Bad Trends for Small Government Believers

Gallup has come out with its annual poll, asking Americans whether or not Goverment is doing too much or not enough. This year the numbers are neutral:

A separate question finds Americans more likely to believe government is doing too many things that should be left to individuals and businesses (50%) as opposed to saying government should do more to solve the country’s problems (43%).

50% said the government should do less and leave things to businesses and individuals. 43% disagreed. On a more generic question, the results are far more positive:

When given a choice about how government should address the numerous economic difficulties facing today’s consumer, Americans overwhelmingly — by 84% to 13% — prefer that the government focus on improving overall economic conditions and the jobs situation in the United States as opposed to taking steps to distribute wealth more evenly among Americans.

It’s heartening to see that 84% of people agree that wealth redistribution is a bad thing. Reagan still lives on, apparently.

But this year poll would scare you, if you remember the one in 2006.

Queried about their views on the role of government, 54 percent of the 1,013 adults polled said they thought it was trying to do too many things that should be left to individuals and businesses. Only 37 percent said they thought the government should do more to solve the country’s problems.

54% said that government did too much. That’s down to 50% this year. And the side that believes government should do more is up to 43% from 37%. That’s a 10 point swing in 2 years, which is huge.

During the 2004 elections, based upon exit polling, 46% thought the government should do more, 49% thought it should do less (or the same).

The problem is, is that neither party is advocating free market solutions to problems. Both are wanting government to fix them. Republicans seem to have embraced big government solutions to problems as have the democrats. Bush did this with the prescription drug program, with no child left behind and by pushing his faith based initiative. All were pushing Washington solutions to your daily problems. If the Republican party is going to agree that Washington is the solution, what is the point of having the Republican party at all?

On the plus side, I’m a big fan of giving people what they ask for – and letting them realize that wanting is usually better than having. Maybe when they get bigger government after 2008, they’ll realize that they like having the choice of whether to live or die.

Last month her lung cancer, in remission for about two years, was back. After her oncologist prescribed a cancer drug that could slow the cancer growth and extend her life, Wagner was notified that the Oregon Health Plan wouldn’t cover it.

It would cover comfort and care, including, if she chose, doctor-assisted suicide.

Media Just Making It Up These Days

In the video above, Good Morning America is doing a story about hot dogs. So they drag out this guy to talk about it. What’s his name? Why, Harry Balzer of course!

I’d just chalk that up to coincidence but a few days earlier, Time Magazing ran a story on Iphones and porn. And who do they quote from?

Apple spokeswoman Jennifer Bowcock says the company doesn’t condone iPhone porn distribution and will ban adult content from official applications, just as it has restricted adult content in the podcast section of the Apple store.

Jennifer Bowcock of course – if you don’t get the joke, think about it for a second. An extra L in the name will help.

So we have Harry Balzer talking about hot dogs (of course!) and Jennifer Bowcock talking about porn. You really couldn’t come up with two more perfect people that fit their stories so well if you tried.

Really makes me wonder; is the media just making up these names these days? Or are the marketing people doing it and fooling the media?

Republican Path to Victory in 2008

Instapundit links to this post at HotAir which mentions that Earmark requests have increased since the Democrats took over the House and Senate in 2006, despite promises to the contrary.

Instapundit makes the point that if the Republicans stood against pork spending, they’d probably still have their majority. I’m not sure I totally agree with this; but Republicans need to face that they need something to hang onto come November to avoid a complete wipe-out in the general election.

I’d suggest that Republicans start filibustering every bill that comes through the Senate until all the pork is removed. And make the case to the people very simply. “Yes we agree that this legistlation is important. So why are Democrat lawmakers filling it with so much pork spending, instead of passing the law straight up? We will continue the filibuster until all the pork is removed.”

Of course, this would require restraint on the behalf of Republicans who have shown no such restraint since 1996. Unfortunate; because it’s a winning issue and all it requires is doing what the Republicans are supposed to do – keep government spending at a minimum.