers shouldn't be allowed to hire people whose educations were subsidized by other employers (i.e. public university tuition subsidies).

In fact, the government should start a database listing every publicly funded thing in America, cross referenced with whose taxes went to pay for that thing. That way we can be sure that we're only using things that we pay for.

it's the ACLU's job to keep track of this sort of thing.

I meant on an individual level. If I spent every day being furious about the thousands of programs my tax dollars go to support (that I don't agree with), I'd be suicidal

Right, but you'd be paying less with universal health care. So you have a choice of paying your fair share at about $6,000 a year or paying for other people and yourself at $3,000 a year.
Yes, but that hypothetical policy would victimize Bill Gates. He wouldn't get anything but a warm feeling in his heart for contributing to the Telluride wellness foundation. In universal health care, you'd get the benefit along with everyone else. Are you also against paying taxes for the fire department? Because this is essentially the exact same thing.

Poor is of course a relative term and where that lies is irrelevant to this discussion. In the end it comes down to do think something is a right or a privilege. In the case of health care is it a privilege that only the people who can afford it get or is it a right that everyone should have.

In many cases we have decided things are rights (public education for example). Currently the US is set up where health care is a privilege. For me letting people go sick and hungry needlessly goes against my Christian morals. Thus I am in favor of universal health care.

I think we can agree on a majority of the services, I think the disagreement will always be on how far.

So it's the ACLU's job to be miserable people?

I'd think that it's my job as a taxpayer to be concerned about how my hard-earned (and subsequently confiscated) money is spent.

---------- Post added at 10:37 AM ---------- Previous post was at 10:31 AM ----------

My current job provides great health insurance for far less than $3000 per year. Even when I bought my own insurance (which I did until I started this job last October), I was only paying about $3500 per year for excellent medical and dental coverage. It's worth far more than $500 per year to me to keep this level of power out of the hands of the government.

If money was my sole concern (which it isn't), I'd still be better off without socialized medicine. And I don't consider fire departments to be the same thing, as it's the governments job to protect the individual rights of citizens.

---------- Post added at 10:41 AM ---------- Previous post was at 10:37 AM ----------

So you're essentially advocating using the government to force your Christian values on others? Sounds a bit theocratic...

That's great except you're forgetting a few things. I pay about $70 for copay now, and I don't know of anyone paying less than $20. Also, even though I have the Rolls Royce of medical coverage, there's still a chance that I won't be covered for some obscure or unforeseeable medical event. And if you ever develop a serious medical condition and lose your job, good luck getting coverage again for anything less than an exorbitant price. If you can even get coverage. You could end up being one of the nearly 50 million Americans with no coverage whatsoever, and your ideology will be put to the test.
Care to elaborate on this?
Ah, so you demand government step in and protect you from an accident involving fire, but if it's any other kind of accident, the government better stay the heck out of it. How is a kitchen fire any different than falling down stairs? How is a bad light fixture burning down your garage any different than an airbag misfire giving you whiplash? If it's the government's job to protect the individual rights of citizens, where is the line between fire protection and medical protection?

Oh noes, I'm enslaved!

Do I believe those that can afford it should help those that cannot? Yes I do, and that does not mean absolving anyone from paying their way. It means helping people getting back on their feet. You know, being a nice human being.

Having a lot of poor people not being able to afford health care or education is not good for anyone.

Oh yeah that's exactly what I said! Of course much of the right actually think they should do this. No I don't think the government should force religion on people but when a moral or value is necessary for civilized society then yes the government should force it. Since you are against it I trust you don't think the government should consider rape, incest, and murder a crime. After all that is the government forcing values on others....

Do we now have a right to fire protection? I was unaware of that right. I know we don't have a right to police protection because several federal court decisions have outright said so, so tell me where something says we have a right to fire protection?

You'll have to ask Telluride, as he is assuming that we have the right to fire protection (but not to medical care). We may fall on opposite sides of this issue, but I suspect we both take issue with Telluride's inconsistency.

I think governments should do what it can to provide for the general welfare of its citizens. There were many items listed here, and I think my own opinion is quite in line with Martian's.

In most industrialized nations, the general welfare of society only recently included the advent of universal healthcare. Before that, it saw such things as the protection of rights, not merely on the individual level, but on the level of workers and consumers. The actions of faceless corporate entities have made it necessary to ensure the well-being of both these groups. All these things are ongoing in their refinement.

That said, governments should also be responsible to regulating corporations to ensure they are in line with the parameters set by society, whether it be fair work practices or abiding by market rules.

To me, these things aren't so much a moral issue as it is an issue of function. A healthy, well-protected populace is one that can thrive—this, regardless of level of wealth. The poor should not be let to die of or become infirm from sickness, as it can easily have adverse effects on the nation as a whole.

As for what a government should not do: They should not go against the will of the public. If certain members of government were elected based on a particular platform, then that member should do their best to fulfill that set of goals. Given that the system of government is balanced and fair, all protocol should be followed and carried out to its full extent. An example of what I'm referring to includes Canada's own concept of the vote of confidence, which sets the stage for a possible closure of the current government if the governing party cannot gain enough support from the other members of parliament. This means a deviation too far from what might be expected can lead to a failure, removal, and replacement of political power in a matter of days.

When you advocate universal healthcare: does this mean for neoconservatives, libertarians and evangelical republicans too?

Who me? Yep, I'm talking about dragging neoconservatives, libertarians and evangelical republicans kicking and screaming into a situation with better quality health care for everyone at a lower price. If they market can't compete with the government, as it can't in this case, it's up to the market to live up to it's own rules and get out of the way.

Yep, universal is a pretty universal term. Hard to imagine out of just about all the industrialized nations (and some not so industrialized) that the US is the only nation doing it right. Of course it would be easier to buy that if so many people getting ill didn't end up loosing everything they had.

you've always taken the position that fire protection is just as important as universal healthcare.

now I ask you this......if the government can't maintain the quality of health care that the private sector does, what do you do?

If we get universal health care and there is a niche for high quality private health care then let that niche operate. But there is no reason why in this day and age that we should have people unable to get medical care because they can't afford it.

A healthy society will help America grow and prosper.

Societies that prosper the most tend to have a high % of healthy well educated people.

Education and health care should be high on our priorities if we want to turn the ship around. It's not a quick fix but it's a long term one.

thats not what i asked.

I understand what you are saying, but that doesn't address my concerns about single payer healthcare.

In 'universal' or 'single payer' health care, what happens when the government funded health insurance deems SOME medical treatments and procedures and prohibitively expensive for little health gain?