Drowning Uncle Sam........

Katrina illustrates folly of starving Uncle Sam

September 10, 2005

BY RALPH MARTIRE
rmartire@ctbaonline.org

from the Chicago Sun Times

The grim events of the last week have had a profound, devastating impact on millions. Family members, loved ones, friends and acquaintances all were lost as Hurricane Katrina ravaged the Gulf Coast. Americans, being the resilient folks we are, will rebound from this disaster. We always do. But if something really positive is to emerge from Katrina's wake, the storm must claim one more victim.

The casualty won't involve the tragic loss of innocent life. Instead, it will be the end of a pernicious philosophy that simultaneously distracts Americans from our nation's real problems while driving wedges between segments of society. Simply put, Katrina should shatter the belief that government, as an institution, is the enemy. Grover Norquist, one of this ideology's most ardent champions, summarized it best in a 1998 interview: ''[When] I got out of college in 1978 there were two threats to American liberty: the Soviet Union and Washington, D.C. One of those is finished. . . . We now have the opportunity to turn our attention from fighting the Soviet Union to reducing the size and scope of the federal government, which is the other threat to our civil liberties.''

The preferred way to destroy the enemy that is our own government is simple: Starve the beast. In 2003, Norquist made this clear when he maintained the objective is ''to reduce the size and scope of government in half over the next 25 years,'' so that ultimately it is small enough ''to drown in a bathtub.'' In this world view, government threatens, rather than protects, civil liberties. Somehow, the size rather than function of government is what matters. ''Big government'' equates with ''bad government.''

I wonder if the millions who desperately need federal aid after Katrina agree. To the contrary, evacuees' main complaint is government isn't quite big enough. The Federal Emergency Management Agency was understaffed and deprioritized, military and National Guard units that could have made a difference were deployed in Iraq, and our nation didn't have the capacity to replace them.

The big government/small government debate misses the point entirely. It's not government's size in an abstract sense that matters, but rather whether government is adequately equipped to deliver needed services and perform essential functions. Certainly, having the capacity to respond to natural disasters is an easy example of a societal function that requires ''big'' government. Large-scale disasters are easily recognized, the media cover them extensively, and eventually, a clear resolution is reached.

Unfortunately, America's most significant problems aren't as easy to recognize, don't have the same media appeal and defy clear resolutions. For instance, America, the wealthiest nation in the world, is simultaneously experiencing an increase in poverty and a decline in wages for 80 percent of its workers, while the economy grows! More than 45 million Americans don't have health insurance. The United States ranks a woeful 43rd in the world in infant mortality rates.

Meanwhile, Congress is considering policy options straight out of the ''starve the beast'' playbook. These include cutting around $35 billion in funding for: Medicaid (despite the growing ranks of uninsured Americans); food stamps, housing and cash assistance for poor families (despite the growth in poverty); and student loan programs (despite census data making it clear that a college education is the only ticket to a growing income).

Big government didn't cause any of these big problems, but it can and should play a role in countering them. In many cases, it does. Government programs like Medicaid, Social Security and food stamps help alleviate many societal ills, while creating a fairer, more just America for all. ''Starving the beast'' ignores this reality, while incapacitating government's ability to play its role in making America great. The real issue isn't ''big'' government vs. ''small.'' It's competent, adequately financed government vs. incompetent, unprepared and incapacitated government. For the wealthiest nation in the world, the choice should be obvious.