Americans spend plenty of time debating what government should do. Should it fund a program, regulate an activity, build a project, or provide a new service? Before answering those questions, though, elected officials should ask a more basic one: What is the proper role of government?
Government is necessary to a free society. Laws must be enforced, rights and property protected, disputes resolved, and public order maintained. But government also possesses powers no private citizen, business, or charity has. It can tax, regulate, compel, and prohibit. Defining its proper role, then, has direct consequences for taxpayers.
At Iowans for Tax Relief Foundation, we believe that government budgets should not grow faster than taxpayers’ ability to pay. Yet lasting fiscal restraint cannot begin with a spreadsheet. It must begin with an understanding of what government is responsible for doing.
Not Every Good Thing Is a Government Responsibility
A healthy society requires more than government. Families, businesses, churches, charities and civic organizations, and even individual citizens all help meet needs and solve problems. Elected officials, therefore, must discern not simply whether a given good or service is good for a community, but rather if it is something government itself should provide. If every worthwhile idea becomes a government responsibility, there will never be enough money to pay for all of them.
Consider a community food pantry. Helping families struggling with hunger is unquestionably worthwhile. But if a local charity already operates a pantry using donations and volunteers, should city government use tax dollars to take over or expand that service? The fact that government can provide something does not mean it should. Doing so could displace an organization already meeting the need and turn voluntary charitable support into another taxpayer obligation.
The principle applies beyond charities, too. Youth sports can be provided by private and nonprofit organizations like Little League or the YMCA. A new business, hotel, or entertainment venue may benefit a community without requiring government financing; that’s what banks are for. A convention center promising economic activity is not necessarily a core government responsibility. And where private broadband providers already serve a community, government need not become their taxpayer-backed competitor.
The examples differ, but the principle is the same: a desirable outcome does not, by itself, justify government action.
Government’s unique powers provide a useful test. Responsibilities such as enforcing laws, protecting rights and property, resolving disputes, and maintaining public safety require governmental authority. Operating charitable or commercial enterprises generally do not. This gets back to the distinction raised earlier: elected officials must ask not simply whether an activity is worthwhile, but whether it is a proper responsibility of government.
Principles Matter
Elected officials rarely vote directly for “bigger government.” They vote on individual proposals, each with its own arguments, supporters, and beneficiaries. Without an underlying philosophy of government, there is no consistent standard for deciding which responsibilities belong to government, and which should remain with citizens and private enterprises.
This is how someone can enter office committed to fiscal conservatism and eventually support higher taxes and spending. If every existing activity is necessary and every new community need is potentially government’s responsibility, the question changes from “What should government do?” to “How do we pay for everything government is doing?”
Efficiency and transparency are important, but efficiency alone does not justify government undertaking something it should not be doing in the first place. Fiscal discipline requires philosophical discipline. Ultimately, debates over taxes and spending are downstream from a more fundamental question about the proper role of government.
A government that cannot define its responsibilities cannot establish meaningful priorities. A government without priorities cannot establish meaningful limits. And a government unwilling to establish limits will eventually demand more from the taxpayers who sustain it.
That is why fiscal restraint requires more than finding efficiencies or trimming a budget around the edges. It requires elected officials to make choices about what government should do, and just as importantly, what should remain outside government. The goal is not simply cheaper government. It is government focused on its proper responsibilities and performing them well, while leaving citizens as free as possible to pursue their own purposes.
Limited government is not a rejection of government. It is a recognition that government performs its most important functions best when its responsibilities are clearly defined, its priorities are established, and its limits are respected.
Print a PDF