Let me ask you: Would you take your car in for regular maintenance to a person who hated working on automobiles? Would you take your child to a doctor who hated pediatric medicine? Of course not! Then does it make any sense to entrust a government to people who don’t trust government?
How do we start to fix America’s problems? First, we need to get the government-haters out of government. Next, we need to replace them with honest people who believe that a democratically elected representative government can and will find ways to solve the nation’s problems. Is that possible? Of course it is. Will it be easy? Not likely, but it can still happen if we do what we can to make it happen.
Government is the problem for people who thrive on lawlessness, or who can’t live within the generally accepted balance of freedom and restriction. We are free to worship as we choose, but we are not free to blow up the churches of other denominations we don’t like. We are free to have a personal laboratory at home, or a large one in business, but we are not free to leave behind the toxic chemicals we use and poison the air, the water or the ground. (Or are we? That’s another discussion.)
To have good government, we need to have a democratically elected, truly representative government, not a corporate-funded collection of people representing corporate and financial interests instead of citizen-centered interests.
For that, as per Jefferson, we need citizens to be informed and to participate in their democracy. What percentage of Americans vote? 40%? Often it’s less!
50%? Sometimes.
60%? Hardly ever!
Getting citizens motivated to participate would be a refreshing start, and rebuilding our country and restoring our democracy would be a great 21st century enterprise. In fact, it could be The Great 21st Century Enterprise!
A major step in the right direction would be to enact real campaign finance reform. But that’s a Catch-22. The current collection of obstructionist, government-hating bought-and-paid-for Republicans in office, along with a significant number of bought-and-paid-for Democrats, won’t vote for campaign finance reform since they receive so much money from their corrupters as long as they stay in office. Often, after their government so-called “service,” they work for the companies that kept them in office — lobbying, on boards or elsewhere. Let’s vote them all out.
If we can replace the government-haters, we and our nation can once again be on a positive path. Are there honest and qualified people who can manage government? Of course. Only cynics would believe it’s not possible to have good government. If you look at different levels of government in the U.S. and abroad, there are examples of both good and rotten ones.
Government can be as good as the people within it.


Print friendly
E-mail story
Tip Us Off
Comments
Share Article
Myspace





Previous Month



Comments
I think the author is confusing those that hate bigger and ever expanding government with those that think government's job is limited to the basic concepts outlined in our constitution. It's not government itself that we hate, it's the ever-expanding, increasingly intrusive, profligate spending government that is resented.
Botany (anonymous profile)
January 4, 2012 at 7:49 a.m. (Suggest removal)
When you have candidates, for City Council (i.e. Self) and President of the US (i.e. Gingrich) saying they hate the government, it's safe to call them government haters. In fact they have publicly announced a program of legislative and fiscal sabotage against Social Security, public education, medicare and a variety of other departments and programs that don't fit into their narrow world view.
Ken_Volok (anonymous profile)
January 4, 2012 at 9:13 a.m. (Suggest removal)
When you have candidates, for City Council (i.e. Falcone, Schwartz) and President of the US (i.e. Obama) saying they want more government intrusion into private lives & base everything on race rather than qualification, it's safe to call them nanny state enablers.
In fact they have publicly announced a program of legislative and fiscal sabotage against Constitutional Rights and a variety of other freedoms, as well as social programs that benefit ALL Americans (not just a select group based on ethnicity) that don't fit into their narrow race centered socialist utopian world view :) henry
hank (anonymous profile)
January 4, 2012 at 11:54 a.m. (Suggest removal)
When did Falcone, Schwartz or Obama ever say any of that? I don't recall either of the three saying anyone of any race should have special privileges and/or more rights than anyone else.
Ken_Volok (anonymous profile)
January 4, 2012 at 3:33 p.m. (Suggest removal)
When did Self say any of what you claim? :) henry
hank (anonymous profile)
January 4, 2012 at 3:54 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Or Gingrich (as much as I dislike him) for that matter? :) henry
hank (anonymous profile)
January 4, 2012 at 4:02 p.m. (Suggest removal)
I guess we can see why we are having some problems.....
How do we get, for example Mr Volok and Mr Hank to agree, when they are not even at the same table?
I am not sure we can vote them (incumbents) out, because we can't agree on a direction to take as a country.
For us as a country, If you can make more money staying home and not getting a job, than to go out and get one, and then get to keep on feeding at the public trough, when all you have to do is vote the right guy in.... well, we will continue down the path we have chosen
That's not to say that public assistance is not needed or is in some way for the lazy, but we know that there are huge segments of people who scam the system, how do weed out scammers and help the needy at the same time?
Our supreme court screwed us all badly, when the granted corporations the rights of a citizen
dadof3 (anonymous profile)
January 5, 2012 at 8:15 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Dadof3: "I am not sure we can vote them (incumbents) out, because we can't agree on a direction to take as a country."
AGREED!
Dadof3: "For us as a country, If you can make more money staying home and not getting a job, than to go out and get one, and then get to keep on feeding at the public trough, when all you have to do is vote the right guy in.... well, we will continue down the path we have chosen."
AGREED!
Dadof3: "That's not to say that public assistance is not needed or is in some way for the lazy, but we know that there are huge segments of people who scam the system, how do weed out scammers and help the needy at the same time?"
AGREED!
Dadof3: "Our supreme court screwed us all badly, when they granted corporations the rights of a citizen."
AGREED!
We're 4 for 4 here, the MAIN reason why is because like some folks (myself included), you more than likely don't believe that anyone owes you a living & this includes the nanny state.
Why can't Ken & me agree on most things political? Simple:
Ken seems to believe that people who are realistic about the financial state of political (NOT BUSINESS) affairs are all "conservatives" because they won't cut the purse strings on feel-good pet projects that are only benefitting a few individuals. "Progressives" (when I use quotation marks I am being sarcastic) see the reluctance to spend $$$ that ain't there as "draconian" when all it really comes down to is reality.
If the $$$ ain't there then nothing can get done sadly enough.
Me, well, lets just say that the "conservative" title is meaningless when somebody is doing their job in a way that benefits the majority which is represented by hard working, tax paying, law abiding people.
We are in effect sitting @ the same table, speaking the same language, but making different observations.
Simply put (from a previous exchange of past between Ken & myself), Ken seems to feel that if you turn down a free lunch you're a sucker whereas I know that you're a moron if you believe there's such a thing as a free lunch.
I respect Ken, same way I respect anyone on here, regardless of opinion. In fact Ken & I agree on some things.
The only thing is, based on said opinions, we all want the same things, but have different approaches.
Realistic versus feel-good, that's what it comes down to & how we get there is all that really matters.
Nanny state, socialism, race quotas, appeasement & coddling of bums & criminals & such, nope, sorry, not my bag.
Hard work, detrmination, self-reliance, independence, that's more like it :) henry
hank (anonymous profile)
January 5, 2012 at 10:39 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Thanks Hank
"Hard work, determination, self reliance, independence" all things that I admire and strive for, just not sure how we can make politicians toe that line, especially if most VOTERS think you are a sucker for not taking that "free lunch" that is really neither free or even food, seems like once you decide everyone is scamming the system, then you no longer give a rip about your own behavior or how it has a ripple effect positive or negative.
I am not sure I am as good as to respect all comers here in SB, but am trying to edit some of my ranting out.
dadof3 (anonymous profile)
January 5, 2012 at 11:39 a.m. (Suggest removal)
There's a reason that California has 1/8 of the country's population but 1/3 of the country's welfare recipients. If you provide a service that others don't, people will beat a path to your door.
Botany (anonymous profile)
January 5, 2012 at 1:22 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Seems like the proper time to apply a safety net:
- a persistent recession has given California the nation's second highest unemployment rate
- 3/4 of California welfare recipients are under 18.
http://www.businessweek.com/ap/financ...
Chester_Arthur_Burnett (anonymous profile)
January 5, 2012 at 1:53 p.m. (Suggest removal)
I agree a safety net is needed, damn 2nd highest unemployment?.... but for me to understand who gets help and who doesn't, that is my question.
Somebody who had a job and lost it?, I can see it taking a while, 6 month, a year +\- but we are paying housing and food for a lot of people who are not even looking anymore, and I think that is going to have to change, more than pension reform or any of the other "cause of the day" if we can't sort this out and people just go on the gov't dole because its easy we all lose
"3/4 of Ca welfare recipients are under 18" ? How can you go on welfare before you are an adult? if you mean that as "welfare dependents" I am going to have to ask if their parents was scamming the system by increasing the # of babies for more money.
dadof3 (anonymous profile)
January 5, 2012 at 2:27 p.m. (Suggest removal)
CAB: "- 3/4 of California welfare recipients are under 18."
Ah, pseudo-stats @ their very finest.
Word problem time:
A CA neighborhood has 100 residents, 25 of them are parents, 75 of them are children <18 years old of said parents, that's 3 kids <18 years old per household.
Out of that 25 parents 10 receive welfare therefore 30 children receive welfare.
What is the % of children under 18 on welfare?
If you said 75% you are correct. There's your 3/4 <18 on welfare.
It is so easy to skew stats to support an agenda of "progressivism" that really isn't Progressive @ all :) henry
hank (anonymous profile)
January 5, 2012 at 3:19 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Don't confuse my passion or snark with hatred.
Hank seems to know the difference :)
I read that quote from Self here in the INDY.. perhaps an intern elf can dig it up from their archives..
Ken_Volok (anonymous profile)
January 5, 2012 at 3:58 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Hank, your math is off-topic and confusing, and your reading comprehension a bit worse.
Follow the article I linked to, and you'll find California is one of a handful of states who continue welfare benefits to children after their parent's benefits run out.
I would guess this contributes to the fact that, as I clearly said, "3/4 of California welfare recipients are under 18."
http://www.businessweek.com/ap/financ...
Hank, you will also learn approximately 1.5 million Californians are on 'welfare'; 3.8% of the state's 2010 population.
(This, of course, bears no relation to the tortured word algorithm you hastily cobbled together to catch me and my pesky facts in a sad and compulsive quest to hammer and twist every comment on this website to fit your Manichaean X-ray specs).
Here is an example government reference for TANF stats through 2009, just so you know facts are out there, and needn't be invented.
http://www.census.gov/compendia/stata...
Chester_Arthur_Burnett (anonymous profile)
January 5, 2012 at 9:09 p.m. (Suggest removal)
CAB, pesky facts? Nah, no way. AGAIN, in order for children to receive welfare it has to be through the parental units, how else?
Them getting the welfare AFTER the parent's welfare runs out is AFTER THE FACT. Again, nice try, no Cohiba for you :) henry
hank (anonymous profile)
January 5, 2012 at 11:14 p.m. (Suggest removal)