Opinion

Opinion

keeping the playing field level and open to all. This is the philosophy of limited government. As Republican Senator Phil Gramm of Texas recently put it:

“There are two competing visions for America’s future. The Democratic vision is more government providing more benefits to more people. . . . The Republican and conservative vision is more freedom — with a growing America providing more opportunities for more people. You can’t have both unlimited government and unlimited opportunity; you have to choose.”

So much for theory. What does experience reveal? Quite a lot: Increasing federal involvement in education has been followed by steadily dropping scores and widening gaps in students’ knowledge, spelled out in “A Nation at Risk.” In welfare, “After hundreds of billions spent. . . to ‘fight poverty,’ the result is a holocaust of no-go zones where drugs, child abuse, prostitution and illegitimacy are the norm,” writes Llewellyn Rockwell. If you think these billions have eliminated poverty, read Charles Murray’s “Losing Ground.” Government guarantees of bank and savings and loan deposits bring enormous losses, more hundreds of billions — for taxpayers!

These are examples of well-intentioned programs that violate the principle of limited government. Why such results? When economic and social problems are subordinated to political considerations, as every government must do because it is a political creature, failure follows.

Have Democrats learned this lesson, now obvious to most of the world’s overgrown governments? Based on what they have done and propose, no.

Government’s size: As areas of involvement increase so does the size of government. This, Democrats say, is fine: “Never mind the failures,” they insist, “We need more!” Republicans object to governmental growth: the greater the governments, the fewer the assets and people free for productive work, the more restrictions on individual freedoms.

What does that mean? Almost all government functions and people