Mission Creep- Can a Democratic form of Government say No?

This post is meant to get a bit of a debate going, and I hope that everyone involved gets some good thoughts out of it.

I've been watching Australian politics for about ten years now,(I'm 25), and I've noticed that, almost every other week, there is some pundit, or well wisher, or somebody saying that " The government must do something about....(insert issue here)." Whether its turning back the boats, spending huge amounts on "stimulus" or anything from plain packaging on cigarettes to failing businesses needing a bailout, the government that gets elected ends up taking action on a huge array of issues that aren't really central to the purpose of government.

Note that I said "take action" not "take EFFECTIVE action"
These plans don't have to be well thought out or even well managed, so long as they can point to money being spent.

Case in point, I lived in Alice Springs on and of for about 15 years. Population around 30,000, roughly a third of that Aboriginal. The Federal Government provides that third of the population with free medical care, basic food, housing, legal aid (Separate from the legal aid available to everyone else), and payments to every single one of them in the form of "Native Title" for the ancestral lands, on top of the dole.

Anyone who thinks that that is a recipe for shiny happy people go find the nearest wall and smack your forehead against it.

My point, in my rambling way, is to ask: What would have happened if the government was able to say "No, that is not our responsibility. Our job is to defend the nation, enforce the law, and provide the infrastructure to let you sort YOURSELVES out."

I reckon that they would have been voted out of office.
And that scares me.

The other thing that scares me is that the money for all these side projects has to come from somewhere. Either more taxes in whatever form, or less money for other issues.

What happens when a government gets so in debt that is can't get itself back out? I think I've been hearing a few things about that.....

Enough. I should stop ranting and let someone else talk

One safeguard a democracy has is frequent electoral change. An incoming government can (and often does) say that the previous lot stuffed up and we'll fix it by canning the program.
Regarding your example I worked for some years administering programs for Aboriginal people and even ended up being seconded to write new programs. Many things contribute to the deplorable situation some of these people are in and excessive paternalistic welfare is one of the problems, along with wider community prejudice, generational despair, and factional infighting among others. I would mention that in our country there are also similar programs aimed at other disadvantaged groups which have the same unfortunate side effect of reducing initiative.
Money for welfare is an interesting separate topic. It doesn't actually have as high a net cost to government as might be imagined as it is spent in shops and pubs who employ staff who pay income tax, plus as the US experience shows it may be cheaper to pay some nonproductive members of society a basic stipend than to incarcerate them after they take to crime. Better to have them watching reality TV while eating fast food than mugging productive citizens.
Another example you mentioned is the stimulus packages used to deflect the GFC. Analysis by economists indicate that the government actually made a profit from them. By priming the pump they maintained business confidence and high employment which led to higher intake of income tax and lower unemployment payments than would have been they case if they hadn't done it.
The plain packaging on cigarettes has been justified financially in that the government has to pay for treatment of smoking related illnesses, so any reduction in cigarette usage will save money.
Regarding "turning back the boats" I'm sure that our northern hemisphere friends wish they had our very low levels of refugees. Friends in the UK can't understand how such a large country as us can be so worried about a refugee intake that is a very small fraction of theirs. If there is an answer to this problem that doesn't involve letting women and children drown in defiance of UN conventions please tell me or the government.
Despite all the above I do actually agree with you that democratic governments tend to get involved in things they shouldn't just to placate lobby groups.

“A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves money from the Public Treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidate promising the most benefits from the Public Treasury with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy always followed by dictatorship. The average age of the world's greatest civilizations has been two-hundred years. These nations have progressed throught this sequence: From bondage to spiritual faith; from spiritual faith to great courage; from courage to abundance; from abundance to complacency; from complacency to apathy; from apathy to dependence; from dependence back again into bondage.”
—Alexander Fraser Tyler, 1700 Quotation about the fall of the Athenian republic over a thousand years ago.

This is an old quote and a true danger to democracy. It is one of the major risks of democracy and has been for a long time. Part of the idea of the check and balance system of the USA is to reduce this sort of risk. Any law passed has to be acceptable to the legislative, executive and judicial branches of government to stand. Plus on the legislative side the action must be acceptable to the small states in the Senate and the large states in the House. The checks and balances don't stop this sort of thing as the US government is still spending like drunken sailors but they were supposed to.

What happens when a government gets so in debt that is can't get itself back out? I think I've been hearing a few things about that.....

There are several possibilities:

1. A bigger economy bails out the smaller troubled one (Germany and Greece)
2. The government defaults on the bonds and the bond holders get pennies on the dollar, which is unpopular since most bonds are held by retirees and retirees vote in large numbers.
3. The government allows inflation to reduce the value of the currency and therefore reduce the debt to manageable levels. This hurts bond holders again, since their bonds have much less purchasing power than they had planned on and also hurts people on pensions and other forms of fixed income. It is however somewhat more popular with governments than option number 2 as it is easier for politicians to blame someone else. Also if done with care it can be done a little at a time, so the populace doesn't realize what is happening.
4. An unexpected massive economic windfall occurs which increases economic growth far more than anticipated. This is the one politicians pray for, but it rarely happens.

Case in point, I lived in Alice Springs on and of for about 15 years. Population around 30,000, roughly a third of that Aboriginal. The Federal Government provides that third of the population with free medical care, basic food, housing, legal aid (Separate from the legal aid available to everyone else), and payments to every single one of them in the form of "Native Title" for the ancestral lands, on top of the dole.

Anyone who thinks that that is a recipe for shiny happy people go find the nearest wall and smack your forehead against it.

My point, in my rambling way, is to ask: What would have happened if the government was able to say "No, that is not our responsibility. Our job is to defend the nation, enforce the law, and provide the infrastructure to let you sort YOURSELVES out."

It's very hard to stop an entitlement program once it gets started. People build their lives and expectations around the payments and when those payments are stopped there is a lot of human suffering in the short term. It can however be done if there is the political will to do it. President Clinton (Democrat) and the Republican congress demonstrated that with the US in the 1990s with the reasonably successful bi partisan welfare reform. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personal_R ... tunity_Act) For the most part it worked well in the long term, although there were lots of individual exceptions. Certainly enough exceptions to provide lots of anecdotal stories that the media loves. It would be much harder to do something like this in today's economy. In the 1990s the economy was booming and so opportunities were available.

Daryl wrote:
Regarding your example I worked for some years administering programs for Aboriginal people and even ended up being seconded to write new programs. Many things contribute to the deplorable situation some of these people are in and excessive paternalistic welfare is one of the problems, along with wider community prejudice, generational despair, and factional infighting among others. I would mention that in our country there are also similar programs aimed at other disadvantaged groups which have the same unfortunate side effect of reducing initiative.

I couldn't agree more. The race irrelevant, get any separate group with that much interference and nannying and most will lose any initiative to improve their own lot. There are always exceptions, and I'm friends with several, but most people tend to coast if they believe that the government will take care of everything.

Part of the reason I've enjoyed the Honorverse is how close to right the MWW gets when he depicts human nature. Have a look at the Dolists on Haven and I reckon you'd recognise the stories.

Daryl wrote:Money for welfare is an interesting separate topic. It doesn't actually have as high a net cost to government as might be imagined as it is spent in shops and pubs who employ staff who pay income tax, plus as the US experience shows it may be cheaper to pay some nonproductive members of society a basic stipend than to incarcerate them after they take to crime. Better to have them watching reality TV while eating fast food than mugging productive citizens.

Yes and no.

A basic stipend is good, so long as it staves of poverty. But when you give a group another source of income, such as the native title payments in the Northern Territory, you end up with no real incentive to work. As time goes on, people lose the will to work, and feel that their entitled to what they get. Then they have kids, and the kids grow up with the example that they don't have to do anything to get what they need. Then they get bored. Then they turn to crime just as a way to liven up their lives. There is a reason that the prisons in the NT are full, and have such a high repeat offender rate. It's not because its neccesary to eat. It's because fast food and booze become so boring after time that the thrill of the crime becomes better than a drug.
At least, that's my opinion.

biochem wrote:

“A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves money from the Public Treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidate promising the most benefits from the Public Treasury with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy always followed by dictatorship. The average age of the world's greatest civilizations has been two-hundred years. These nations have progressed throught this sequence: From bondage to spiritual faith; from spiritual faith to great courage; from courage to abundance; from abundance to complacency; from complacency to apathy; from apathy to dependence; from dependence back again into bondage.”
—Alexander Fraser Tyler, 1700 Quotation about the fall of the Athenian republic over a thousand years ago.

This is an old quote and a true danger to democracy. It is one of the major risks of democracy and has been for a long time. Part of the idea of the check and balance system of the USA is to reduce this sort of risk. Any law passed has to be acceptable to the legislative, executive and judicial branches of government to stand. Plus on the legislative side the action must be acceptable to the small states in the Senate and the large states in the House. The checks and balances don't stop this sort of thing as the US government is still spending like drunken sailors but they were supposed to.

That was just the quote that I was thinking of when I wrote that, but I didn't know the author. Cheers!