According to recent polling by the Associated Press, Americans are angry at the federal government. Only 20 percent are satisfied with how Washington is working. They’re nearly twice as confident, however, in state and local governments, and when it comes to things most clearly in their control – personal relationships, finances, etc., they’re most confident, with up to 84 percent expressing satisfaction in how they are managing. So why do so many politicians seem insistent on micromanaging our lives from within Washington, D.C.?
It’s not at all surprising that people have so little faith in a central government that so often fails them. Instead of trying to do too much, government policies and programs should be designed to eliminate barriers to opportunity for those in greatest need, while striving to empower to decide how best to help themselves.
Unfortunately, too many in Washington are stuck in an old and outdated way of thinking. Out of touch with the failures of centralized planning, and unaware of the how new technologies can empower individuals, they propose the same old, tired solutions. Hillary Clinton for example, is a leading voice for centralizing more and more power in Washington. She has already spoken out in favor of $1.2 trillion in new spending and debt – without any plan to pay for it. She hasn’t offered a plan to fix health care – instead calling for changes that would make the new health care law more costly. The need for patient-centered changes could not be clearer, as evidenced by the proliferation of costly plans with such meager benefits that plan holders might be better off without them.
On education, Mrs. Clinton has previously said that she supports public charter schools. But she opposes the school choice reforms that are most often debated today: educational vouchers and education savings accounts. But if you’re a parent with a child stuck in a failing school, there’s nothing more important than giving your kid the most important tool of success later in life: a good education. Hillary Clinton does not recognize that.
There’s a need for government regulations – to promote safety, in particular. But excessive regulations limit choice, undercut economic opportunity, damage the economy, and hurt workers. Right now millions of Americans are dealing with government regulations that force them to buy costly health insurance covering things they will never deal with. We should be trusting Americans to make more of their own decisions, because generally we make better choices about our own lives than Washington does. Instead, Mrs. Clinton has supported new and unnecessary regulations that cost our economy billions, and which ultimately keep people from earning and building a future.
Hillary Clinton also supports a slew of policies to reward companies that fail in the marketplace. This is an important question: if an insurance company, or agricultural producer, or exporter cannot succeed by selling their goods to consumers, should they be able to make money by winning favors from politicians? Most taxpayers would say “no,” but Hillary Clinton favors a range of tax breaks and subsidies to some of America’s largest companies. In a few years, she shouldn’t be surprised when these failed companies come to Washington asking for a bailout.
Everyone wants to see a better future for the next generation. We want to see problems solved. But “Washington-knows-best” policies just don’t work. At a time when Americans are experiencing the lowest labor participation rate in 40 years and anemic GDP growth that was under 1 percent in the last quarter, it seems only the governing class, and those who are connected to Washington, are thriving.
We can and should empower people to make their lives better. We should unleash creativity, entrepreneurship, innovation, and independence. We know that these principles work – and they respect the wishes and abilities of the people involved. It’s time for Hillary Clinton – and others – to take a new approach.
Daniel Garza is the executive director of The LIBRE Initiative.
