Is Government Doing Too Much Or Not Enough?

On Tuesday evening, the Times-Dispatch held its 25th Public Square at its downtown building. More than 70 people turned out to discuss whether government is doing too much or not enough. After the conversation, cake was served in celebration of the landmark Public Square. Tom Silvestri, publisher and president of The Times-Dispatch, served as moderator. Here's an edited transcript of the comments. To watch the entire Square online, go to TimesDispatch.com, keyword: Public Square.

Thomas A. Crump, Richmond: There's been a lot of news in the paper and on television, for a long time, about Michael Vick and the fighting dogs. Well, the public didn't hear any news at all about a case in federal court, a hearing the day before the Vick trial. And if the court had agreed with the petition that was in the federal court, it would have stopped all smoking in the state of Virginia, even in homes and in cars, everywhere . . . .The court refused to do what the petitioner asked. Because they said the petitioner didn't have standing to bring the suit. But the people should have had a chance to know that they had a chance to have a smoke-free environment in the whole state of Virginia. Which, from the state of Virginia, probably would have gone nationwide, if it had been done.

Chris Johnson, Glen Allen: The reason why I'm here is the question that we're here to answer: Is the government doing enough? To me, that question kind of highlights, or brings out, the root of the problem. What the government's supposed to do is in the Constitution. The mere fact that we're sitting here talking -- is the government doing enough? Well, yes, obviously. They are doing way too much. And that's what's hurting our country. So, what do we do to get the country back? What do we do to get it back closer toward the Constitution?

Tom Silvestri, moderator: Do you have any suggestions?

Johnson: Everybody read the Constitution . . . . And let's get some of these politicians that want to do too much -- they want to take care of every facet of your life. Let's get rid of them, and let's get politicians that understand the Constitution.

Harry Hanger, Chesterfield: I think it's defining our terms. And I think we're all thinking, in terms of the federal government -- because that's where the power has evolved in recent years. And the Constitution does limit what the federal government is supposed to be doing. And in the last decades, more and more authority has been going towards the federal government, away from the states, and the states have tolerated it. I think the solution is trying to defederalize, and move more of the authority back to the states, closer to the communities that are being affected, rather than centralizing. So, just trying to undo what has been done.

Secondly, when we're talking about the economy . . . it's the allocation of scarce resources, how scarce resources are going to be allocated, for what purposes. And if we're talking about that, we're talking about giving the federal government more and more authority to allocate those resources, assuming that they know better how to do it, and we do it at the loss of our freedoms. And then we go into debt, and we're about $40,000 per person in debt now. And that's going to go up 20 percent in three years. For my daughter and her family of four, they're going to owe $160,000.

Ted Botens, Midlothian: I just got back from a conference in Washington on the health care industry, and had various speakers presenting what the new possible health care programs are for America. And the best I could get out of them is, there's health care for everyone, and there's this, and there's medical records, and there's a whole lot of things. But I asked each speaker, how are they planning to pay for this? And I would frankly say that every one of them just smiled. There was no answer to the question of how they're going to pay for this. We've got a multiple-trillion-dollar deficit for Medicare that's not been funded . . . . So now they're asking us to fund another $2 trillion health care program with no means of funding it. And my only point is, if that's what they want, and they have the votes to get it, then have the guts to stand up and fund what they're asking for, and let every American see what they're going to have to pay for if they want these benefits.

Robert Lynch, Richmond: I'm asking people to think outside the box today. It starts with local government. Everybody wants their stimulus check, because we're the ones paying for this big government bailout that we don't want. So, what do we do? We can at least ask our city government not to invest in pork-barrel projects. Inside the box, we have the Big Bottom, Richmond's version of The Big Dig. We're going to put everything together and make the citizens probably pay for it through bonds, including the baseball stadium . . . .If you apply as a carpenter for a job, you're supposed to bring your own tools. Shouldn't a baseball team pay for its own bats and diamonds and stadiums? Shouldn't the people have a say? If the people are going to pay for something, it should be a free stadium. But we don't really need that. What we need is lower taxes, a better business environment, so that the businesses that are currently hiring people in this city can continue to survive in hard times. And we should work for maintenance, not big new pork-barrel projects. I just say, tighten up!

Silvestri: Robert, are you a business owner?

Lynch: No, but I've worked a multitude of jobs. And I'm speaking more from the blue-collar, down-on-the-bottom viewpoint. I'm also speaking as a Libertarian.

John Schuiteman, Ashland: I'm an unabashed supporter of our new president. And I feel that government's doing fine. I think the size of the government reflects the tremendous demands that people make on our government. The interest groups, the parties, the lobbyists -- there are so many people that want more, OK? So I don't have a problem with that. And I don't mind paying taxes, either. But I want to see my agenda. And I think that's what we all want, right? We want to fight for what we think should be, in this country. Finally, we have a government that's addressing mass transit, environment, the right to organize in labor unions. This Constitution we have created a system of government tremendously fragmented between three levels of government and across the three branches, and every other kind of way. It took political parties to be developed to run this country. And that's what we got . . . .

So, it's the culture of bureaucracy that's making government a problem for us. But I'm glad that we're in the situation we're in. The bailout's appropriate, because the mess we got ourselves into is a huge mess. And, by the way, I have no problem with the government raising my taxes to pay for good programs that are accountable, and not wasting money. And I'm a liberal.

Tom Robinson, Richmond: I'm really glad we had that last speaker there, because it shows we have free speech. And we certainly don't all agree with what we say, but at least we have the right to say it. I just have one simple thing. I think we have way too much government. And we don't need all the bailouts. And it all goes down to what a few courageous congressmen have tried to work out. And that's House Resolution 450. And I, for one, think that all of us should be working to support House Resolution 450. A few courageous congressmen have put forth the resolution that bills put before Congress will not be entered, unless the person putting that resolution forth certifies that they've read the resolution, and it meets the tenets of the Constitution. The Constitution is what we're founded on. I think it's a pretty good document. And whether you're liberal or conservative or a Democrat or a Republican or Libertarian, it doesn't really matter. We can all have differing views. However, if we supported our Constitution, we wouldn't be in nearly as big a mess as we're in right now.

Sam Forrest, Richmond: "How can government be improved?" better states your question. If there is a crisis in America, it is with local government. For near 50 years, energy and wealth have been directed at racial parity, neglecting other services that provide a good life for everyone. The two most fundamental aspects of communal life are housing and police, firemen not excluded. Richmond has 20,000 houses in various stages of disrepair. The late Eggleston Hotel is an extreme case. Excellent laws already written require every building to be maintained. A run-down building discourages its neighbors, encourages crime, degrades the city. And incidentally, the seven housing projects that surround the city are fountainheads for crime, and should be privatized.

Second, Richmond police are not trained in law. Housing and law enforcement have been conducted at the emotional level, not by law, for so long -- not only the officials, but the public has forgotten what should be. It was very clear during the mayoral campaign, the questions by the voters and the responses by the candidates had little to do with duties of a mayor. Richmond can build ballparks till kingdom come. But until this city is run by the rule of law, Richmond will continue as a lawless city, and be an unpleasant place to live.

John Shinholser, Mechanicsville: You know, Americans are spoiled rotten brats, basically. I've been around the world several times, and I see how the world is. We're the most entitled, privileged country going. We're going to go the same way the Greeks, the Romans, the Spaniards, the French, the English went. It's just a matter of time. We're on that track now . . . . Like the man spoke earlier, the liberal, said he doesn't mind raising taxes as long as it's smart money, spent well. I'm conservative. I don't mind raising taxes and spending money right, either. I hate to see it wasted. Example: Gasoline's the perfect place to have a tax to pay for our transportation problem. Why do we have a transportation problem, when we have gasoline, a vehicle to pay for all our transportation costs? Why do we have short funding for drug programs when we have the ABC Board and the excise taxes have an abundance of funds every year? Categorize our funding flows for our tax problems. It's simple.

This hasn't come up in the General Assembly. Please don't go the way the federal government's gone. You guys gotta work together.

Ron Melancon, Glen Allen: Can someone tell me, in this room, when a government program ended successfully? It never seems to end. Someone told me today it was World War II. I said, "Not true. Because there are countries that still owe us money." Now, our motto was life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. But today, we have life, liberty, and the pursuit of government control in our lives. At one time, we had helicopter parents. But now we have helicopter government. They're telling us what kind of car to drive in the future, in just six years. They're telling us when to smoke, what kind of sugar in soda, what kind of salt in French fries. When does it end? How about this. I want a politician to say, "No new government programs unless the budget is balanced." Rule No. 1: The budget must be balanced. Rule No. 2: If a politician wants to add a new program, it must be funded without increasing the debt. And if they want to, they have to read rule No. 1 again. And that's what we're asking for.

Bill Grogan, Richmond: Yes, the government is doing too much: the federal government. No, the government is not doing enough: state and local government. Our country, or our government, was founded by the union of states which gave the central government, the federal government, limited powers. It says right there in the Constitution that it's limited to what the Constitution gives. But right now, the federal government is involved in every aspect of our lives. In my opinion, Congress is the most pernicious entity in this country, and is destroying it. Now, how do they do that? They do it through the tax system. Years ago, we only had tax -- what they would call ad valorem taxes. Tariffs, things like that. In 1913, they imposed the income tax. Originally, it was a very small amount, and it only involved a small number of people. But now, everybody pays it. That's how the Congress controls and keeps everything -- keeps the federal government involved in everything. It's our money we send up there, and then they send it back. If the state and local governments were doing more with our money, probably it would be more efficient. You know, the Founding Fathers, in limiting this, maybe had a good management plan. Because we all know, the lower forms and the smaller the organization, the more efficient it is.

Elizabeth Bale, Midlothian: I'm here because I'm a mother with three small children back there who are going to be pretty wiggly if I don't get out of here quickly. But I'm here as a mother, because I'm frightened for their future. I'm worried about the debt that we're passing on to them, and to the future generations. It's staggering, what we're doing as a nation. We have spent too much, as a government, as a people, for a decade -- I don't know how long. But their future is going to be much bleaker than ours. And it's shameful that as grown-ups, we allow this to happen. We're voting for this to happen. We're voting for people to give us benefits, to bail people out, to bail us out, at the expense of our children. No other generation has done this before -- has passed this kind of debt on to the next generation. And I'm frightened. And I ask people to stand up. It's not OK. And that's why I'm here.

Donna Holt, Midlothian: I believe that we, the people, are the source of authority for government at all levels. But we have to be accountable. We're pointing fingers at Congress and at the Senate, and our Virginia [General Assembly], for not reading the bills before they vote. But when is the last time you checked out the voting record of the person you're voting for? It really does make a difference. And I know myself, from polling people, most of the time, they have no idea what that candidate represents. I'd like to say also that we owe it to ourselves to take responsibility in our homes, among our families, our friends, and in our communities, to educate one another, look out for one another, take responsibility for our communities, and stop asking government to take care of everything we do.

Terri Vetter, Henrico: I'd just like to say that I would like to see my government fix the potholes on Third and Seventh Streets, and whatever my share of that tax increase might be, I'm quite certain it's less than the cost of flat tire repair and realignments. So I'm all in; I think most people can agree that is the job of government to take care of, and roads is one of those. And along the same lines as what the previous woman was saying, I'd really like to see

The Times-Dispatch do a better job of covering elections. I try to educate myself on local elections, and it's an effort to find real coverage on people who are running locally. It would be nice not to see just an article one day out of the week prior to the election, but how about several, in several days? I mean, more coverage would be nice.

Silvestri: The editor's in the back of the room. Mr. Proctor, stand up . . . .A lot of our editors and reporters stay in here to continue those conversations and feed off your suggestions . . . .

Charlie! How many of these have you been at, Charlie?

Charlie Finley, Richmond: Oh, seven or eight, I guess.

"We, the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America." Now, that's where it began. You hear today, health, safety, welfare is the obligation of the federal government. But it's been expanded so much, that literally, that could cover everything . . . .Thirty-five years ago, the federal government established something called the Pension Benefit Guarantee Corporation. And it was set up to cover private pension plans, if the company failed. In 2004, it was $23 billion in the hole. Meaning, it had taken on more obligations to the tune of $23 billion than what it had money. Last year, this swelled to $34 billion. My quick question is, what is the federal government doing, providing coverage for private pension plans? I don't think that's in the Constitution at all. I think federal government has expanded too much.

Eugene Harris, Midlothian: I actually advocate big government, but I only advocate it in a temporary sense. And if everyone wants to go back to a little bit of history -- I'm not going to go back to the Constitution, but I'm going back to FDR. After World War II, when the war ended and there was no more war industry, there were thousands or 100,000 people that needed jobs. And FDR incorporated plans -- the Highway Act, and all these other things -- I guess part of the New Deal -- to get people back working. To get this country re-built. The GI bill, things like that, were all very critical components to get the country in a jump start mode to go to the next level. And that's how we need to look at it. We look at government being intrusive. We look at it as, you know, the enemy. But we need a jump start here in this country to get people back to work. Globalism is a very big thing, and I know that with some of the companies closing in this area, Circuit City, Qimonda, S&K -- it's all related to foreign competition. And GM, which is in bankruptcy right now, the same thing. We need jobs. And if it's the federal government that's going to help give us that jump start -- I'm not saying they should be a part of our lives forever. But you know, we just kind of need to put the cables to the battery, and find a way to get forward. Move forward.

Silvestri: I appreciate that. Thank you. We've got a good ebb and flow going on the conversation, representing many sides.

Stephanie Gits, Richmond:I just wanted to comment on the taxes issue. It's been raised a couple times this evening, and it's driving me crazy. The idea that the federal government has to raise taxes in order to bring in more revenue is simply false. I can name two presidents off the top of my head, Kennedy and Reagan, who gave two of the largest tax cuts in our history. And both times, they doubled the income into the federal government. So that being said, if cutting taxes actually brings in more revenue, continuously having politicians tell us that the only way to bring in more revenue is to raise taxes, which cuts jobs and therefore cuts revenue, there has to be another alternative there. Which, to me, says it must be control, rather than actually doing what they say, which is to bring in more revenue.

Daren Gardner, Richmond: I'm a Chesterfield resident, wandered across the river. And I'm really upset with taxes and everything that's going on in this country today. You know, flat out, the answer is, too much government. You know? Me and my mom, we get together, and we almost go at it. Because she worked for the government for 32 years, and she's got that view, and I've got my view of too much government . . . .I am a small-business owner in Chesterfield County, and my business is going down, not 30 percent, to 30 percent of what I was doing at the end of 2007. If the government would just let businesses be businesses, and do what they do best, this country would turn around. This is what this country is driven on, is small business. And they're not allowing us to do that.

. . . The government cannot control their own spending, so we have to do all the cutbacks that we can do continuously, down to nothing. I mean, just finding any way and every way we can to just survive, and stay in business. And it's simply the taxes and insurances and everything -- it's a killer. And we have got to take control of this thing. We've got to turn it around.

Joseph Andrews, Richmond: Now, whether the government is doing enough or too much depends on one's economic perspective. If you're poor, then you tend to vote for politicians who will enhance your economic well-being. If you're disenfranchised, you vote for people who will ensure that your vote counts. If you're a senior citizen, then you vote for people who will safeguard Medicare and other medical programs on which your very life depends. On the other hand, if you are middle-class or above, your main concern, understandably, might be to keep income and real estate taxes low, and provide the basic fire, police, and emergency services, and perhaps little else. Which is understandable. Each of these groups tend to only see things from their perspective, however, and have little understanding of each other's point of view. Many politicians tend to play one economic group against the other, and thereby gain political power. The question of whether government is too big or too small will not be resolved until we have a greater effort at educating the public about government, so that we can have a national dialogue and consensus about the appropriate size of government.

Howard Elford, Richmond: Government is in the eye of the beholder. There are many people who want government to stop you from doing A, B, C, D, and they enjoy that. On the other hand, they don't want to pay taxes, so they don't like government because it's collecting taxes and spending money on things they may or may not want. However, I heard one that I want to specifically address, on health care. The gentleman says that the new proposals aren't going to pay for the health plans that are being proposed in Congress today. Well, we pay twice as much in health care costs of any nation in the world. Not any nation, any Western nation that has in the top 20 economic growth, or economic means. We pay more for our health care, and get less. So, any attempt to improve that system should be looked at closely. If we can get everybody covered, and pay the same amount that other countries are paying proportionate to their income, we should address it. Our system is broken. We pay more for advertisements on drugs, than we spend on research for drugs. The business -- I own a lot of pharmaceutical shares, but they spend more money that way than they do for that. So, we need health care. And if the government is going to provide everyone health care, it's better than a third of the people not having health care, because the greatest chance of going bankrupt is having a big medical bill.

Ventura Robinson, Richmond: I'm going to tell you folks that it looks wonderful to look at you all. Because this is the first time I've been on the outside. I've been locked up for a year and six months. I just got out of jail today from the Richmond City Jail. And for one, I want to thank your paper, for writing a story about my tier. I was on F2. I want to thank those people who wrote the story. I want to thank Sheriff Woody. Because we guys who've been in there, you know what I'm saying? We deserve that second chance. To be back in the public again. It's tough when you come back out here. And the thing is, I have a lot to be grateful for . . . . And we just want another chance to get back out here. And I'm given that chance right now, thanks to Sheriff Woody, and thanks to the McShin Foundation, which is Mr. Shinholser right here. But, I just want to share this with you all. This is what we say every day: "I'm a man who accepts the challenge to change. I am a man who accepts that recovery is my responsibility. I'm a man who must make a lifelong commitment to change. I'm a man of purpose, courage, and valor, and I will recover. I am a man who will succeed, with the help of God and my recovery family. Hoorah, I thank you."

Silvestri: Thank you. And good luck to you.

Harry Holt, Midlothian: I believe President Obama, in his Inaugural Address, mentioned that the debate over the size of government is over. So I'm not sure why we're even discussing it. Although at the time, it was much smaller than it is now. So, maybe it wasn't as big then, and we're just not supposed to talk about how big it's going to get.

Laura Glover, Mechanicsville: My name is Laura Glover. I'm Hanover County. I've heard a lot of people who are frustrated, and, you know, have complaints, or maybe they're satisfied. But I don't hear any solutions. Like, what do we do here from now on? What do we do in this room? How do we effect change that we want? Does anybody want to step up and offer a solution on how to maybe find something that we can start doing right away? How can we get involved, and bring the change that we want to see?

Jim Goetzinger, Richmond: I'm not here to defend government, or to beat on government. But what I haven't heard, and maybe it's leading to her thing -- what about the people? What have we done to take over and share our responsibility, or show our responsibility? I think we're all busy with our jobs, and making money, and getting that second car and going on vacation. And, you know, have we walked down our street and picked up the trash? Have we helped a neighbor down the street to mow his lawn? I think we've lost a lot of that, and I come from the Midwest. We did a lot of that on our own. We didn't ask government to do it. And I hear everybody here is talking about government, and government's a problem. I think we're the problem. And so I think we need to think about, you know, stepping up. I suggested to the newspaper that what I'd like to see is some articles about people who are stepping up. Every once in a while, you see some in the paper. But most of the paper, it's about murders, and whatever, that's going on around here. And there's a lot of people doing good work. And it would be encouraging, I think, to see more of that. So if you want to offer something that we could do, that might be a way we could get something started.

Silvestri: That was a good hook onto solutions. You know, I get that question a lot. About a year ago, I started to identify good stories. And whoever was in the paper, whether it be an appointment or promotion or achievement, or picking up trash and we wrote a story about him, I sent him a velox. And I would say over the last year, there probably have been only about 10 days in which I didn't have at least one velox going out the door. And there was one Sunday when 35 went out the door. Not to say we can't do more. But it's something that we've reflected on as well. And I think it's a good suggestion. And I encourage anybody, when you see that, let us know. You can't assume that we're everywhere. So just let us know. And I appreciate that suggestion.

Let's continue the conversation about solutions. What are the solutions?

Eric Oswald, Mechanicsville: First of all, I just wanted to tell Mr. Robinson I appreciate your comments, and wish you the best of luck. And your little poem at the end just made a point to me that success is depending on us, and not the federal government. Or even the state government, for that matter. And we have the right to succeed and fail on our own merits, and not be dependent on someone else, or be bailed out if we fail, make poor decisions, fail to hire people who have foresight into the future of their business model, and just make bad decisions all around. Then they have the right to fail. Just like if we fail -- you know, drunk driving, whatever it may be, and end up in jail, then that's a failure. And that's on our own merits . . . .

Regarding just a quick version of the Constitution. The usurpation of powers, and why they were so fragmented. I believe that was by design, to avoid the consolidation that leads to a tyrannical state. And all the powers just leading into one party or person that gets to make all the decisions on what business makes money, what companies get to profit, or what individuals are successful.

Grogan: Laura, I'll give you a solution. It's four words. First is "vote." The other three are "against the incumbent." . . .

Right now, the only way we can take back our government -- the government is us, the people -- is to prove to the people -- and I'll say, this is against both parties. They don't really stick to principles. They just want to win. So if each person running knew -- who was elected, and was running -- knew that he's probably not going to be elected, don't you think they'd be more responsible? They wouldn't spend the whole time raising money to try to run for the next election. And I know there are some public officials in here. And unless they come up and convince me otherwise, I'll say, I don't know of a public official who really, deep down inside, believes in what our country was founded upon, and lives it and shows it.

Drew Williams, Richmond: Well, I really wish I could help you out in that "Don't vote for the incumbent" thing. But I'm only 15, so I'm not going to be voting for a while. But you know, we got ourselves into this situation. And it's not the federal government's job, in my opinion, to bail out the big companies. As mentioned earlier, this country is founded on small business. And I think we need to get back to that. We need to have more industry in America, which will give us more independence, both financially and in foreign affairs. And if -- well, let me say this. A good portion of the GDP is consumer spending. But there's another portion that is government spending. And when FDR was President during the Depression, he used government programs to increase that government spending to counteract the decrease in consumer spending. And it worked. But our problem is that government spending has continued to go up. And now we've accumulated too much debt. So now that the consumer spending has gone down, we can't really turn to that option of government spending, because we'll just accumulate even more debt. So we have to find other solutions. And I wish I had the answers, but I don't. But I just thought I'd share my opinion.

Mickey White: I wanted to start out by attributing a quote to Thomas Jefferson -- the nine scariest words in the English language are that "I'm from the government, and I'm here to help." And that's not just a saying. We know that to be true . . . . Now, moving on to the solutions. I know what I've done. For the first time in my life, I've become very politically active. I used to sit on the sidelines, and I used to complain. And I'm really kind of speaking to the choir here tonight, because all of you are here. How many people are not here? There are empty seats in every single row. So, we really need to reach out to our friends and our community, and get them involved. Because without us, there is no government. All those people that voted for the stimulus package that 67 percent of America had no interest in supporting, are probably going to get re-elected, because people don't know any better and don't care to do the research. It's up to us. We, the people, still control this government. And what I did was join the Tea Party movement. Because for me, it's about reconnecting the people with the government.

Harold Williams, Richmond: Good evening. I'm Harold Williams, Drew's father. I'm going to make one solution suggestion, and one observation. First of all, I do believe that our solutions begin with some personal accountability. But the one solution, the one problem in this country, Social Security, that solution would be to take Congress out of their own personal private pension plan, and put them into Social Security. I think we'll get their attention pretty quickly in how to fix it. And then the observation I will make: If anybody in this room doesn't believe our government is getting too big and overreaching, wait for in the next 30 days, when the discussion turns to bailing out the state of California. With your tax dollars.

Silvestri: OK. Anybody else, before we shut it down and celebrate the 25th? Miss Ruby, do you have anything to say tonight?

Ruby Turner: Mr. Silvestri, thank you. I remember the words that I saw on this fowl, sitting on the oak. And the words were: "The wise old owl sat on an oak. The more he heard, the less he spoke. The less he spoke, the more he heard. Why can't we be like this old bird?"

Silvestri: Now, on behalf of the Public Square, we want to say, "Thank you." You know, when we started this Public Square in 2005, we did not know where it was going to go. And it was all dependent on who showed up to make use of a microphone. And those of you who've said that this is your Public Square, is exactly the right frame. This is just a forum for us to model that, in this community, we can have a civil conversation . . . .

The important thing about the Public Square is, what do you think? What do you think after hearing your colleague or your neighbor's thought? And does it cause you to think differently? To reflect differently, to drive deeper? I hear a lot of people encouraging knowledge. A lot of people encourage you to go dig deeper on your civic responsibilities. If we all do that, we're going to be a better community. We're a corporate citizen as well. We want us, the community, to go forward. We want better living conditions and all that.

So on behalf of The Times-Dispatch, I thank you for participating in this experiment. We'll continue as long as you show up . . .