Further evidence of what really drives American conservativism--crony capitalism, not free markets.  As corrupt as our government has become, should we liberals become more devoted to small government?  I do not think that is the answer--governmental intervention is often in the public interest--but no one appears able to staunch the flow of government money and tax subsidies to the wealty and business interests.

scdrawe,

"should we liberals become more devoted to small government?"

Absolutely. Move the government back toward a role as neutral arbiter of policy and economy, rather than active influence on policy and economy, and you will aid many liberal policy goals. For example:

Agriculture. Greatly reduce and rework all forms of agriculture subsidy (including irrigation), such that all farmers and food producers are truly competing on a level financial playing field. In addition,  remove many of the arbitrary and nonsensical prohibitions on small farmers marketing product directly to consumers, again leveling the playing field while reducing the role of and need for large regulatory bodies. The result will be a large shift toward small-scale (at the individual leve), more sustainable food production that reduces greenhouse gas emissions, emphasizes entreprenurial small business over large corporate, and reduces health care costs by supporting fresh and healthy foods.

Taxes. Eliminate or greatly reduce the role of taxes as a tool of legislative policy, and return them solely to a direct source of funding for government activity, set at a known level that provides revenue for a known set of activities. This would simplify a great deal of the tax code, cutting a large hunk of unneccesary government. This would also greatly benefit poor, working class, and otherwise "ordinary" Americans by greatly simplifying the process of paying their taxes, thus ensuring that (a) more of them do so, (b) they get a greater return on their tax investment by ensuring that they don't miss out on all the hidden loopholes they need expensive accountants to find, and (c) more equitably distributes the tax burden by eliminating the ability of the wealthy to hire expensive accountants to find every loophole that they can use to lower their taxes. Those of us at the lower end of the income scale don't need more tax credits and complicated new forms to get our money back from the government, we need a clear, basic, logical tax code that sets us on a level playing field with accountants.

Health. Eliminate agricultural and other policies that emphasize unhealthy foods and lifestyles. Rather than institute various mandates on health, grant insurance companies the right to offer lower rates to people who demonstrate healthier purchases, and even lower rates to those who agree to have their purchases, eating habits, and lifestyles tracked. Don't mandate lifestyles, but create an open system in which the market for insurance is affected by one's own choices, and proper choices are not only rewarded but are not penalized by subsidizing others' poor choices.

Republicans and Libertarians have long built their strength on emphasizing freedom, generally the "freedom to" do sometihng. Democrats need to emphasize that, a la FDR, there is also "freedom from", and that a proper form of limited government is to establish clear, basic ground rules for competition that take into account all factors (not just economic) and then stay out of the way beyond that.

That was a major hijacking of this thread, but it was quiet anyway. To tie this back into my comments above, water issues such as these are an excellent example of where Democratic small government can come into play. The government has no business subsidizing and supporting this sort of thing. Take away the government program, and let the true cost of using that water be borne by those who insist on having it.You will influence liberal goals of environmental conservation very effectively by getting government out of this sort of business, not just by creating ever more oversight and management programs to try and take care of a problem created by government in the first place.

That's my rainy morning rant. Any takers?

I'm trying, literate, but it's late Friday afternoon and my brain is shutting down.  Wanna apply your rant to the Wetlands story above more directly for my failing cranium?

Great post literatehobo, I agree across the board.  This is just the sort of response I was hoping for--a laundry list of big government support for business and wealthy interests.  The germ of this question was reading David Cay Johnston on hidden tax breaks.  I am convinced that one reason sham conservatives love tax breaks is that they fly under the radar.  Few people seem capable of understanding that a tax break is as much of a subsidy as a direct payment.  The money needed to pay for the tax break comes from one of three places:  Spending reduction, borrowing or an increased tax burden on non-favored taxpayers.  

cspencef,

As I noted in my last paragraph, we apply the theory of limited Democratic government by getting the government out of the business of subsidizing water use altogether. The major reason we have large-scale agriculture and large-scale development in much of the west is government-funded water projects that provide irrigation and urban water at a fraction of the true market cost, not even counting environmental and other costs. So if you want to address this sort of thing, rather than creating even more complicated government regulations, get government out altogether. We should never have started this sort of thing, and it's time to leave it behind. This is especially true as it relates to dry-land agriculture; we can't exactly let LA dry up overmight, but we can sure as hell stop subsidizing wastefull irrigation for land that should never have become agricultural in the first place. Privatizing water sources would probably be a disaster, but the least we can do is make the government-run water available at market rates.

scdrawe,

I don't know who David Cay Johnston is, I'm just a farmer with a TNR addiction, but I agree with what you say. Another aspect to it all is that tax breaks are most likely to be used by those with the time and/or resources to research them or pay for someone else to. I'm sure I'm missing some juicy loopholes that would help my bottom line, but I don't have the time or expertise to figure out what I might qualify for, don't have the money to hire an accountant to do the dirty work for me, and have ethical objections to doing so anyway. Anyone who expects dual-income households with kids to research, understand, and utilize the Byzantine mess of tax breaks out there is delusional or nefarious. Probably both. Get rid of the whole damn system and get government revenue streams out in the open where they belong.

literatehobo:

Johnston is (was?) a tax reporter for the NY Times.  A few years ago he wrote a muckraking book entitled "Perfectly Legal" exposing exactly the nefarious use of accountants, lawyers (confession, I am a lawyer) and lobbyists to scour for and create loopholes as you describe in your post.  My initial reaction was outrage, followed by depression.  Ultimately I came to the conclusion that liberals must hammer relentlessly on government waste in the form of corporate/business subsidies (including, but not limited to, agricultural and water subsidies) and preferential tax treatment for the wealthy as part of our agenda.  This is consistent with and, indeed, compliments core liberal values.

Why, oh Why, are the American People so willing to give their money to oil billionaires foreign and domestic, and so unwilling to give it to their own government?