The argument at the center of almost every debate in the Tennessee legislature right now is the same argument happening all over America – do we want a government that does something or don’t we?
One absolute is that government is for the people. Another is that government is in place to protect resources. The most obvious are our natural resources – potential, actual, renewable, or non-renewable – like land, ground water, drinking water, mineral fuels, mountains, forests, wildlife, etc..
A less obvious resource – but the state’s most valuable – is its people. Happy, healthy, productive people make a happy, healthy, and productive state. And a happy, healthy, and productive state always lands in the top ten when statistically ranking important areas like education, health, wealth, and employability.
Investing in its people when they need it most is the smartest thing a government can do.
Right now, Tennesseans are suffering record unemployment and are finding it difficult to feed their families. If we – represented by our government – don’t do something during this difficult time it sends a signal to our most precious resource that they are expendable.
In the video of a legislative debate on HB3206 that would have ended unemployment benefits for Tennessee families with dependent children, Rep. Glen Casada (R-Franklin) sends that signal.
Rep. Sherry Jones (D-Nashville ) pushes back though, because she understands that giving Tennesseans a hand up right now is the best investment we can make.
Thank you, Rep. Jones, for realizing the worth of our people.
T/F/B: Tennessee Democratic Party
More from Aunt B., Southern Beale, Left Wing Cracker, KnoxViews, and Speak to Power.
Amy:
It seems like you’re seizing on the parks point and leaving all the other substance untouched (I was actually talking about national parks –I know Woodmont Park or Shelby Park are a local endeavors). What about education, roads, regulation of airwaves or lead-based paint? Monopolies? And there are a countless more. Fire departments (which were once not “socialized)?
Re: Charities. … We’ve gone down the road of fewer taxes and just hoping that people give. And the result is that although some people give, it’s never nearly enough to provide for people, especially in bad economic times. It’s a big reason why the first Social Security Act was passed in the 1930s. Keep in mind entitlement spending is roughly 40 percent of our budget, but almost half of that is spent on pensions, which is basically reimbursing those people who have earned their money. So I’m not sure where you get the notion about cutting our taxes in half.
The intent of my post was to point out that Matt’s definition of governmental powers is extremely narrow and simplistic. And Mary’s original post points out that such narrow and simplistic views will leave children starving and in the streets.
Dean…
Take Matt’s 3 points and then go the next step. Apply them to 3 levels:
Federal, State, Local.
You want parks? Sure, I like them too. They’re done by cities (local level) and it works really well.
Now we see silly things like Murfreesboro gets federal grant for park.
Why the hell do we ALL send money to D.C. and then they pay someone to dole it back out? Isn’t that about the goofiest thing?
Every place is going to build parks in about the same rate per capita…
But that’s just a beginning.
#3 – You’re talking about Charities. Where to you think Baptist hospital started from? Ever hear of the Nashville Rescue Mission? NRM takes NO government money. Imagine if you cut our tax burden in half… how much more people would have to give without D.C. having to take a cut.
OK. Because I think you are defining the role of government much too narrowly, I’ve got three honest questions:
1. If you think government’s involvement in business should be limited, it is safe to assume you think the government was wrong in breaking monopolies and regulating, say, the amount of lead in paint?
2. Of those three essential functions, where does public education enter the equation? Where do libraries and parks enter? How about the regulation of our public airwaves? Roads?
3. Do you think government should have any role in caring for the less fortunate? (Entitlements, food stamps, unemployment, etc.)
I hope you don’t think I’m playing ‘gotcha’ — I really do want to know what you think.
Matt, Amen!
Ahh yes, Mary, my favorite liberal (and I really mean that).
Government has essentially 3 functions:
1- Securing individual rights
2- Enforcing contracts
3- Providing justice.
It does neither of those 3 actions very well which is why it must be kept limited and restrained. And from that understanding one would see that the role of government is actually quite narrow in scope. When it steps outside of that scope it actually begins to hamper justice and erode individual rights.
Everything else is (or supposed to be) left to The People so that they can make their own decisions about their own life and their own property. You’re right that government is “for the People” and therefore should recognize the People’s individual freedoms and get out of their way. This allows for self-determination and the ability to be un-burdened by the government.
Resources are best used (including people/labor, land, capital, etc) when the people who own them are able to make their own determination about where they can be most effective. Centralized planning is a logical fallacy and is contrary to freedom. And when you say that the government “should invest in people” I agree. They should allow the People to keep their own money, and keep their own land, and be able to freely enter into any legitimate contract. That is the ultimate investment, letting People run their own lives without government interference.
[...] Mancini writes about the assets of Tennessee at her latest post at Liberadio. The argument at the center of almost every debate in the Tennessee legislature right now is the [...]
[...] Mancini would like it to be: Investing in its people when they need it most is the smartest thing a government can [...]