Why Occupy

I keep hearing talking heads act dumbfounded by the current Occupy Wall Street protests/sit-ins. Really? Is it truly that much of a mystery?

Some of the nit picking is due to the lack of a simple, easily packaged mission statement that will fit in a headline. After all, that's the only thing most news shows and pundit parades have time for. They want a one sentence description they can wrap their pea brains around so they can then pontificate.

You want to know what it's all about? Try this little exercise. Google (or Bing, if you like) US unemployment statistics for the last few years.  National deficit estimates, mortgage foreclosure statistics and personal bankruptcies for the last year, just as a start. After you've spent a little time with those happy articles, search for US corporate earnings, middle class earnings of the last decade and earnings of the top few percent over the same period. Does anything strike you as strange about all this? Notice a trend?

Well, it sure seems odd to me and the crowds of people meeting for the Occupy Wall Street protests! It's odd that many of the companies who caused the economy to implode, and were then bailed out by American taxpayers, are doing great! Earnings as high or higher than before they mugged the economy and bonuses hitting record levels. Now compare that to the financial status of the bulk of Americans.

What are they protesting? They, and I, are watching as the top tier is slowly sucking dry the real engine of the economy, the middle class. We see a financial system guilty of massive greed and corruption yet, with few exceptions, puttering along as if nothing happened. What are the Occupy protesters looking for? How about Justice for those who don't make 6 or 7 figure salaries? How about making those who do take responsibility for their actions? Or is that too much to ask?

2011-10-30: Matt Taibbi has a good piece on this subject over at Rolling Stone. I encourage you to give it a read.

Motivational Dysfunction

I have to give Republicans their due. Without a doubt, the GOP is the clear winner when it comes to playing the game of politics. While individual Democrats are skilled, the party as a whole often seems completely out of its depth. Mostly I think that comes from being much less unified than the GOP. The Democrats are far more inclusive of views that fall outside the core party platform, making unified movement challenging at times. A bigger tent, as some like to say.  The Republicans may snipe at each other around primary time, but when dealing with a Democratic challenge, they close ranks like an ancient Greek phalanx!

I don't know how much is follow-the-leader and how much is good old fashioned authoritarian decree, but ever since the Obama Administration took office the GOP has moved as a single entity. They recognized that the economic collapse of 2008 gave them a priceless opportunity to attack the new, popular President from day one. Despite not being sworn into office till after the financial bailout (TARP) had already been passed, the GOP immediately began laying full responsibility for everything related to the economic collapse at Obama's doorstep. Phrasing even TARP related criticism as if it was all Obama's idea and neatly sidestepping their own votes for the Bush era package. This would become the Republican model for everything that has come since.

Despite a stimulus package that economists have repeatedly claimed created or saved upwards of 2.7 million jobs, the GOP to this day continues to deride it as useless. They did this even as a number of them quietly submitted requests for stimulus money for projects they themselves explicitly claimed would create jobs! But publicly the Republicans maintained a solid front in claiming the stimulus did nothing and that this proved that government was powerless to do anything positive, thus making any attempt at passing a second stimulus a political impossibility. From the beginning, the GOP economic recovery plan has consisted of only a single refrain, cut taxes on the 'job creators'. These would be the same 'job creators' who were, and still are, laying off workers not because of high taxes, but because of limited demand. So there they were, proposing policies that would benefit them politically by buddying up to big business while ensuring that the economic status quo remained undisturbed. Put simply, the GOP claimed the President was at fault for the continuing economic trouble while simultaneously blocking any proposal he put forth that might have made a difference. I'd rate the GOP at one out of ten for job performance, but ten out of ten for political finesse!

The problem is that I don't think any of the men with a hand in framing our Constitution ever envisioned a situation where roughly half the legislature would see political advantage in maintaining a recession level economy. But that's where we are! I'm sure there are those who will read this and scream 'partisanship'! But think about it, who would benefit from a recovering economy? Sure the GOP could try and claim some hand in it, but it's pretty widely accepted that voters will judge a President on the state of the economy. If it's booming, he can claim credit, no matter which party controls the House or Senate. If it's a bust, he must also take the blame, no matter who controls the House or Senate. So the GOP has everything to gain and nothing to lose, politically anyway, by maintaining the current state of affairs. They know that if Obama goes into the 2012 election with unemployment at 9%, it will seriously hurt his chances for re-election. And, unfortunately for all those millions of Americans looking for work, this is all about elections. Senate Minority Leader McConnell has explicitly said, on several occasions, that preventing Obama from winning a second term is his primary political goal. I have to give him points for being honest, but this reminds me of a line from the movie Ocean's 11. Rusty is confronting Danny about trying to pull this huge casino heist while simultaneously winning back his ex-wife in the same operation. Rusty asks him, "So what happens if you can't have them both? Which one are you going to choose?" Senator McConnell, the most powerful Republican in the Senate, has clearly stated what his choice would be if forced to pick between improving the economy or defeating President Obama's re-election. The truth is that the GOP, as a whole, has long since made their choice and it's not looking good for the economy.

The Wrong Problem

America has a bunch of pressing problems. We have unemployment topping 9.2%, the national debt at around $14 Trillion, budget deficits pushing a Trillion per year and an economy that may have climbed out of the hole, but remains prostrate and panting in the dirt. Now one of these problems is key to solving all the others. No, it's not the budget deficits or the debt itself. It's the economy! As long as the economy is immobile we cannot solve any of the others.

It's easy to try and compare the federal government's budget to a business or an individual's finances, but it's also nonsensical to do so because there are significant differences. If you and I get into debt, our main options are to cut our spending or increase our income by getting a better or second job. Or better yet, both. So far so good, but here is where the paths diverge. For you and I, this is pretty much all we need to do, since we are only responsible for ourselves and immediate family. The federal government, however, must balance the needs of the country and the complex interplay of finances, services and policies that affect the entire US economy. Every cut you make ripples outward across the country and sometimes even beyond our borders. Now when the economy is cruising along, these ripples are fairly easily absorbed with minimal shock. But the more fragile the economy the harder it is for the system to ride out the spikes and dips caused by large changes in federal fiscal policy.

The thing that gets lost in the brain bleeding cacophony of the budget fight and debt 'negotiations', and I use that term loosely, is that none of this happens in isolation. It's all connected. When the economy is bad and the unemployment rate is high, as it is now, it's a bad idea to start cutting federal and state jobs like a madman. This only makes the problem worse by reducing the total jobs available and increasing those looking for work. Conservatives like to pretend that government jobs aren't 'real' jobs, but that's just part of the 'government is bad' propaganda they like to spew. These are real people doing real work. So while cutting government programs, and thus public sector jobs, will indeed reduce overhead costs what's forgotten is that this only takes them off the government payroll and puts them on unemployment. This means more people drawing unemployment checks and more people flooding the job market. So really, you're just moving them from one government ledger to another. Their drop in income will lead directly to more bankruptcies and more foreclosures. This also leads to less consumer buying and thus more pressure on companies who are seeing their sales of goods and services continue to slide. Inevitably this leads to more layoffs as companies hunker down to ride out the storm. Oh, and let's not forget that people out of work and not buying equals less tax money being collected, which makes federal and state budgets even worse! It's a very logical and vicious downward spiral that is often completely ignored in the press and on the Sunday talk show circuit. Partly because it's an inconvenient hiccup to the Conservative narrative and partly because it doesn't fit into a one sentence sound byte.

Yes, we have lots of problems and the debt is certainly one of them. But while it is a problem, it is not THE problem. The debt is not going to destroy anything today, tomorrow or next year. However, not getting the economy moving and getting people back to work only makes the debt issue more intractable and increases pressure on future deficits. None of this should be surprising. This is simple economics. Just basic cause & effect that anyone willing to use that ten pound lump on their shoulders should be able to work out. We don't need more anti-abortion laws or any of the hundreds of other things the GOP controlled House has wasted time on this year! What we need is action to resurrect our economy before it stumbles back into the abyss from whence it came!

Priorities

We've all been in the position where we had multiple problems but limited time or resources to address them. So what do you do? You look at your problems and figure out which is the most pressing. The one that absolutely can't be put off. The problem that threatens to overwhelm you if not dealt with as soon as possible. You may have several that at first glance seem equally important but, in almost every case, when you look closely and weigh the facts you will see that one is more of an emergency than the other. It may not be by a lot, but there is a difference. Once this is sorted out, you focus as much as you can on this one problem and resolve it, or at least make enough progress that you can set it aside in favor of a more pressing issue. Put simply, you prioritize.

This is what we all do everyday. We prioritize errands, bills, obligations and all the other things in life we have to address both good and bad. But as often seems to be the case, our elected leaders appear to have forgotten this, whether by intention or incompetence. I think most Americans would agree that the two most pressing problems, on a national level, are the economy, which includes unemployment, and the national debt. Since being swept into office last November on a wave of impatience and discontent, the Republicans have, between inexplicable bouts of anti-abortion and anti-union zeal, screamed to the rafters that we must cut spending. Cut, cut, cut. Now, now, now! They say the government is spending too much and while true this is hardly different from the previous eight years, when they were in charge.  I agree that the debt is a huge problem. One of my early posts from 2004 was about the need to address the problem. Of course then the problem was only dire. It hadn't yet reached the level of obscenity we now face. So I'm fully in agreement that the debt must be faced and a plan set in place to reduce it.

However, one other thing has changed since 2004, when I first waved the red flag on our debt. You may even have noticed it when it occurred. It was when the economy dropped through the floor like a tank on balsa wood. Ring any bells? So here we sit, with unemployment hovering around 9% nationally and far worse in some areas. We've had some marginal growth, but it's been stuttering and uncertain. Foreclosures and bankruptcies are at eye watering levels. In fact, the only people doing well are those who either had lots of money to cushion the fall or the robber barons who parked the tank there in the first place! To top it all off, Republicans, with misguided and grudging Democratic support, ladled another $700 billion to the debt over the next few years so the richest people in the nation wouldn't see a slight tax hike.

This complicates any plan to balance the budget and put even a smudge on the national debt. It's the same old story, when the economy is booming and we could actually afford to reduce the budget and make inroads against the debt without major cuts, everyone wants to spend, spend, spend. As soon as the economy sags, everyone is suddenly calling for the end to NPR funding and home heating oil subsidies for the poor. Aside from the questionable morals of taking aid away from the poor after ensuring the wealthy don't see a tax increase, there is the fact that cuts like these have no real effect on the budget. Most of the cuts I see proposed are all focused on balancing the budget from the tiniest slice of the whole pie, discretionary spending. They ignore the largest percentage made up of Social Security, Medicare/Medicaid & Defense. Why? Because those would require real effort and debate. So much easier to just go for the easy pickings. The stuff you can get the base riled up about, but that won't really make a difference.

Want to deal with the budget? Focus on the economy! The most important thing is to get the economy growing and get millions back to work. That will scale back the bankruptcies, the foreclosures and spending on unemployment benefits. It will also generate revenue that can be used to balance the budget, along with some modest cuts. Remember, the underlying reason for the huge budget problems at the State and Federal levels stem from the recession. Yes, government has spent a lot in the last 3 years, but the reason it did, whether you agreed with the choices or not, was in direct response to economic strife. Propping up huge corporations so they wouldn't collapse and take large chunks of their fiscal neighbors with them. Trying to pump money into the system to keep the economy from flat lining. That's where the majority of our recent deficits came from. So focus on the economy. Get that running on all cylinders again and a significant percentage of the problem will correct itself.  No, it won't solve it, but it will have a far greater and long lasting effect than any discretionary spending cuts. And if you're going to look at cuts, consider EVERYTHING, not just your pet, partisan punching bag. We will never balance the entire budget if we are only willing to make cuts to 15% of it!

No Experts Needed

There are a lot of issues that require some level of expertise when you delve into the details. This is especially true with finance and economic related policies. However, it requires no specialized knowledge to see when theories defy logic itself. The recent debate over the so called 'Bush Tax Cuts' are a perfect example. They were originally enacted to help restart a sluggish economy, but really did very little in this regard. On top of that, they were unpaid for and therefore were mainlined directly into the deficit and ultimately the national debt. To add insult to stupidity, these cuts disproportionately helped those earning over a million dollars a year. Hardly the segment hurt most by economic troubles. This is what is known to Conservatives as the theory of Trickle Down Economics, made famous under the Reagan administration. To everyone else, it's simply known as Help the Wealthy and hope they feel generous towards the little people.

If there is one economic idea that should be run through the shredder it's Trickle Down Economics. Let's set aside the example of its abject failure in the mid-late '80s and instead just think for a moment. A capitalist based economy is powered by the engine of consumerism. People buy houses, cars, TVs, computers, beer, clothes, etc. That demand means companies who supply these items need to make more of them and create improved versions. To do this they hire workers to design and produce the items. Those workers get paid for this work and use that money to buy houses, cars, TVs and so on. With me so far? So the corporations make money by selling items to people who have money to spend. The more money consumers have to spend, the more they can buy and the more luxuries they will desire. Corporations make more money by providing these items. As demand rises, they find it profitable to add more factories, hire more workers and produce more. The new workers spend their paychecks on more items, from necessities to luxuries. From food to diamonds. The capitalist version of the circle of life. Simplified, but you get the idea.

Now for the Trickle Down Economics in this scenario. This theory says that to stimulate the economy you should give tax cuts to the corporations and the wealthy so that they will use that money to expand factories and create jobs. What should be obvious by now is that this goes against even the most basic idea of capitalism. Wealthy individuals and corporations don't create factories and the resulting jobs because they have extra cash on hand this year, they do it when there is DEMAND! It doesn't matter how many tax cuts you give them, if there is no one shopping for jewelry, it's unlikely that Kay Jewelers is going to be opening any new stores anytime soon. You can 'trickle' all you want and all you'll accomplish is to make the corporations richer. This is not particle physics, it's logic on par with 1+1=2.

So here we are, two years into a colossal recession. Unemployment is pushing 10% and the credit markets might as well not exist for all the lending that's going on. Bankruptcies and foreclosures are at eye watering levels. The deficit, and therefore the national debt, is skyrocketing as the Federal government keeps pumping money into the economy like a winter driver trying desperately to keep the engine running on a December morning. So what is the plan being pushed by Conservatives? Trickle Down Economics in the form of the Bush administration's disproportionate tax cuts for the wealthiest 2%! They spew forth all sorts of political babble to confuse us into thinking that keeping tax cuts in place for this tiny section of America is vital to reviving the economy.

Nobody seems capable of explaining how this would work in the real world. Don't forget that these tax cuts are already in force and have been for the better part of a decade. All we are debating is if they should expire or be renewed. But to hear Republicans tell it, maintaining these cuts for the top earners will magically boost the economy. Remember that if the rates were to return to what they were before the cuts were enacted in 2001, they would be at the level they were during the economic boom of the 1990s. Hardly a dire situation. In fact, I'd say that generic tax cuts usually have minimal stimulative effect at the best of times. For most of the country the cuts usually only add up to a few dollars a paycheck which is barely noticeable. Certainly not likely to keep a family out of foreclosure or encourage them to spend on luxuries.

If the GOP were really worried most about the deficit and actually cared about being fiscally responsible, they would be the first in line to call for the Bush Tax Cuts to expire. The next best option is to keep them in place for income less than a quarter million dollars and let the rest lapse. This would erase about $800 Billion in projected costs over the next decade. But what are they actually calling for, nay, demanding? Keep 'em all, especially the cuts for the top 2%. They are so desperate to keep the wealthy well looked after that they have gone for a scorched earth policy in the Senate, refusing to consider any legislation until the tax issue is resolved. And by resolved I mean, all GOP demands met. What is so amazing about this is that they can still say the words 'fiscal conservative' without collapsing in laughter. It certainly is a joke, albeit a very bad one.

As I write this, and wallow in disgust, Congress has just passed a deal struck between the White House and senior GOP leaders that would renew the entire Bush Tax package for two more years. What did Obama get for giving in on a stand he and the Democratic leadership have been harping on since before the elections? A stand supported by a majority of Americans, according to more than one poll. Well, he got an agreement for a one year extension of Unemployment benefits and, uh... nope, that's about it. There are some assorted other tax related cuts and such, but most of them were things the GOP liked anyway, so from my standpoint a very lopsided deal. Actually not just from my standpoint. A good number of Democrats are pretty put out by this agreement, as are a few Republicans who seem irritated that Obama didn't just surrender the Presidency outright. Worse, at least for the future of the Obama Presidency, is that it gave the GOP a huge, undeserved victory and inspired the Democratic base to a collective "WTF?!" Most importantly though, it shows that if Republicans pick the right hostage, in this case the long term unemployed, the White House is likely to capitulate. By the way, in a post deal press conference it was Obama who used the hostage metaphor to explain the deal. This is particularly odd since as far as I know, if the hostage takers demand a jet as a trade for the hostages, we usually don't whistle up a Gulfstream 200 and wave goodbye as they depart. But perhaps I'm misinformed on these sorts of negotiations.

There is so much about this deal in particular, as well as Congressional incompetence in general, that leaves me stunned. As far as I can tell, the only real stimulative part of the proposal is the extension of unemployment benefits. This will put cash in the hands of those who not only want to spend it, but absolutely must. Think unemployment benefits are just a waste of money? First, let's remember that these benefits are only for those who have been laid off through no fault of their own. So we aren't dealing with lazy people who quit their jobs. These are the casualties of recession level downsizing. Second, the money these people get through unemployment is often the only thing keeping them housed and fed. Stopping unemployment benefits isn't just non-stimulative, it actually contributes to the recession. Soon after losing this life-line, individuals and families will start defaulting on mortgage and car loans. Going delinquent on rent. Some who have held on as long as possible will finally give in to Bankruptcy. Do any of these things sound good for the economy?

I had a tiny sliver of hope that this deal would be modified enough to be at least vaguely palatable. But that was way too optimistic of me as, despite angry words on both sides of the aisle, it passed both houses of Congress this week. The 111th Congress, from GOP obstruction and the ongoing 'War on Logic' to Democratic incompetence and spinelessness, is a poster child for all that's wrong with our government. And I didn't even mention the Supreme Court's ruling to give corporations many of the rights of individual citizens! I suppose Corporate suffrage can't be far off. We are in tough times, but we are not going to get out of them by shoring up the coffers of the wealthy or of big corporations. Huge corporate profits have not managed to resuscitate the economy thus far. Why? Because it doesn't matter how nice the detailing or how clean the engine is, if there's no fuel in the tank then the car ain't moving. The economic fuel is consumer spending. Everything boils down to this. Without it, we aren't going anywhere. Outside of the unemployment extension, I don't see anything in this deal that will improve matters, though it will spike the national debt to greater heights. Once again political victory brings little help to those most harmed by the recession while continuing to reward the mindset that got us into it.

Think it Through

Am I the only one who has noticed the flood of vague and/or unworkable policy positions from Conservatives, especially Tea Party candidates? It's starting to get on my nerves. Particularly as some of the most fringy candidates are sheltering in the friendly embrace of the conservative media so as not to be faced with the indignity of an inquisitive thought. In that climate they are able to say almost anything and not be asked any inconvenient questions like, "How would you go about that?" or "Could you clarify what you meant when you said . . . ?" Therein lies the problem. Candidates are making claims that go virtually unchallenged. Not that this is entirely new since the Republican party as a whole has been doing that ever since they lost big in 2008. However some of the ideas that are fashionable on the Right are getting a bit on the extreme side.

One of the Tea Party favorites is the idea of privatizing Social Security. You hear this popping up all over the campaign trail. Some even use the euphemism of 'personalizing' rather than privatizing. Sounds better, but it means the same thing. This plan would move your Social Security nest-egg out of the Federal government and into the private sector. In other words, into the Stock Market. As I understand it you would manage it like a 401K account by picking which investment vehicles to invest your bundle of retirement cash in. Of course it takes only a brief glance in the nation's rearview mirror to see a glaring example of why this is a stupid idea. Just remember the near collapse of the financial system only a few years ago. You don't even need to flex your imagination since we just saw it in brilliant technicolor. For something that's supposed to be a minimum, reliable retirement income, risking it in the stock market may not be the best idea. Yes you could do well, but you may not and you can't really plan on the best case scenario. One other thing to think about, what do we do as a nation if a crash does wipe out a large percentage of the privatized Social Security nest eggs? Odds are, and you know it's true, that the government would end up stepping in to help reimburse those who lost most or all of their investments. So any savings to the country would be wiped away when we bail out retirees. It's called 'cause & effect' and it transcends all political parties and philosophies.

A perennial favorite of Conservatives is what I call the 'Magic Tax Cut'. According to Conservative lore, the bigger and more wide ranging the tax cut, the more the economy will grow! This is, of course, impossible. The 'Magic Tax Cut' also pays for itself! This is, of course, impossible. Doesn't stop them from pretending it's true though. Less taxes means less money into the government. Now if the economy is booming then it will equal out to some degree. But as a stimulant to a sluggish economy, it's not that effective. The economy runs on consumers spending money. The more money we have to spend, the more cash is pumped into the economy. A tax cut is only going to put a few dollars a pay check into consumers' hands. Nowhere near enough to make a difference in spending habits. But wait, just like all things in the universe, for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. In the case of a tax cut that means that the government will take in much less money than it otherwise would. The one way to make tax cuts less problematic is to make cuts somewhere else so that they are paid for. This rarely happens, particularly with Republicans. No politician wants to undermine the propaganda value of cutting taxes by also cutting services. In fact both tax cuts instituted by the G.W Bush administration are partly to blame for current deficits as they were never offset by any cuts. In other words, un-paid for. Sadly amusing to now hear many of the same Conservatives that were so supportive of the Bush tax cuts now moaning at the insanity of expenditures that aren't paid for. Funny how perspective changes everything.

Look, we all love the idea of less money siphoned from our paychecks by the government. It's also a great talking point as it feeds the idea that 'The Man' is taking our hard earned cash for some shadowy purpose that doesn't benefit us. But think about it for a minute. Where do you think the money comes from to pave the roads? Fund the Police, Fire and Rescue services? Help clean up after a natural disaster? Fund agencies that test our food, water and air for safety? Protect and maintain parks, not just Yellowstone and the Grand Canyon but also the national battlefields and other parks? Provide security at border crossings, airports and seaports? Fund our global military commitments? Finance a public education system so kids of any economic background can get a basic education, not to mention the publicly funded colleges and universities? Student loan guarantees? Medicare for older Americans who would have a hell of a time getting affordable health insurance on the open market? Any of these things sound familiar? Contrary to the propaganda, taxes are not inherently evil. Yes there is some waste, inevitable whenever humans are involved, but most of it goes to support the things we use every single day. And yes, we all have things we wish our taxes didn't pay for, but so what? That's the price of living in a country like America. We should stay on top of our government to make sure they are spending our money as wisely as possible, but we have to stop acting like taxes are always evil and that 'Public' means 'Free'.

Then we have one of my personal favorite Conservative mantras; Small Government. One well known Conservative, Grover Norquist, famously quipped "I don't want to abolish government. I simply want to reduce it to the size where I can drag it into the bathroom and drown it in the bathtub". What I find so annoying is that the people who proudly proclaim support for this idea are the same ones who are demanding that homosexuals be barred from legally being married. They are the same people who support kicking gay service members out of the military simply for their sexual preference. They are the ones ready to enshrine the Ten Commandments into law and push other Christian doctrine on a secular nation made up of large numbers of non-Christians. They are the same people who think that once an egg is fertilized that the government assumes control of a woman's reproductive system. Some of the current crop of Conservatives are even now claiming that a woman be forced to carry their rapist's child or a pregnancy from incest. Sharon Angle, Tea Party candidate for Senate in Nevada, actually stated that it was God's plan and a woman in this situation should "make lemonade from lemons". This is the small government many Conservatives want. A government with no ability to regulate corporations, but with the right to dictate citizens' personal choices. That's not small government, that's dictatorial government.

There are many more items I could pick on, but the bottom line is that when a politician makes a statement, even if it does resonate with you on some level, think it through. Follow the train of logic, if one even exists. Don't just take it at face value and assume they've already checked all the angles. The only angle they're really concerned with is the one that gets them into office. Just like a PR firm, a politician is trying to grab you with catchy phrases and emotional hooks. And a politician who is campaigning for office is not concerned with accuracy or workability. It's about motivating you to vote for them. A great example of this is health reform. Republicans will freely admit support for most of the individual parts of the law, yet in the media they are blathering on about "Repeal & Replace". Believe me, if they actually could repeal it, highly unlikely, they would replace it with something almost identical, but with a more flowery name. Of course to repeal it would require not just control of both houses of Congress, but a solid 2/3 majority in both to ensure an override of the inevitable Presidential veto. So you see, a politician can promise you anything he wants, but that doesn't mean he can or even wants to actually do it.

We have lots of problems and few, if any, have solutions so simple that they will fit on a bumper sticker. Cutting taxes will not, by itself, fix the economy or take millions off the unemployment roles. Tax cuts are also not without cost. And less money into the government means less money for the things we all demand our government do. It's fine to believe in small government, but if you do then you better be able to tell us what you're willing to do without. You can't support a government small enough to "drown in a bathtub" yet continue to pretend that it can do everything it does now. And if you really want a smaller government presence, then start by keeping it out of our personal lives. It has no place dictating personal choices that do no harm to others.  We, as voting citizens, have to hold all candidates and sitting politicians accountable for what they say and demand that they tell us how they plan to implement these grand ideas. What many candidates most fear is that voters will actually question their statements and realize that the only thing beneath the catchy tag line is their own personal ambition.