I've listened to Sunday's debate twice now, and there was something conspicuously missing from the discussion. There was no talk at all about limiting or shrinking the size and role of government. It might surprise you to know that I actually favor such a thing, and neither candidate brought it up at all.
We can blame it on the questions asked, but the whole thing seemed more free-form than any debate I've ever witnessed. So why wasn't it mentioned?
Jon Tester actually scored points with me on this score because he does favor limitations on the Patriot Act. But that doesn't shrink the useless security apparatus we've built to support it, now does it? The current administration, with the weak toadying of Congress, actually created another Cabinet Department , seemingly to tell us to buy more duct-tape. And what has the Department of Homeland Security actually done? Hmm, not much. They've castrated FEMA, given us the colors of our fear (the greatest Internet joke EVAR!), and given jobs to the administrations friends. That can't be what we want, is it? If current events teach us anything, the actual job of securing the nation is being carried out by the DOD, the NSA, the FBI and Interpol. None of those are under DHS. The Bush II electric bugaloo has expanded our government for no reason. Can either candidate for Senate tell us why? Not in that debate.
As I've indicated, there are two very real side-effects of shrinking the government. The first is that it shrinks the role that government plays in our lives. That certainly isn't happening. The government is now paying journalists to infiltrate our media with friendly reporting on policy. Can anyone defend that as a lessening of government influence? The Patriot Act is being used to influence the failed and useless "War on Drugs". I'd call that an expansion of the government's powers to influence American life. Before the Bush administration, I didn't have to worry about phone tapping, or Internet message harvesting, or "No Fly" lists or even having to secure shampoo before flying. The fed wants you to believe that this is the fault of terrorists. No, it's not. The terrorists aren't scrutinizing my "Gee Your Hair Smells Terrific" before I fly in order to make my fellow passengers feel better. Underpaid and under-trained government lackeys are, and damn it! They're doing the job they were hired to do. The same goes for every single program that the government sponsors. You get a bunch of people just doing a job that they were hired to do, and a bunch more people suffering under the effects of further intrusion into their lives.
Now, no doubts, there's gonna be a bunch of critters who would tell me that we need such measures to keep us safe. And to them I say, no we don't. Less is more ... if it's efficient and effective. And those were the words that were most lacking from Sunday's debate. Now Conrad tried to tell us that the government is doing a good job of keeping us safe. There's a whole lot of debate about that very thing. He thinks the govt. is being effective. I don't. I think it's annoying us all and achieving results through the same methods employed before Conrad helped to expand our government's influence in our lives. You see, the Fed hasn't turned up one credible threat against American lives since 9/11, and HOLY COINCIDENCE, BATMAN ... there hasn't been another attack on American soil since that time ... except the random nutcase plowing people with his car ... or that little sniping episode in DC ... or the anthrax attacks for which no one has been held accountable.
So we aren't safer, right? The government has swelled such that my shampoo of mass saturation of hair oil is now deemed a deadly weapon, but I'm not any safer. The only effective result of government expansion has been the steady drumbeat of college Republicans called to the federal payroll to incompetently screw with my life. "Here's your flag pin, son; you've earned it. Now go on out there and keep the conservative faith ... and try to keep from being caught. 'Cause if you screw up, we'll disavow you like a two dollar whore!" Let's face the facts, here, people. Expanding government isn't effective if there is no efficiency.
There can't be efficiency without accountability. And wouldn't it be nice if there were a government department that scanned and tracked efficiency, such that some might be held accountable? Well what the hell do you know, there is one, and has been for a very long time. It's called the GAO, the General Accounting Office. They're the ones who let us know that the Iraqi Provisional Government flat out lost 9 billion dollars, and misused beyond 27 billion more. Has a bill for services been submitted to Paul Bremer? No. He got a medal instead. The GAO is the office that originally alerted the press to the fact that a fricking petting zoo in Alabama is supposedly a greater terrorist target than Hoover dam. Now how in the hell can this, any of it, be seen as efficient expenditure of government funds ... your fricking money?
Well it can't. That's obvious. The sad fact is, our government isn't efficient and hasn't been for quite some time. It's bloated, and spends money like they have it to spend. The Republicans will tell you, as Conrad Burns attempted to on Sunday, that it is all the fault of Democrats who want nothing more than to raise your taxes.
??? Democrats want to raise taxes and that somehow forgives the inefficient spending that has gone before? Huh? Does this make sense? I didn't think so. I didn't think so at all. This is why Congress looks nothing like your family or mine. If I have a bill to pay, I have to pay it, or face legal consequence. If I want to buy an expensive add-on to house or health or whatever, I have to borrow the money. And I know, every single day, I know I have to pay that money back. Congress doesn't have to. They can continue to borrow, and borrow, and borrow. Conrad Burns has voted multiple times to keep borrowing more .., borrow borrow borrow. Some one has to pay this money back, right? Someday, someone will have to reach deep and pay the money back; Paul Bremer's missing 9 billion? You'll pay it back or your children will. The funds for homeland insecurity while you get inconvenienced? Yup!; you're paying for it.
On Sunday, Jon Tester actually gave a shout out to the idea that we are biting off more than we are willing to chew. Our government has no efficiency and we will pay, especially for the Iraq war. Conrad? Well he was just happy that we increase our debt by less than we expected. In my house, that means buying less beer than I'd hoped. In Conrad's house, which he doesn't own and will be dead long before he accepts his responsibility for funding, well ... eat it, my bitches! He's gonna pay you the money that he thinks is his, even though its yours. He will "provide" for Montana. What he won't do is take responsibility for the growth of an inefficient canker. What he won't do is stop the spread of government into your life that you pay for. What Conrad wants is to buy you toys ... a skating rink, a ball field, a YMCA. What Conrad wants is for you to thank him for providing his services in borrowing your money. Conrad wants to expand the role and price that government plays in your life. Conrad wants you scared and greedy such that you agree to expand the role and price that government play in your life. Conrad is inefficient, and Conrad is ineffective.
I'm sick of the expansion of the Fed that Conrad tasks me to pay for, (whether I will it or not.) I'm done supporting those who spend my money to benefit themselves, and that means I'm done supporting Conrad. I was unhappy that no one at the Hamilton debate supported the idea of shrinking government. The incumbent has the clear advantage in such a discussion, but Conrad can't muster such a thing. He's too terrified, and wants to buy your vote. He's scared that actually holding to a value will doom his chances since he hasn't been able to hold to anything for so very long. Give me a break, Conrad. I don't need more government control, more government waste. I need less; and you aren't supporting that, are you?
