What Does 'Less Government' Mean To You?

An area ripe for discussions between Democrats and Republicans (or even among Republicans themselves) is about what “less government” means to the individual expressing the view that we ought to have more (less?) of it. For instance, does the person want no federal government, and thereby no Constitution, Bill of Rights, military, etc.? No state government either? Or if the person wants limited government, which parts should we limit?

It seems to me that the most vocal about this right now are those who actually want to do away with the federal government altogether, yet I would bet that most conservatives recognize that some government is in their best interest and have more refined ideas of what they would 'lessen'. What I hear most often from conservatives are criticisms of specific federal agencies, like the FDA, the EPA, the ATF, etc., and complaints that these agencies are abridging our freedoms or running amuck in some way. So here's a brief primer on these organizations and some links to pertinent news articles and discussions on their pros and cons. Maybe you can take this to your next Coffee Party meeting. You may even find you have some issues with these groups, too.

Environmental Protection Agency
The Environmental Protection Agency, or EPA, was established in 1970 by President Nixon to “consolidate in one agency a variety of federal research, monitoring, standard-setting and enforcement activities to ensure environmental protection.” (from http://www.epa.gov/history/). The EPA's stated mission “is to protect human health and to safeguard the natural environment—air, water, and land—upon which life depends.”

When it comes to more or less government debates, there seems to be three main areas of controversy:

1. The EPA's effectiveness, past and present (should it be stronger? weaker?)
2. The EPA's independence from executive and other political influence (uncontrolled power or not enough power?)
3. Whether the EPA has/should have the authority to regulate greenhouse gases

The last is the most current controversy, and stems from a Supreme Court decision in 2005 that the Clean Air Act (a law passed by Congress) requires the EPA to regulate greenhouse gas emissions unless there is no scientific reason to do so, and the agency's response in 2009 that the scientific evidence overwhelmingly indicates these gases are indeed a threat to the public health and welfare (EPA Background from Wikipedia and Supreme Court Decision on Clean Air Act from Wikipedia).

Federal Drug Administration

It was the early 1900s, the time when Upton Sinclair's book “The Jungle” exposed some pretty abhorrent practices by the meat packing industry as well as when reports were increasing on myriad incidents of people dying from eating food or ingesting substances that were, well, lethal. Food was more frequently being transported interstate, with no awareness by the consumer of these 'imported' foods that the laws and regulations (and thus the quality of the food) varied from state to state. Interstate? That's when the Feds can step in. And they did, with Congress passing and President Theodore Roosevelt signing into law the Food and Drug Act in 1906. The Federal Drug Administration, or FDA, was then established to make sure the food industry complied. Since then of course, both the Food and Drug Act and the FDA have evolved, grown, and become vastly more complex. (Source: FDA Background from Wikipedia.) Grown too much? Become too complex? These are questions ripe for liberal vs. conservative discussions.

The next big controversy for this agency, however, may well be whether the FDA can/should regulate our diets. Yesterday, the Pentagon declared a national security threat by 2030 if we don't do anything about the fact that almost a quarter of new recruits are ineligible because they're too overweight. Apparently, if current trends continue, by 2030 so many young men and women will be too fat to serve that we won't be able to sustain an adequate military force. Is this enough of a reason for government action/regulation or not? Personally, I don't want my government telling me what I can and can't eat (drink, smoke, etc.), but I'd imagine there are programmatic or standardizing things the government could/should do to try and reverse the trend. At any rate, this could be a fruitful conversation between a Democrat and a Republican in terms of understanding basic philosophy, especially since there's no proposed solution—and thereby no talking point or position to defend—yet.

The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives
The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, aka the ATF, is probably the most controversial federal government agency. Just think Prohibition, gun control, and Waco, and you'll immediately be in the right groove for a lively discussion with a conservative. Its history is actually the most convoluted of the three agencies, and is probably a good place to start when examining the pros and cons of the agency. (My source: ATF Background from Wikipedia.) With the legalization of marijuana and “Taxed Enough Already” as two of our most popular topics for news coverage right now, you might ask yourself and your favorite conservative whether making alcohol illegal and setting up the IRS were the right or wrong things to do back then.

Article, Pro/Con, and Related Links
http://www.redstate.com/vladimir/2010/04/10/epa-mission-creep-on-steroids/
http://www.newberggraphic.com/news/2010/April/20/Opinion_Guest.Opinion/421.guest.opinion.regulating.greenhouse.emissions/news.aspx
http://www.center4research.org/news/fda-100.html
http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/719736
http://topics.nytimes.com/topics/reference/timestopics/organizations/b/bureau_of_alcohol_tobacco_and_firearms/index.html
http://content.usatoday.com/topics/topic/Organizations/Government+Bodies/Bureau+of+Alcohol,+Tobacco,+Firearms+and+Explosives
http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=1313
http://www.opencongress.org/bill/111-s941/show
http://hdl.handle.net/2027/mdp.39015082327282