Do not be deceived by those who claim less government is better

More and more these days we hear people clamoring that we need to return to our 18th century roots of bare-bones government. These people truly believe that somehow taking away the government's responsibility to its people will lead to this great utopia. Before I completely obliterate this flawed notion, I will concede that they do have good points about government inefficiencies. However, the conclusion they end up making is in the opposite direction of the real solution. I suppose it's easy to understand this growing trend of anti-government ideology if you look at how poorly the Bush Administration has done to drive America into the ground these past 7 years. When people see inadequacies of the government, or cite all these examples of how it makes things worse, these all stem from the corrupt and incompetent actions by the Bush administration. They are confusing the two. They see how bad the Bush administration is, so they blame it on the concept of government in general.

If you actually look at the problems that they cite as examples to why we need less government, you'll realize that the problem was in fact a lack of government intervention. Look at what happened after Hurricane Katrina. This was clearly a problem of not enough government resources able to handle a crisis situation. You have to have good leaders and resources in times of crisis, and when you don't it can lead to disaster. If you have a decision between making sure we can handle hard times or an option of saving a few dollars by less taxes, I think it's pretty clear which one is more worth it to the American people. Look at the 911 tragedy. We were unable to prevent it given the current power and resources the government had at the time. Which type of government do you think is more apt to preventing a terrorist strike: one of the 18th century? Or one where we can use the Patriot Act to stop crime before it happens.

These delusional people also believe that we would be better off if the government wasn't involved in health care. They apparently ignore the fact that if it was a true free market with no government assistance, doctors would be price gouging like mad and only the rich would be able to get decent health care. You think doctors will just start offering their services for free out of the goodness of their heart? Maybe a few of them perhaps, but it wouldn't be nearly enough to handle the nation's poor, and good hearted doctors shouldn't have to be burden with what should be the government's responsibility.

Without government programs, we would not have well maintained roads, public education for any child, welfare programs for the poor, police, firefighters, an army to protect our nation, or the FDA to ensure that the medication we give our kids is safe and effective. If you want to do away with all that, then by all means go off to some deserted island and start your own country. But some of us realize the value in these things. The problems arise though when they're mismanaged by administrations that have no clue what they're doing.

It's important though that in order to be more reliant upon the government, we must be more educated so we can elect politicians who will get the job done right. Obviously, more government in Bush's hands is a bad thing, but I guarantee you under Hillary it will be a hell of a lot better. And that's why the whole smear campaign against Hillary by the media is so important to address. It takes away the American people's ability to make a sound decision based on facts.

Seriously folks, is this what you want America to look like?