Deseret News | Limit government

Reader comments
Readers' forum: Limit government

John C. | 2:28 a.m. Nov. 6, 2009

Well said...Thank you.

Doug G | 7:07 a.m. Nov. 6, 2009

Fine. Now, let's get on with this health care reform.

Roland Kayser | 7:30 a.m. Nov. 6, 2009

Republicans always talk about limited government, but the government grows just the same when they are in power. I might beleive it if a candidate put out a list of every government program and department they were going to eliminate. We never see that though, just vague references to waste.
The reason is easy to see, if you put out a list of specific cuts, you will alienate all the people who benefit from those programs. Propose eliminating agriculture subsidies, for instance, and every farmer in America will do everything in their power to defeat you.

Comments continue below

dave | 7:30 a.m. Nov. 6, 2009

I couldn't agree more. Let's start by getting the state government out of the liquor business. Then we can disband public education. Then we can shut down the libraries. Then we can turn all roads into private toll roads. We will sell all of the national and state parks to the highest bidder. Imagine air traffic without any control. Oh, and that social security check--forget about it. You are on your own.

Jane C. | 8:06 a.m. Nov. 6, 2009

Anthony: If you or other anti-government citizens still agree with our Big Brother government that the government can tell you what you can and cannot put into your body, you are a hypocrite. Hopefully you are not.

Lobbyists | 8:30 a.m. Nov. 6, 2009

The Constitution makes no mention of lobbyists. If we got rid of them, the country would be far better off.

Of course, that would mean a significant drop in income for Senators and Congressmen.

Mark B | 9:09 a.m. Nov. 6, 2009

Words written in MY heart:
"Let's be sure not to invade the wrong country."

RedShirt | 9:25 a.m. Nov. 6, 2009

To "Lobbyists | 8:30 a.m." actually the constitution allows them because the first Ammendment says "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." The key phrase is the final one which says the the US citizens have the right "to petition the Government for a redress of grievances". All a lobbyist does is represents citizens and acts a a hired gun to petition the Government to adress wrongs that are perceived.

Anonymous | 9:38 a.m. Nov. 6, 2009

Government grew at a rate never seen before in America under the Cheney/Bush Administration.
Now the GOP is whining about too much government.
LOL!

All Knowing | 9:39 a.m. Nov. 6, 2009

@Roland Kayser 7:30 a.m.:

"Republicans always talk about limited government, but the government grows just the same when they are in power."

The difference is, when Republicans are in control the government grows but by baby steps. When the Democrats take over there is wholesale giant strides to bigger more intrusive government. Republicans just grow the budget. Democrats not only grow the budget by obscene amounts, they take over control of whole industries... like an aggressive cancer.

All Knowing | 9:47 a.m. Nov. 6, 2009

@Lobbyists 8:30 a.m.:

"The Constitution makes no mention of lobbyists."

Try Bill of Rights Article 1. "Congress shall make no law respecting... the right of people to peaceably assemble and to petition the government for a redress of grievances..."

to dave | 10:16 a.m. Nov. 6, 2009

Read the Constitution. It might help.

Anonymous | 10:42 a.m. Nov. 6, 2009

Redshirt, you are a constitutional authority, unlike a president who taught it in the same University of Chicago that developed the "Chicago school" of economics, that influence the Reagan White House.

You are from the Glenn Beck school. :-) Where did Glenn get his degree?

Did you see John Boehner speaking to that crowd of hateful nuts in Washington yesterday. You reminded me of it.

John holds up a copy of our constitution. He holds it up high, waving it for his minions to see. He utters "We the people."

These people cheer in cadence like Chinese cheered "long live Mao!" or Germans in 1939 cherring "Deutschland, Deutschland über alles, über alles in der Welt"

Boehner reads from what he believes is our constitution. In fact, he was reading from the Declaration of Independence. What a great statement. It was priceless. :-)

Tell us about the constitution according to these folks. I need some humor this morning.

Hypocrisy | 11:11 a.m. Nov. 6, 2009

""Government is not reason; it is not eloquence; it is force! It is a dangerous servant and a fearful master.""

Funny.

Big business is not reason; it is not eloquence; it is force! It is a dangerous servant and a fearful master.

I'm sorry, but I don't want my health care to be ran by a bunch of greedy businesses whose sole goal is to offer as little as they can while earning as much as they can.

dave | 11:11 a.m. Nov. 6, 2009

I've read and understood it. Specifically, what is your point? The constitution covers quite a bit of ground.

Earl | 11:12 a.m. Nov. 6, 2009

Reading the Constitution (a document I regard very highly, by the way) is of little use these days unless you're into historic relics. The reality is, the Constitution expired about 150 years ago. Congress, with the cooperation of the Supreme Court, legislates just about anything it wants to as long as it will get them re-elected (the Supreme Court, after all, is beholden to congress for their elevated positions). The executive branch tramples over Congress with a few exceptions, so that it rubber-stamps just about everything the President wants. So to bring up the Constitution is really irrelevant in arguments like this anymore. It's an exercise in futility. Our government invokes it only when convenient, but ignores it nearly always. It's all about getting re-elected, not honoring and sustaining the Constitution.

RedShirt | 11:31 a.m. Nov. 6, 2009

To "Anonymous | 10:42 a.m." I am not a Constitutional authority, but I have read it, and when I don't understand the language in it I read up on the definition.

Glenn Beck got his degree from the same place as George Washington.

You mock the cheer and cadence, equating it to the Communist revolution in China or the Nazi take over in Germany, but you are missing out on a more recent example of blind devotion.

Throughout 2008 we heard large crowds chanting "Obama, Obama, yes we can" then going out and blindly following their perceived Messiah.

Anonymous | 11:33 a.m. Nov. 6, 2009

Yeah, whatever. You can read whatever you want into anything. You can selectively choose quotations to back up whatever you want. My question is this: What government benefits are you going to give up? Roads? Military? Air traffic control? Securities regulation? Parks? Unemployment compensation? The list goes on and on, and my observation is people want cuts except to their programs. So what's your point, really?

Anonymous | 11:59 a.m. Nov. 6, 2009

The Constitution flew out the window thanks to Cheney and Bush. "Whatever it takes!" was their sinister motto.
It's an uphill battle for the new administration to try and correct all the damage.
Getting rid of no-bid contracts (awarded to Dick and Lynne Cheney's Halliburton and Lockheed Martin) is a good start.

Lobbyist | 12:00 p.m. Nov. 6, 2009

Lobbyists aren't the problem. It's the campaign contributions associated with the organizations they represent. Lobbyists are an extension of those organizations and the individuals-who-compose-them's 1st amendment rights to address the government with their concerns. However, the bush backed supreme court has decided that campaign contributions equal free speech, effectively saying that those with more money are more entitled to express their needs and opinions than the rest of us. Until this changes, don't expect government to change.

Locke | 12:04 p.m. Nov. 6, 2009

Roads, fire and police, libraries, etc. were recognized from the Founding as necessary government functions under the "general welfare" clause of the Constitution.

Business is an entirely different matter, and the Federal government has no authority there. Same goes for health care.

Try doing without "big business" -- stores, gasoline manufacturers and distributors, car makers, pharmaceuticals, food makers, etc. It's psychotic to complain about them when YOU depend so much on them and they provide goods and services YOU need.

Democrats need to read the 10th Amendment again, and honestly reassess what their Congress members are doing.

Don't confuse Bush with a conservative. He was very unpopular with conservatives. Government expansion was at the hands of a Democratic Congress and a fiscally liberal Bush.

It's quite informative that no liberal has given a logical, factual, coherent argument against this letter. Can't be done.

BABY STEPS | 12:26 p.m. Nov. 6, 2009

Where was all this CONSTUTUTION, DECLARATION of INDEPENDENCE, FOUNDING FATHERS, LIMITED GOVERNMENT, TOWN HALL, TEA PARTY, talk when the REPUBLICANS had control of ALL THREE HOUSES of GOVERNMENT from 2000-2006?

If you questioned ANY GOVERNMENT policy from 2000-2006 you were TREASONOUS and a TRAITOR.

All of this angst is supposed to be about current POLICY?

The DEMOCRATS are GIANT STRIDE CROOKS, while the REPUBLICANS are BABY STEP CROOKS?

So, we are supposed to turn OUR COUNTRY over to BABY STEP CROOK GUYS?

EARL 11:12,

YOU are SPOT ON!

"(SOME PEOPLE)...invoke all this (blather)only when it's convenient.... IT'S ALL ABOUT GETTING (ELECTED) RE-ELECTED, not honoring or sustaining the Constitution (the Founding Fathers etc.)"

2 bits | 12:42 p.m. Nov. 6, 2009

Well said!

George Washington and his contemporaries were trying to design a government UN-Like what they left in Europe. It seems today we are trying to become MORE like Europe (governmentally, economically and socially).

Personally I hope we stay WAY different.

Healthcare reform (on the surface) is no big issue to me. But it's obvious from the many postings from people like TimJ, Ultra Bob, etc, that the anti-traditional-America feelings are becoming politically popular. It used to be RARE that you saw someone actually SAYING that "Capitalism IS the problem" and "The only solution is Socialism", etc.

People who may have had hidden feelings of the superiority of Socialism today seem much more emboldened to come out and say them than in the past (from what I've observed in this forum). Is it Obama's leadership that makes people more open about defending Socialism in America today?

I think so.

@ "BABY STEPS | 12:26 p.m." | 12:55 p.m. Nov. 6, 2009

BABY STEPS | 12:26 p.m.

And I'm guessing you were one of those people back in 2000-2006 saying, "It's the American way to protest the President, it's what America was founded on, it's not only our RIGHT it's our obligation to protest the President". Am I right?

I know... seems like a total role reversal today doesn't it?

I agree it's your right and responsibility to protest the President, especially if hes doing something you feel strongly about (not just that HE's a Republican and YOU're a Democrat). I have not respect for bickering based on the latter.

I think you need to think hard and possibly swallow your pride before fighting AGAINST your President on the war while our sons are at war. I thought the Democrats trying everything they could to end funding for the war just to pull the rug from underneith the President during the war was in VERY bad taste.

Notice we don't see those same anti_war tactics from Democrats today... Even though we are still involved in the SAME WARS. So obviously they were more politically motivated than issues of concience.

Anonymous | 1:37 p.m. Nov. 6, 2009

When was the last time you heard the nobel and patriotic Democrats in Congress debating de-funding the war, passing non-binding resolutions, putting everything on the back burner to do endless investigations intended to embarrass the administration, etc? Remember when Priority #1 was to embarrass the President and FORCE de-funding for the wars?

Oh Yah... not since Obama became President.

They have TOTAL control now and could totally de-fund it any time with a problem NOW! But do they do it? Not NOW! Obama is President!

What's the use of doing it now? It no longer serves their agenda!

How often did the usual liberal posters (Anonymouse, LibLarry, ETB, etc) post and complain about how much the war was costing us back in 2006? All the time with great passion right?

But today... We are in even tougher economic times than we were when the Democrats were pushing to de-fund... but they are silent on the topic of the cost of the wars today. I wonder why???

Does anybody know why?

Did the finally just see the light? Or was getting a Democrat in the White House their main motivation all along?

Reason | 1:45 p.m. Nov. 6, 2009

Great letter.

let me see ... | 2:03 p.m. Nov. 6, 2009

So, it's okay for the last administration to grow government that ended up the fastest in U.S. history because they were the GOP.

But the Democrats better not.

LOL!

An Observer | 4:35 p.m. Nov. 6, 2009

Apparently, all we can expect from the liberals are childish responses and taunts and blamings.

NO, the conservatives AND MOST republicans did NOT support Bushes growth of government.

And any thing Bush and Cheney may have done against the constitution is greatly exaggerated by liberals, if not out right lies told,

the HYPOCRITICAL thing is, LIBERALS ignore what the democrats and liberals are have done and are doing to the constitution,

and worse, even cheer it on.

Why do liberal have such a hard time accepting and understanding the concept of limited government?

re: An Observer @4:35 | 4:57 p.m. Nov. 6, 2009

Ha!
This neocon surely voted for that monstrous administration and now says he didn't like (or know) what they were up to. And then tries to play bait-and-switch and start saying something stupid about "liberals" (aka Democrats.) As this is supposed to sway us over to their side.

LOL!

Roland Kayser | 5:12 p.m. Nov. 6, 2009

Liberals have a hard time accepting the concoept of a limited government for the same reason that conservatives do. Both are afraid to cut any program taht is popular with the voters. Even Ronald Reagan realized that while he could cut some programs that benefitted the poor exclusively, programs that benenfit the middle and upper classes are off limits. After a few feeble attempts early in his presidency, he let those programs be.

Wow | 5:41 p.m. Nov. 6, 2009

The letter writer didn't mention anything about repubs & demos or conservos and liberas. Why do many start pitting us vs. them? I appreciate the letter's message. I believe the government should be shrinking right now.

Denen | 4:17 p.m. Nov. 7, 2009

More important is to limit super captilism and corrupt wall street and incompetent and crooked polititions. They are the source and center of our problems. The government is we the people.

Hope and Change | 4:47 p.m. Nov. 7, 2009

Under Reagan the Govt represented 35% of the workforce...

Under Obama it is now over 60%......

This is a great letter.....

Lets start by voting out the Big GOvt Libs and Rino's....Like Bennett! Then we can throw Obama back to Chicago to hang with Blago and Company!!

Add your comment

Comments are monitored. Any comments found to be abusive, offensive, off-topic, misrepresentative, more than 200 words or containing URLs will not be posted.

Words Remaining

E-mail address: For internal use only. We may want to contact you to publish your comment (not your e-mail address) in the newspaper or for a separate story idea.