"I Believe in Smaller Government" -- first-time voter

You asked: "What about me?"

You vote in the Republican primary. That's what.

Sent by Keith Pickering | 9:35 AM ET | 04-20-2008

If you believe in smaller government, you probably shouldn't vote Republican. In particular, if you don't believe in spending future generation's money by deficit spending.

Sent by Hugh Appet | 9:46 AM ET | 04-20-2008

I'm tempted to ask a government smaller than what?
Would you want a government smaller than the Reagan's, than Bush I's than Bush II's? Then consider supporting the Democratic Party.

Sent by Todd | 9:47 AM ET | 04-20-2008

I recently surveyed a cross section of my clients ( I own a computer repair company) and asked them what they thought they had paid in taxes over the past ten years. Then, how much they had paid over the past eight and six years. Some took the time to really think about it and tried give me a truthful response. Funny thing is, they paid more in the past six (during the Bush administration) then during those dark and scary years of President Clinton touted by such mental giants as Rush Limbaugh. Then I asked them about available services from the government now vs. then ??? Less and less for more and more. Seems that the dollar we paid into the Government under Clinton netted us four in return. Now were pay two dollars and we get to pay 100% of the bill ourselves for previously government funded services. We also now have the privilege to carry the weight of those less fortunate by donating to our local funds that were funded by taxes before. Liberal is not a bad word selfishness is.

Sent by Bill & Penny VanDaWalker | 10:01 AM ET | 04-20-2008

*
Your comment that "It's kind of surprising to me that McCain supporters haven't been rallying around campus...

The reason could be, (and probably is), that liberals, democrats and that ilk, have made any support for candidates and spokespersons other than their own difficult and even dangerous. Rushing podiums, and shouting over speeches. This is a trait peculiar only to liberals and democrats. The very people who like to be known as free thinkers and proponents of free speech are always the first (& only) ones to cry "censor them, they don't agree with us!".

And that is why you only hear one side of the political debate on today's campuses.

*

Sent by BERT CONVY | 10:20 AM ET | 04-20-2008

I thought the 'rules' for this blog stated "NPR reserves the right not to publicize allegations, conspiracy theories and other information which we know to be false or unsubstantiated." Why is that ridiculous Bert Convy comment allowed?

As for the lack of McCain rallies, rallies are a part of political campaigns. There is no campaign in the Republican primary because the contest has been decided. Perhaps this question can be raised in the fall, but for now it's definitely a non-issue.

Sent by Thom Gillis | 10:47 AM ET | 04-20-2008

Hello,
Good Luck on the establishment of your new Blogsite.

I, too, believe in smaller government. I believe in an even smaller government than Ms Scheidemann [I presume, by her choice of McCain as her candidate] who was featured in the opening posts of this new blog site.
My governmental preference is to a complete removal of all "Rulers" [The dreaded 'A' word ....] because I do honestly believe that humans are capable of personal, individual, self governance. Even in large population numbers. Currently lacking that option I will be writing in Dr Ron Paul for President as his version of government most nearly replicates my own preferences even though it is still a big government choice.
Why has the media completely ignored the unconstitutional actions of our elected politicians for the last hundred years ?
Instead of examining all of the options available the media has left the public with the opinion that there are ONLY the choices reported upon.
A. Hamilton's insidious federalist form of governance [centralized big government] has already taken over our national government [in the early 20th century] and our Constitution has become the oft ignored elephant at the tea party.
I highly recommend reading Dr Ron Paul's book "The Revolution - A Manifesto".
It has long been my Hope that NPR would be the mass media entity that would point out the elephant to our nearly hypnotized public but alas it appears that NPR itself will ignore the elephant as well.
Meanwhile our countrymen continue to be befuddled by the bread and circuses media in thrall to our federalist big government. Or so it appears to me.
It is especially disheartening when one considers the possible benefit of the media for spreading Truth and Freedom to the public. As opposed to the bread and circuses propaganda being put forth now.

Thank you for allowing me to point out the elephant at the tea party.

Dreaming of a return to our True Liberty founded government I remain

Sincerely Yours,

gooch

Sent by gooch | 11:00 AM ET | 04-20-2008

Why is that ridiculous Bert Convy comment allowed? Sent by Thom Gillis

See...
"censor them, they don't agree with us!".

Sent by BERT CONVY | 11:10 AM ET | 04-20-2008

In response to Meghan, first time voter. I appreciate the sentiment of wanting smaller government, but what makes you think that McCain will provide that. he wants to continue this war at current levels, while continuing the fear that this gov't has been fostering since 9-11. You want small gov't, vote Libertarian. I have long believed, as I believe you do, that government does nothing well. The less they do, the better off we will all be. The two main parties do not believe this and the faster we all accept that the quicker we can start looking to alternatives, hopefully by 2012.

Sent by Tom Garger | 1:18 PM ET | 04-20-2008

The record of the last three Republican presidents is that they believe in government revenues being a smaller share of the overall economy, but not government spending. The national debt under those presidents has increased by over $7 trillion. It was "only" $1 trillion about the time Reagan took office. We spend over $300 billion per year in interest on that additional debt. Borrowing money to cut taxes is not really cutting taxes. It's just postponing them and even making them greater in the long run. Please remind your Republican candidates of this basic mathematical reality. It may surprise them, though I doubt it will change their deceptive promises.

Sent by Gary in Minneapolis | 1:41 PM ET | 04-20-2008

A goal of making the government smaller is a non-starter. It begs so many questions, like "what is small?", "what should the role of government be?," "how should the government use resources?", etc.

Government, at least in the US, is supposed to serve society. Should government step back and allow the private sector to do as it pleases? Didn't we answer this question in the last century?

In my view, we should think of the role of government in terms of why we separated from the King of England. Government is supposed to derive its just powers from the consent of the governed. In the US, it derives its powers from corporate America.

Government is supposed to "establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare . . . " Is it just to allow millions more of our fellow citizens to be deprived of quality health care? Does allowing corporations, too large to be truly competitive, to export our manufacturing base somehow provide for the common defense? Does transferring our resources to the weatlhiest 1% of our population promote the general welfare?

These are questions we should be asking, if we are to defend the values for which we have fought since our inception as a country.

To concern oneself with "small" government is small thinking.

Sent by Homer Stanley Ferguson | 2:55 PM ET | 04-20-2008

I was offended by the comments of "first time voter". I have been married for 45 years (to the same man), had to children that are good, responsible citizens (one is a teacher), we never had to rescue them from drugs or crime, we all pay
taxes and had work consistently all our lives, many times doing volunteer work. We work hard and we believe in personal responsibility. We share Ms Scheidemann "values" , but we are DEMOCRATS, and proudly so.
Her belief that only Republicans have "moral values" is offensively ridiculous.

.

Sent by Nona T. | 7:12 PM ET | 04-20-2008

I do expect that Ms. Scheidemann's political views will mature as her age goes up. I too value hard work, personal responsibility, and my two children, but I do not have the naivete to believe that these values automatically align me with any particular party's ideology or any particular politician, or that these values even necessarily lead to smaller government.

I ask her these questions - Wouldn't government be smaller if there were no public schools to provide universal education and her father's employment? Wouldn't government be smaller if the armed forces were smaller or non-existent? Wouldn't government be smaller if there were no public lands and the agencies which manage them? Wouldn't government be smaller if there were no public highways and the agencies which build and maintain them? Wouldn't government be smaller if there were no regulation of the stock market, air travel, highway travel, electromagnetic spectrum, mining, and pollution of the air we breathe? Many government functions are necessary and are performed well, but would you have them reduced or eliminated purely because you "believe in smaller government"? Other ideologies should be in play, don't you think? The world is not near as simple as the young lady perceives it to be.

Just think on this one issue, for example - If most people believe that the maintenance (health) of our public lands, public roads, national defense, public education, etc fall into the class of legitimate government functions, why is it such a leap to think that government should not have a role in the health of its people - in the form of providing for universal health care? Do we actually care more about universal road health than we do about each other's health? Our current "system" delivers us the 35th best health care outcome, while charging us way more per capita than any other country's system. In view of the abundant evidence that private enterprise does not deliver fairly distributed health care and dumps BILLIONS of our health care dollars per year on lobbyists, political organizations, and politicians to keep their profits in the obscene class, do you really believe that government involvement in health care should be reduced or eliminated because you "believe in smaller government"? Intentional underfunding and intentional poorly designed governance make Medicare and Medicaid look bad, so the private system doesn't look quite so bad in comparison, but the private system we have is an embarrassment and kills people.

Sent by Robert Wells in Wyoming | 8:32 PM ET | 04-20-2008

@mr convy:
i believe the objection was to the slanderous
"This is a trait peculiar only to liberals and democrats. The very people who like to be known as free thinkers"

the suppression of free speech at bush "events" in 04 often taxpayer-subsidized (local police presence, etc.) where a pre-selected echo chamber were the only permitted guests and having a wrong t-shirt got you ejected belies your premise.

proponents of demolishing all affirmative action (including without quotas) are often the first to shout
"look, how us poor folks who held the reins of power in all 3 branches of government for nearly 6 years and caused this whole mess are oppressed and silenced" y'all done learned that victimization schtick right quick. amazing. just not convincing.

Sent by tim in exile | 8:03 AM ET | 04-21-2008

gooch - Writing in for Ron Paul is throwing your valuable vote away! Idealism is honorable but in this case unrealistic.

Sent by dativer | 11:49 PM ET | 04-21-2008