Small government Democrats?

[Distant Quasar]

7. So more spending and more regulations are good

Last edited Mon Aug 18, 2014, 09:29 PM - Edit history (1)

Regardless of whether they are productive or useful or sustainable? A somewhat smaller government footprint is automatically bad, even if you get there by cutting back on things that ultimately hurt workers and consumers and the environment, or that serve the wealthy and powerful over everyone else? I hope that's not what you're suggesting.

I'm far from an austerity hawk and I don't think balanced budgets are the end-and-all and be-all, but if you want the government to be able to respond with adequate stimulus when economic disaster strikes (as in 08-09), you had better pay attention to fiscal balance over the long haul. If Bush hadn't blown the Clinton-era surplus on a massive tax cut/spending binge, we would be in a much better position right now. As it is, the country is tapped out in public perception, if not in reality; good luck getting a new stimulus passed if the economy tanks again.

It's hardly anti-Democratic to advocate shrinking government when and where it is needed. The Democratic Party is not and should not be the Party of Government. It should be the Party of the People, which is not the same thing.