Letters from Linden
by JACK LINDEN
The phrase “too big to fail” is being used today to refer to companies, namely banking and insurance companies that are so large, if they fail, it will affect the global economy. We saw that happen in 2008 and are still recovering from the near economic catastrophe. We are also now hearing that our government is too big, too intrusive, too unconcerned.
It is time to ask those who are saying that our government is too big, what they want instead of what is happening. If the government is too big, what aspects of it do the protestors want abolished?
Is the government too big now that it is involved in the massive oil clean-up in the Gulf of Mexico? While screaming for less government, does it not seem logical that the protestors of big government should now be protesting what the government is doing to help alleviate the damage to free enterprise? Is it fair to protest big government only when it is trying regulate?
Those protestors cannot use the excuse that the mishap is a disaster and therefore needs the help of government. That mishap is the result of free enterprise. If free enterprise means that one makes money from investment, then it should follow that the same enterprise be responsible for the mistakes and losses. Would the protestors allow the natural environment to be ruined in the name of free enterprise? Would they be amenable to the beaches becoming oil soaked, the killing of waterfowl, and the destruction of the means of others to make a living? That is what would happen if big government did not step in and help those that caused the problem.
Many of us on the liberal side of the table want that big government to step in and do the saving, but we also want that big government to regulate industries so that it doesn’t have to come to the rescue. We want to be able to enjoy nature in its natural state. We also recognize that too often in our history, we humans have desecrated our landscape, our waterways, and destroyed wildlife. We have come to depend on government to protect us from ourselves. As the famous cartoon character Pogo said, “We have met the enemy and it is us.”
While I hear no protest about big government intruding into the oil spill now the size of Connecticut, or any outcry from the anti-big government people about the immigration law recently passed in Arizona. How much more big government is there when a police officer with reasonable suspicion, can ask you for your citizenship papers? Adding insult to injury, there is also a section of that same law that says one can file charges against a police officer for failing to carry out his legal duties if it is believed he or she is not enforcing the law. Where is the outcry? Would you, if white, be offended if a police officer asked you for your papers merely on his suspicions?
These two problems are real and need to be solved, if in fact they are solvable. Yes, big government has an obligation to help in times of catastrophe, but it also has an obligation to attempt to ensure that such catastrophes do not occur. If those who are opposed to big government are true to themselves, they will demand that the people responsible for the catastrophe pay for the damages. Those damages must include the payment for potential earnings by those who the catastrophe affected. How do you put a price on the death of wildlife and the environment? I don’t have an answer; a guilty conscious is not enough.
As for immigration, yes, we need a policy. The federal government has an obligation to secure the borders, but it cannot be based on “reasonable suspicion” and cannot just the southern border.
Let’s be truthful to ourselves in trying to solve the problems facing the nation. In the meantime, let’s don’t pick and choose when it comes to economics. We are either for some government intervention or we are not. We can’t be for on the one hand and not for on the other.
