Government Overreach?

Government trying to do more than it can at the moment is one definition of government overreach. Another variation of the definition is attempting to do more than it ought to be doing. Let’s look at a few scenarios of this.

First one: delivering education to everyone who needs it and wants it. Although there is no doubt the objective is enviable, the American society has only so many dollars available for the objective at any given time. Local governments in the form of school districts are the primary delivery agent of education. So too are state governments which monitor financial health of all school districts and distribute state aid dollars to ensure poor districts are delivering education as best they can while wealthier communities do not have much difficulty doing so.

Federal dollars are also available to school districts in many forms. Federal agencies monitor education delivery and dole out assistance to again ensure that poorer school districts still are able to provide education to their constituents.

Other government entities deliver education as well – community college districts are an example – but all do so with restricted budgets compared with the demand for their services. Likewise state universities systematically deliver higher education to those who need and want it. Such systems also serve the broader public with research and development efforts that advance the body of knowledge to be shared with younger generations.

These are the primary engines of education delivery systems. There are limited dollars to achieve their mission so restrictions apply on a practical level.

Second, with limited public resources the above education systems also attempt to deliver breakfast and lunch to low income children to ensure healthy nutrition among the students. So too are societal norms monitored for public safety of children – abused and neglected kids are identified to bring them help. Health standards are also monitored. Before and after school hours programming is provided to keep kids off the streets and away from homes where both parents are working to maintain a low income household. Many other social programs are managed and delivered by way of the education systems. It’s where the kids are and they are the object of these programs, so the schools get stuck with the function.

Trouble is these are not education programs but restricted budget dollars are diverted from education to social programming because we have made stop gap decisions endlessly and confused the missions of varying ‘departments’ of our society’s life. This is overreach. True the work is valuable and needed. The question here, however, is who should do it? Our overworked school staffs? Our cramped school facilities? Is there a better and more appropriate way of accomplishing the social objectives without weakening the educational objectives?

Third, local municipal governments observe elder citizens with transportation problems. Their answer is to create a small, custom bus service to meet the needs of the non-driving public in need of getting to doctor appointments as well as shopping and other social activities. A great objective. But is it the job of the local city hall to do? They may be interested in the service being offered to local citizens but should they be the delivery agent of such a service? Are there other means to meet the needs that would not involve overloading the small, local government?

It is easy to see local issues grow larger in importance as we focus on the same problem in a larger venue – county, state, region, nation. As the scope of the issue enlarges more levels of government become involved. This is not a bad thing in and of itself. But the questions need to be asked:

• What services are core to each government level/entity?
• Which services belong to higher levels of government?
• How important are these services in the grand scheme of things? Who is benefiting from these services?
• Where are the resources to fund these services?
• Who pays for the services?

There is a fundamental skirmish alive in America. It is the concern that all government be right sized. Not all good things need to be done by government. That’s where identifying core services is a must.

There are those who believe in a model of small, or least government options. On the opposite side of this debate are those who feel government ought to provide the public with what is needed for basic quality of life. Ability to pay ought not dictate that people of modest means need to suffer lack of basic life supports – food, housing, clothing, medical care, etc.

How far this debate ranges is important. And it easily exceeds boundaries! The conservative versus liberal political arguments rage around these issues.

The debate, unfortunately, turns ugly and self righteous quickly. What needs to be discussed and settled over time will only come when parties to the discussions learn to share their thoughts with civility. Less passion and more logic is needed. Sharing objectives based on shared ideals will help.

I’m more of a centrist on these matters. I believe our most common problems are best solved locally and with the help of local volunteers, churches and charitable organizations. Somewhere along the way, however, adequate funding is necessary and at levels that do not discriminate between wealthy and poor communities. Needs are needs. They exist in well-to-do towns as well as poor villages. Often the needs of wealthy and poor exist side by side.

Focus on the need. Focus on the people. Determine what services will fill the need. Design how to meet the need. Get needed funding from several sources. This is the work that needs to get done first rather than demanding that a government perform the service.

And that work only results after meaningful discussions are held so all parties understand what is at stake and what community needs need our help.

The discussions need to be held. What we believe and hold dear as a community needs to be identified and agreed upon. Then we can take actions to live our commitments to one another.

In the final analysis I doubt it is truly a debate about big or small government. It is about how we believe in each other’s dignity.

January 8, 2013