The Maneater

37°F (3°C)
Wind: 15 mph NW

Column:

Government should promise less

Published March 12, 2010

No tags for this article.

I wanted to clear up a few of the comments I've been getting lately. The most common I've had is: How can you support this candidate or the Republican Party when they voted against extra funding for colleges, parks or charitable organizations?

The reason the Republican Party and its candidates routinely vote against more funding for colleges or other organizations is not because they hate college students or do not want to preserve our parks but simply because there is not enough money. Contrary to popular belief, we have a limited amount of resources in this country.

Too many times, people confuse a legislator who votes against a bill with someone who opposes the bill. Almost every organization that applies for government funding has a worthy cause. In fact, I can only think of one non-profit organization that doesn't fit this bill. Our government just can't afford to sponsor all of them.

America has become a society that believes it's entitled to everything. We complain about anything we're not given and forget about all we have already received. Parks, roads, public education, police services and military defense are just a few things we've been given. I am sure if you look around you can find countless more examples of services provided by the government.

If you believe in a cause, then get involved. Make a donation. If you can't, then share some of your time with them, and don't expect the government to do everything.

When people give to charities, they are more likely to follow where the money goes and what it is being used for. But when government raises taxes, people lose sight of where their money is going and lose interest because they feel unconnected to whom they are helping.

My belief is our government is too big already. More government is not the answer. Using government to change policy is the easy way out. The more challenging and effective way to make a difference is to go out and use your time and talents to help the homeless or raise funds for under-privileged children.

Doing something that requires you to sacrifice helps solve these problems and doesn't leave it up to government or other people to institute these changes.

Too many people think the best way to handle a problem is to throw money at it and hope it's fixed. But everybody knows this does not solve anything.

Despite this, we continually persecute the politicians who fight against frivolous government spending. Wouldn't it be great if the government just handed us all a paycheck and no one had to work? We can't do this, though; there is not enough money.

I want a candidate who promises me less. How's that for a campaign slogan? "I promise you less."

Less government, less regulation and yes, less taxes. The next candidate who promises me less can count on my vote.

The purpose of this column isn't to rephrase GOP talking points or to get people to vote for Republicans. It's to get people to recognize all we have been given. If we just focus on what we're entitled to next, when will we have time to be thankful?

Clay Carter is a sophomore finance major and can be reached at ccp6c@mail.missouri.edu

Comments (3)

4:40 p.m., March 12, 2010

Brandon said:

More funding for charitable organizations?? WTF? Since when is it government's duty to "fund charitable organizations"?? Who the hell would propose such nonsense? That's nothing more than a HANDOUT! But aren't charities around to get PRIVATE handouts and donations VOLUNTARILY? You can't give federal or state tax dollars to a charity. Then it's no longer charity. It's just another entitlement. Charities are PRIVATE SECTOR institutions specifically because they wanna stay independent raise the funds on their own, or at least they should stay that way. If gov'ts gonna fund them, the bureaucrats might as well nationalize or "state-tize" them, right? come on... We Americans are too addicted to handouts. Cradle to grave entitlements is what it's all about. I'm tired of it. We're never gonna fix entitlements and actually rein in spending if we keep asking for MORE programs and MORE spending. I mean, why is it so hard to accept the reality that sometimes gov't has to tighten its belt too? If the Founders saw how big the state and federal governments have become, they would be ROLLING in their graves. It's despicable. Not to mention the statists have essentially turned us into a unitary nation. Federalism? In our dreams

8:50 p.m., March 12, 2010

Alex said:

right on.

8:46 a.m., March 15, 2010

Noah said:

So I assume that those of you who are against state funds for charitable organizations would be o.k. with getting rid of all those tax breaks and tax subsidies for corporations here in the U.S.? Since that also amount to the "state-tize"-ing of private sector industries right? Everyone should be treated neutrally and fairly. Everyone pays the same taxes and everything, industries (like fossil fuels) are no different correct? Because we don't want to "state-tize" any private sector endeavors.

Post a comment