NES Profile: Essential Academic Skills Subtest II: Writing (002)

It is easy to understand why some people believe having less government is better: no one enjoys paying taxes, and a smaller government costs less to operate. Others object to government interference in the economy, arguing that the freer people are to run their businesses as they see fit the more prosperous all of us are likely to be. And whatever political party someone votes for, no one wants to have government snooping into her or his personal affairs. Although these arguments have validity, we should not reduce government to its bare essentials. There are some needs that we have as a community that cannot be met without the help of government.

We cannot maintain our highways, build and operate parks, protect the environment, or ensure that our food is safe except through government. Such tasks require organization, budgeting, and oversight at a very high level. Moreover, there are many situations in which no responsible person would wish to see government doing as little as it could. For instance, when the nation is under attack, when individual rights are threatened, when there is a public health crisis, or when a natural disaster has destroyed a community, good citizens want government to do whatever is necessary to solve the problem. At such moments, no one wants to hear that "the less government we have, the better."

I think that when people say they want "less government" they usually mean that they want government to do the public's work efficiently, effectively, and without waste or corruption. To cite one recent example, people in Boston weren't unhappy that the government built new highways and tunnels to ease congestion in the downtown area; they were unhappy that some of the construction was poor quality and that the project was exorbitantly over budget. When Hurricane Katrina struck New Orleans, people weren't upset that government tried to help the victims of flooding. They were angry because government did such a poor job.

There are many important tasks in our society that individuals can't do by themselves. For those jobs we need government—that is all of us, collectively—to lend a hand. What we should be asking for is not less government, but better government.

I do think that the less goverment the better. The goverment can get too involved in our lifes if we let them. The goverment likes to watch what we are doing, they even have camaras in streets and on red lights and if you run them they can find you. Also they tax us too much, and they spend the money on worthless projects. If the goverment has less money there will be less pork spending.

Mostly I think smaller goverment is best because it makes too many restrictions on people. There are already rules about business ownership and payrolls, where we can drill oil wells, and also free speech is a thing of the past. When free speech becomes a thing of the past, then truth becomes a thing of the past. A lot of truths are painfull to hear. But if we don't hear them, we can't address the issues.

Finally, big government tend to have a lot of red tape, you can't get anything done without spending alot of time and trouble. Burocracies start expanding so large that nothing gets done because so many workers have to sign off on it. This is good if you work in a goverment burocracy because you will have good benefits and job security. Maybe for years on end. But it is bad for the country.

So the poet and essayist, he was right to say "the less goverment, the better." Obviously we need some goverment, but it should be by the people and for the people. And people have different ideas about how to run their schools, there busineses, and there lifes.