Skip to main content
CNN International EditionInside Politics
The Web    CNN.com     
Powered by
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
ON TV
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Mark Shields is a nationally known columnist and commentator.

The myth of small-government Republicans


Story Tools

WASHINGTON (Creators Syndicate) -- Those of us who spend our time following high-stakes politics in Washington almost all accept the same set of assumptions.

Among these assumptions: Winning, which is always preferable to losing, is coming in first; in every political contest you ever find yourself, there will always be somebody on your side you wish devoutly was on the other side; and Democrats in national life always champion a greater public sector role at the expense of a reduced private sector, while Republicans can be counted on invariably to push for a reduced public sector and instead repose greater confidence and greater trust in the private sector.

Then along comes troublesome Tom Gallagher to ruin our comfortable assumptions and force us to think for ourselves. In the highly competitive field of analyzing and predicting political twists and trends for institutional investors, Tom Gallagher has been named to the all-star team for Washington research for the last nine years by The Institutional Investor, which rated him the No. 1 Washington analyst for 2001.

So listen to his heresy: For most of the last 20 years, the dominant approach to solving problems was to reduce the role of government. OK, but now, says Gallagher, even with small-government Republicans in total political control in Washington, we are clearly on a trend in which the predominant approach to solving problems will involve an expanded role for government.

Not only that, but he reminds us that "the policy trend toward a smaller role for government began (in 1977) in the all-Democratic government under (President) Jimmy Carter," when capital gains taxes were cut, and key industries -- airlines, trucking and railroads -- were deregulated.

He compares those Carter moves to the Bush White House's priority list after last November's GOP's historic victory: the creation of a new Cabinet department, the first in more than a decade; an extension of unemployment benefits; the funding of the government for the 2003 fiscal year (which added $330 billion to the 10-year baseline); and the prospective addition of a prescription drug benefit for seniors, which would increase the cost of Medicare by about 12 percent.

This is not the first time parties have practiced serious role reversal. Mostly forgotten is that the creation of the Environmental Protection Agency, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration and the National Endowment for the Arts, and the tying of Social Security benefits to the cost of living were all the actions of president Richard M. Nixon.

The termination of federal responsibility for welfare, the conversion of the largest budget deficit in U.S. history into the largest budget surplus, and a cut in capital gains taxes were achieved under President Bill Clinton. Of course, post-mortems are always easier that predictions -- especially predictions about the future.

Gallagher pulls no punches: Even the Bush administration's own budget projections show no material decline in federal spending as a percentage of the gross domestic product -- even before the inevitable costs of the Iraqi war, occupation and reconstruction are included. His analysis is driven by policy outcomes, not partisan preferences.

In times of national crisis, when citizens are worried about the safety of their family, their community and their country, most turn not to the private sector but to public institutions for help and reassurance. Gallagher points out that the progressive era of government activism followed the depressions of 1896 and 1907, just as the New Deal grew from the Great Depression.

During the Cold War and under Republican Dwight Eisenhower, a trans-continental network of roads was built called the National Defense Highway System and federal aid to college students was adopted as National Defense Student Loans.

The war on terrorism, Gallagher notes, has already "led to sizeable increases in government spending on defense and homeland security." Another example of expanded government: the shift of airport safety from the private to the public sector.

Past wars have spurred greater government regulation of industries. Now we already have a federal role in terrorism insurance, the continuing bailouts of the airlines and the government's picking up the tab for added security costs.

Activist government is demanded by two other national crises: the bursting of the financial bubble fed, arguably, by lax enforcement, excess credit and deregulation, and the graying of America, with increased public costs.

So forget the slogans. According to respected Tom Gallagher, whom I'm not betting against, your federal government, under complete Republican control, will get just bigger and more active.


Click here for more from Creators Syndicate.

Story Tools
Click Here to try 4 Free Trial Issues of Time! cover
Top Stories
Panel: Spy agencies in dark about threats
Top Stories
EU 'crisis' after summit failure
 
 
 
 

CNN US
On CNN TV E-mail Services CNN Mobile CNN AvantGo CNNtext Ad info Preferences
SEARCH
   The Web    CNN.com     
Powered by
© 2005 Cable News Network LP, LLLP.
A Time Warner Company. All Rights Reserved.
Terms under which this service is provided to you.
Read our privacy guidelines. Contact us.
external link
All external sites will open in a new browser.
CNN.com does not endorse external sites.
 Premium content icon Denotes premium content.