Sign Me Up for Term Limits

Sometimes George Will says things that just resonate like the first eight notes of Beethoven's Fifth. Via Instapundit, Will describes how we can eliminate the behind-the-scenes money exchanges between politicians and interest groups:

The way to reduce rent-seeking is to reduce the government's role in the allocation of wealth and opportunity. People serious about reducing the role of money in politics should be serious about reducing the role of politics in distributing money. But those most eager to do the former -- liberals, generally -- are the least eager to do the latter.

This is why I will always in my deepest of hearts, be a small-government conservative (not an irrational an impractical no-government Libertarian). The government just like a market, is a feeding ground for people to flock to where the money is. In the private world, as an idea develops into a market, people run to the feed line and microeconomics 101 takes over. People will to organize and structure themselves to take advantage of economies of scale, while maximizing their purchasing power parity between other economies. It is very simple. Market forces, in an economic system, allow those that are really good at doing what they do to float to the top, maximizing the results for the overall market. This model is the fairest and most just available, even with the real world ineffeciencies that don't make this a perfectly efficient model.

The government, on the other hand, has a pile of money that they sit on, where certain interests battle for the right to gain the "grant" or "bill." The government gets to play King by arbitrarily deciding who gets what. Markets don't force the government to play an "efficient" hand, because they don't have to worry about being beaten by a competitor in the marketplace who can "do things better than them."

This is where government, like a slow fog, can actually develop into a form of tyrrany over time (just look at Europe). The government sees people flocking to the breadline, and no matter what, there always isn't enough to go around. So, they keep going back to the people trying to convince them of the necessity for more dollars. Either deficits increase, or taxes go up to make up for spending shortfalls.

Now, what seperates me from the Libertarians, and even a lot of small-government conservatives, is that I am more pragmatic, and am willing to allow for some inefficient allocation within our system. National defense is paramount, our roads need to be fixed, and I can tolerate a certain level of social programs as the majority of Americans will always lean this way. This is not about logical arguments, this is about risk-tolerance, and most Americans in someway feel more comfortable with a cushion.

However, it is hard to argue, in a reasonable fashion, against the fact that our government is spending insane amounts of money on frivilous crap. Read this list and a dare you to rationally argue that any of these items are necessary government functions...especially in a time of war (I really am willing to hear any arguments in support). Also, note that this list is bi-partisan--if there is anything you can get Republicans and Democrats to at least implicitly agree on, is that big government is good.

This is a good place to start. By limiting the government, we'd also be limiting the length of the feed lines, or rent-seekings as Will says, leading into the Capitol building. Will has a practical solution, but its prognosis is bleak:

A surgical reform would be congressional term limits, which would end careerism, thereby changing the incentives for entering politics and for becoming, when in office, an enabler of rent-seekers in exchange for their help in retaining office forever. The movement for limits -- a Madisonian reform to alter the dynamic of interestedness that inevitably animates politics -- was surging until four months after Republicans took control of the House. In May 1995 the Supreme Court ruled 5 to 4 that congressional terms could not be limited by states' statutes. Hence a constitutional amendment is necessary. Hence Congress must initiate limits on itself. That will never happen.

Do you think the majority of Americans care enough to force reform on their big-government representatives?

I don't think so. But remember that they next time there is widespread, collective outrage over the next Abramoff.