My Big, Fat Federal Government
One reason I am running for the United States Senate is to reduce the size and burden of the federal government. One man asked me the other day, “What makes you think you can do that?” Because I’m willing to try and willing to be held accountable. If I don’t do it, please get someone who can.
From the very start, I have told my constituents that they should expect performance, not excuses. Setting that standard of accountability, I have worked hard to get in a position in the Legislature where I could affect policy and say, “For better or worse, I take responsibility for the product you see. If you like it, re-elect me. If not, replace me with someone who can deliver.”
For better or worse, I take shared responsibility for the Legislature’s actions to avoid tax increases in the big downturn by cutting programs, to shore up the structural deficits in the State budget this past year, and, as a result of those sound decisions, to pass a real tax cut this coming year.
If we don’t cut taxes this year, will I take responsibility? You bet. I’m there to help set the agenda, not go along for the ride.
All this factors into the “time for change” audio I posted this weekend. Utahns don’t like that our leaders have bloated the federal government so much over the last 30 years. Change means that they want someone who will take responsibility to change direction and not simply say, “Yes, it’s unacceptable, but it would be even worse if I weren’t there.”
Above, I mention “real” tax cuts, because the State actually balances its budget every year. We cut expenditures before we cut revenues. It would be nice to have more people in the Senate who have experience doing that in government.
At the federal level, tax cuts largely lack permanence, because there is so little attention paid to the expenditure side of the balance sheet. Why? That’s easy; program cuts make people mad. But, until the federal government skinnies up what it does, there always will be “need” for significant revenues. Sure, we’ll have some tax cuts, but, like night follows day, we’ll also have tax increases; the huge appetite of federal programs will always demand lots of feed. The only way to truly reduce the burden of the federal government is to reduce its programs – limit the things it does, just like the Founders intended.
Where will I start? There could be many areas. As I’ve mentioned before, the Federal Department of Education would be a great place to begin. Other than bureaucracy, if the money were returned to the people and the states, what would we miss from that $60,000,000,000 expenditure? What believer in states rights wouldn't want to gradually phase out the Department, trimming the expenditure along with the bureaucratic burdens and tax load?
Someone told me this week that he thought it was good that the federal government has a stick to whack bad schools. The Founders would disagree. Utah doesn’t need New York and Massachusetts Senators or federal bureaucrats whacking our local schools. We have Utahns to oversee our schools. Instead of proposing to run our schools, we need the federal government to stop siphoning off resources that individuals and local and state governments could spend far more efficiently on students, instead of bureaucrats.
From the very start, I have told my constituents that they should expect performance, not excuses. Setting that standard of accountability, I have worked hard to get in a position in the Legislature where I could affect policy and say, “For better or worse, I take responsibility for the product you see. If you like it, re-elect me. If not, replace me with someone who can deliver.”
For better or worse, I take shared responsibility for the Legislature’s actions to avoid tax increases in the big downturn by cutting programs, to shore up the structural deficits in the State budget this past year, and, as a result of those sound decisions, to pass a real tax cut this coming year.
If we don’t cut taxes this year, will I take responsibility? You bet. I’m there to help set the agenda, not go along for the ride.
All this factors into the “time for change” audio I posted this weekend. Utahns don’t like that our leaders have bloated the federal government so much over the last 30 years. Change means that they want someone who will take responsibility to change direction and not simply say, “Yes, it’s unacceptable, but it would be even worse if I weren’t there.”
Above, I mention “real” tax cuts, because the State actually balances its budget every year. We cut expenditures before we cut revenues. It would be nice to have more people in the Senate who have experience doing that in government.
At the federal level, tax cuts largely lack permanence, because there is so little attention paid to the expenditure side of the balance sheet. Why? That’s easy; program cuts make people mad. But, until the federal government skinnies up what it does, there always will be “need” for significant revenues. Sure, we’ll have some tax cuts, but, like night follows day, we’ll also have tax increases; the huge appetite of federal programs will always demand lots of feed. The only way to truly reduce the burden of the federal government is to reduce its programs – limit the things it does, just like the Founders intended.
Where will I start? There could be many areas. As I’ve mentioned before, the Federal Department of Education would be a great place to begin. Other than bureaucracy, if the money were returned to the people and the states, what would we miss from that $60,000,000,000 expenditure? What believer in states rights wouldn't want to gradually phase out the Department, trimming the expenditure along with the bureaucratic burdens and tax load?
Someone told me this week that he thought it was good that the federal government has a stick to whack bad schools. The Founders would disagree. Utah doesn’t need New York and Massachusetts Senators or federal bureaucrats whacking our local schools. We have Utahns to oversee our schools. Instead of proposing to run our schools, we need the federal government to stop siphoning off resources that individuals and local and state governments could spend far more efficiently on students, instead of bureaucrats.
posted by steve u. at 8/08/2005
Subscribe
12 Comments:
Steve, I agree with you that "reduction of the Fed" is important. I just have one question. How do you reduce the size of the DOE when the people in their jobs are promised that they can never be fired?
AMEN
Steve,
My kids and I read or listen everyday. Although only in middle school and high school they are asking political questions and we are having some very interesting and spirited discussions because of what we read and hear. I love that they are learning about the politcial process and more importantly they are feeling apart of the process, as I have encouraged them to voice their oponions by commenting on your blog.
As for education, your blog has taught my kids more about politics and government this summer, than "American Government and You" taught me in high school.
Keep it up!
Good point. But the people of Utah need to wake up to the fact that they consume more in federal expenditures than they pay in taxes. Utah's economy would improve a lot if the Federal government would quit messing around so much there but they sound of breaking rice bowls is pretty scary to a people who have drifted far from their independent pioneer roots.
DOUBLE AMEN! Go get'em Steve.
I'm a fiscally conservative Republican, but Steve, it seems to me the GOP folks in DC have given up any pretense of being fiscal cons. They passed things like NCLB and prescription drugs because Bush wanted them. They just passed the energy and transportation bills that were bloated beyond belief and something like only five Republicans had the integrity to vote against the bills. We have the Congress and the White House, and spending just keeps going up, even on the domestic side.
So this sounds great, but what are you going to do when Mitch McConell (or whomever is in the GOP leadership) comes to you and says we need your vote on this bill, here's some extra spending for your state? And what can you do to stand for fiscal conservatism, when most of our party has abandoned the concept and the other party is only worse?
Steve its really dangerous to run on reducing federal spending espcially in Utah. Utahns have the tax expenditure addiction just as much as anyone if not worse.
More power to you but if you succeed.
Ok, I'm going to say something that's probably going to be very unpopular on this blogsite, but I'm willing to accept the consequences. But first let me ask this question: what's your stance on the flag burning amendment? You've probably already addressed this before, but I'm new to this blog so I wouldn't know. The way I look at it, passing the amendment is just another government intrusion, which I think goes against conservative values. If you rightfully own a flag, and you decide that you want to burn it on your property that you rightfully own, and you do it in such a way that it doesn't pose any harm to anyone, why should the government tell you that you can't do that? And then there's always the "slippery slope" argument. What if it went even further to criminalizing the desecration of images of the founding fathers? And so on and so forth?
Here's a good editorial by Blaine Nichols, the conservative writer for the Davis County Clipper:
"Our imported Sen. Orrin Hatch is working again with Sen. Edward Kennedy to expand the suffocating grasp of the federal government into every facet of American life. Hatch knows full well that you must take freedoms from Americans in small and progressive bites; always appearing to be doing what is “best” for them. The idea that the flag must be protected is but another attempt to limit the inalienable rights of Americans. The very document which wisely attempted to ensure the federal government would never dominate the American citizenry is now proposed to be used as the instrument to destroy its own existence. Sen. Hatch would again join with the courts to further destroy the original meaning of the Bill of Rights via a poorly thought-out, and impossible to fairly enforce amendment which will surely be used only for political purposes.
What is desecration? What exactly is the flag? To which flag will this Amendment refer? How will we know if a flag is being desecrated or simply retired? Can a flag be washed, or must it be retired by burning? If the flag is simply a newspaper imprint can it be thrown into the trash? Is it desecration to use the flag as an article of clothing or a bumper sticker on a smelly old truck belching smoke from the tailpipe? What if someone uses a flag imprinted sticker on a letter to their grandchild who then wads it up and throws it into the trash? Is it defilement to use the flag as a commercial advertising item? In what specific circumstances can a flag be used without desecrating it? Can a flag be painted on a sidewalk and walked upon? Who will be targeted for prosecution? Will it be OK for a flag to be used as a tank decoration on a legislator’s Harley Davidson? What if that same decoration is on a gangster’s Harley? Or in a tattoo? Who gets prosecuted? Who decides who gets prosecuted?
I need no law to tell me what I should feel about the flag of the United States. That symbol stands above any feeble effort to protect it. Should someone be so callous as to purposefully desecrate that symbol of goodness, their punishment should rightly come from their own conscience.
Each time I returned to the United States the sight of the Grand Old Flag flying proudly over this great land brought tears to my eyes and gratitude to my heart. That same level of emotion is frequently repeated at ball games, parades, Scout experiences and other venues where she presides in dignity. Hopefully that sense of freedom will be felt, enjoyed and defended by my posterity for many years to come. Hopefully that red, white and blue symbol of freedom will never become the weapon to take God-given freedoms from us."
I have been with you up to this point--now I begin to wonder. There have been others who have said they would go to Washington and cut big government--but when they get there they are one small voice in a big wind.
Although there are some real problems at the DOE--the answer is not to just dismantle the department.
Anyone who talks about reducing the size of the Fed by axing the entire Dept. of Education without even a mention of considering possibly looking into examining the gobs of waste that pass through the Pentagon is blowin' smoke. We need a lean, mean, pentagon and not a country club for defense contractors.
So what is your position on Hill Air Force Base? Do you have the guts to see it closed? It may take a few years but I'll bet Northern Utah's econmoy would boom if that local piece of pork were cancelled. But you may could lose a lot of Northern Utahns.
As for flag burning, remember that the American Constitution protects loonies too. Stay away from Orrin Hatch's jingoism.
National defense is one of the most, if not the most, important functions the federal government undertakes. Hill AFB is one of the most efficient bases around. I'd work to make sure it stays that way and stays open.
<< Home