Whatever happened to limited government?

The concept of “limited government” seems to have become a relic of sorts, writes SoldAtTheTop, mocked by one side of the ideological spectrum, paid lip service to by the other but widely discarded overall.

Melanie Stetson Freeman/The Christian Science Monitor/File
Cashier Liliana Romero checks out a customer who is using a Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) card at Tesoro Supermarket in Framingham, Mass., in this October 2010 file photo. Every month over 47 million individuals receive $133.42 through the Department of Agriculture’s Food Stamps program for a total monthly cost of $6.28 billion dollars or $75.3 billion annually, SoldAtTheTop writes.

I’d like to take a moment to reflect on the notion of “limited government”.

With the latest election, the last four years in particular and the last decade or so in general, the concept of “limited government” seems to have become a relic of sorts, mocked by one side of the ideological spectrum, paid lip service to by the other but widely discarded overall.

It’s strange that such a basic concept could fall so far out of fashion… as if it has no merit at all… yet most “reasonable” people must acknowledge that there are “limits” to what the government can and should do.

By “reasonable” people, of course, I mean those who accept as valid the overall order of our society which seeks to balance the government “public interest” with the individual “private interest” and not those who occupy the extremes of the many philosophies who want nothing more than to radically reorganize everything (…one way or another) from the ground up. 


For example, every month over 47 million individuals receive $133.42 through the Department of Agriculture’s Food Stamps program for a total monthly cost of $6.28 billion dollars or $75.3 billion annually.

Now, given that this stipend is largely distributed to recipients via electronic credits through the widespread use of EBT cards (recipient accounts credited and credits transacted all electronically like credit cards), without incurring any additional administrative cost, the government could simply add another zero to the benefit bringing it to a monthly allowance of $1,334.20 per recipient and a program cost of $62.8 billion per month.

Why not do this? Wouldn’t this bring dramatic benefit to the lives nearly 50 million needy Americans?

Possibly you think that we simply cannot afford such a benefit BUT in an age of trillion dollar deficits, lack of revenue is hardly a limiting factor for government largesse… the Federal Reserve simply increases the monetary base (i.e. tacks on a few more zeros to its own balance sheet), buys government securities (government bonds of one sort or another) and viola!

So again, why not simply increase the Food Stamps benefit by a factor of 10? 

In fact, why stop there?  It’s just electronic blips…. Why not add TWO zeros bringing the monthly allowance to $13,342.00 per recipient and a program cost of $628.0 billion per month?

Clearly this would go long way toward solving serious issues like income inequality and poverty not to mention the economic demand (… along with Keynesian multipliers) that would be created by all that increased purchasing power.

So what’s wrong with this scenario?  Are there no limits?

You've read  of  free articles. Subscribe to continue.

Dear Reader,

About a year ago, I happened upon this statement about the Monitor in the Harvard Business Review – under the charming heading of “do things that don’t interest you”:

“Many things that end up” being meaningful, writes social scientist Joseph Grenny, “have come from conference workshops, articles, or online videos that began as a chore and ended with an insight. My work in Kenya, for example, was heavily influenced by a Christian Science Monitor article I had forced myself to read 10 years earlier. Sometimes, we call things ‘boring’ simply because they lie outside the box we are currently in.”

If you were to come up with a punchline to a joke about the Monitor, that would probably be it. We’re seen as being global, fair, insightful, and perhaps a bit too earnest. We’re the bran muffin of journalism.

But you know what? We change lives. And I’m going to argue that we change lives precisely because we force open that too-small box that most human beings think they live in.

The Monitor is a peculiar little publication that’s hard for the world to figure out. We’re run by a church, but we’re not only for church members and we’re not about converting people. We’re known as being fair even as the world becomes as polarized as at any time since the newspaper’s founding in 1908.

We have a mission beyond circulation, we want to bridge divides. We’re about kicking down the door of thought everywhere and saying, “You are bigger and more capable than you realize. And we can prove it.”

If you’re looking for bran muffin journalism, you can subscribe to the Monitor for $15. You’ll get the Monitor Weekly magazine, the Monitor Daily email, and unlimited access to CSMonitor.com.

QR Code to Whatever happened to limited government?
Read this article in
https://www.csmonitor.com/Business/Paper-Economy/2012/1126/Whatever-happened-to-limited-government
QR Code to Subscription page
Start your subscription today
https://www.csmonitor.com/subscribe