Give a Gift

Washington Matters

The Silly Debate Over Big Government

Sloganeering only obscures the debate over the proper role of government.

By Mark Willen, Senior Political Editor, The Kiplinger Letter

March 10, 2010
Text Size T T
  • Comments
  • Print This Article
  • Order a Reprint
  • Advertisement

It’s become fashionable these days -- especially with the rise of the Tea Party movement and the success of attacks on President Obama’s health care plan -- to assume that Americans, almost by nature, are against “big government.” I’m sure a poll testing that term would draw impressive numbers, with a very large majority insisting they prefer “smaller government.”

But what do those terms really mean? I couldn’t help shaking my head at the congressional hearings and the press coverage of Toyota’s safety problems, as lawmakers and commentators blasted the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration for failing to catch Toyota’s problem and do something about it sooner. But that requires a staff and -- yes -- regulations with enforcement behind them. How do you square hat with a call for smaller government?

Other recent reports have taken the federal government to task for newfound deficiencies in the E-Verify system, a computer database created to help employers check the legal status of job applicants. It needs to be faster, have more data input and more agents making it work. Sounds like big government to me.

Obviously, “big” and “small” government are terms that mean different things to different people -- and at different times. The truth is, Americans aren’t against big government per se. They get angry when government does something they don’t want, but they get equally upset when government fails to do what they need.

It’s worth paying attention to what’s happening at the state level, where Americans are getting a strong taste of small government, and they’re far from thrilled with it. Much of the downsizing is a fiscal necessity as states try to cope with a huge budget crisis -- a fact of life that eventually will hit the federal government as well, whether we like it or not.

The states got some help with their fiscal woes from the federal stimulus last year (another example of big government often derided), but now the aid is running out. Hardest hit are schools at all levels. About 300,000 education jobs on the K-through-12 level were saved by the stimulus last year, but layoffs are more likely in the fall. Public colleges and universities also got crucial help from the stimulus, but now they’re getting hit very hard. With less money from state legislatures, many schools are raising tuition, laying off teachers, limiting class offerings and accepting fewer students. That’s going to make it even harder for the U.S. to be competitive in global markets, and businesses are genuinely and legitimately upset that a bad situation is only going to get worse.

Smaller state government is also having an effect on more down-to-earth services. In Arizona, for example, the highway department, facing a $100 million shortfalls, closed 13 of the state’s 18 highway rest stops, no small burden given the long distances between stops in very rural areas. Residents are outraged, and protests may force a reversal. The American Trucking Association is also objecting, saying the lack of rest stops is a series safety issues. Some Arizonans say they would have preferred a user fee instead of closures, but lawmakers are afraid that any kind of revenue raiser will cost them in the next election.

When severe snowstorms hit much of the country, residents in many areas were similarly outraged at the slow pace of snow removal. In the Maryland and Virginia suburbs of Washington, for example, which aren’t equipped for the unusually harsh winter we’ve had, residents bombarded local officials with complaints and demands. None would have said they wanted big government -- at least not in so many words -- but they clearly wanted a government big enough to respond to the unexpected events.

Social service programs are often derided by those who hate big government, but Americans are more dependent on them than ever before. The Washington Times reported last week that without unemployment benefits, food stamps, welfare and other government help, U.S. household income would have plunged by $723 billion last year, instead of the $167 billion drop reported by the Commerce Department. The article went on to quote economists saying it’s worrisome that government support was so critical to keeping the economy afloat, but what was the alternative?

In short, we want the government to be there when we need it, whether it’s to rescue the financial system or to plow snow covered streets. But when government is inefficient and wasteful -- or doing something we don’t believe is wise or critical -- then it’s a different story.

Despite the fun that commentators and politicians are having, the argument about big government vs. small government is ridiculous and a waste of time. Obama likes to say that Americans want “smart government,” not big government or small government. It’s a clever slogan, but it’s also true. We also want a “smart” debate about how to get to that point, but so far we’re not getting it.


DISCUSS

Permission to post your comment is assumed when you submit it. The name you provide will be used to identify your post, and NOT your e-mail address. We reserve the right to excerpt or edit any posted comments for clarity, appropriateness, civility, and relevance to the topic.
View our full privacy policy

Reader Comments (32)

Posted by: Kirkland Conservative American for Prosperity at 03/10/2010 12:54:41 PM

Your article is what's silly--the debate over the size of government is one of the most IMPORTANT debates among all nations. Your article basically states that everyone REALLY wants bigger government and that's simply not true. American's want representatives at the local, state, and federal level to appropriately debate the trade-offs involved in programs. I can tell you that every household in America has "wants" but they make trade-offs including indebtedness. Your tone is condescending to anyone who recognizes that things like Tea Parties are a natural result or naturally occurring phenomenon in nations and among the citizenship. You note several groups of people who are "outraged" about this or that, but that's part of the process. The residents of a municipality wanting more, better, or faster snow removal must promote their concern to the town council at which point the town council would need to say, "ok it will cost $X to get that service." The option is raise funds from the citizenry or cut other programs. That's the point. Your article is a clear demonstration of an apathy as if, because everyone wants more, and because governments ALWAYS grow, we should just let it. I aim to differ with my vote, with my discourse, and with my conscience. You call for a "'smart' debate" when you belittle the foundational debate. How very negative of you.

Posted by: Nomen at 03/10/2010 01:26:55 PM

I don't think the problem is so much with the size of government but with the unprecedented levels of inefficiency, fraud and corruption. We aren't getting the governmental services that we are paying for. Contracts are awarded without fair bidding, cost overruns are rampant, accountability is shoddy and loose. Money is siphoned off at all levels without proper accounting. Laws and regulations are written full of loopholes to benefit the lobbyists and big campaign contributors. Consumer protection is at an all time low. Every time the government expands into new services, the costs of bureaucracy, waste and fraud continue to go up along with the taxes and public debt to pay for it all.

Posted by: Confused Kiplinger Reader at 03/10/2010 05:32:19 PM

I think this article is a bit silly and strange at the same time. What's the point of demeaning the debate? You could write an article like this for just about anything and it doesn't serve much of a purpose--certianly doesn't serve Kiplinger. I guess your point is you're having a go at the debate just like the commentators or politicians--self-gratifying fun for the author? Maybe your point is "we all want 'smart government' like Obama wants, but we're not getting it." Who wouldn't want smart government? Your fluff piece didn't help any of us learn anything except that you don't like the debate (while I believe most people think the debate is critical). You guys could have done better than this piece.

Posted by: CWC at 03/10/2010 08:08:25 PM

"the argument about big government vs small government is ridiculous and a waste of time" must be one of the most ignorant comments ever written. We have an out of control federal government that has bankrupted the nation and that ignores the Constitution. The country simply cannot survive unless we take drastic action to reduce the size and interference of government and stop wasting future generations' money to buy votes. I completely concur with Kirkland Conservative's comments. I suggest that the author get out of Washington DC and take a look at the outrage in the "real" America.

Posted by: John Ziccardi at 03/11/2010 11:06:49 AM

What a silly, thinly disguised pro big government article! Did you really get paid by Kiplinger's to write that Obama's slogan about smart government was clever but true? My man, there's nothing clever about the comment. EVERYONE wants smart business, smart expense management, smart everything, how could anyone want dumb? Government that is smart is not what taxpayers need; government that is efficient and smaller and less intrusive and less taxing is what we need. And we don't need the Obama administration piling on thousands of non-competitive too highly salaried lifetime government employees who get benefit packages averaging 40K a year vs 9K for private sector workers. That's a recipe for huge and growing govermnent, with increasing inefficiency and with burgeoning entitlement obligations for generations to come. Government governs best which governs least. And which taxes least.

Posted by: Ron in St. Louis at 03/11/2010 03:45:29 PM

I agree the argument presented in the article is what's "sill"y. It makes broad blanket assumptions about what we, "the American people", think and want. The author suffers from the same social and interpersonal disfunction as the majority of lawmakers (a better description would be "self-serving politicians") and so-called "commentators". Here's some advise for Mr. Willen, his fellow commentators, and the politicians..."Don't speak for me...LISTEN to me! In short, I AM NOT PART OF YOUR "WE"!

Posted by: Troft at 03/12/2010 09:04:04 AM

Ridiculous. Was this article written in jest? Or maybe to create a conflagration to drive page hits? I understand that journalists generally do not know much, if anything, about the subjects of their articles, but this is over the top! Are we to believe that government expeditures should be set at a level that fulfills the compete needs and wants of the citizenry? We are already well on our way to redefining America as a two class society, but its not rich vs poor as the Left would have you believe. It is Goverment employed vs. everyone else. Rein in Government spending! That goverment is best, which governs least!

Posted by: L arnold at 03/12/2010 10:41:53 AM

It don't get real until it gets to the exact budget items. This article shared some examples of services people want - thats important. I have not yet seen from either the liberals or the conservatives on these types of blogs - what exact budget items need to get cut. At the same time - the government services must be given service, deliverables expectations and held accountable to performance. Then if there is a gap between funding and the ability to deliver in a efficient manner - the public as to have an honest discussion about trade-offs. Until then - this is all semantics and a waste of time.

Posted by: Tom at 03/12/2010 10:51:08 AM

What a simpleton view! The present day mentality of reliance on government to solve every problem is a product of Wilsonian and Rooseveltian domestic policies. The big government vs small government dilemma is addressed quite clearly, and masterfully, in the United States Constitution. I implore you to read it.

Posted by: Jack at 03/12/2010 12:38:05 PM

I can't wait until one of you Tea Party commentators is out of a job and needs government help. You seem to be missing the original article's point. What's silly is not the debate -- it's the terminology. What's big to one person is crucial to another. I happen to think we guantanamo is an example of unnecessary big government -- as is the massive monitoring of our phone conversations. Others think it's crucial. Let's debate that -- not big or small governmnet. Jack

Posted by: Tom at 03/12/2010 01:39:10 PM

In response to Jack....I'm out of work and what I don't need is government help. What I do need is for the government to get out of the way and let this economy heal itself. Read a little history and you will understand that it was the New Deal that made the Great Depression GREAT!

Posted by: Citizen at 03/13/2010 05:07:04 AM

Watched the top 100 examples of wasted government stimulous spending tonight on Fox. It was so rediculous and wasteful it almost made me cry. Seriously. The things our government has done with the stimulous money is so sad when there are people suffering every day. I don't know how this could happen in our Country. If they wanted to help teachers and education there was plenty of money to do it if they would have simply stopped painting bridges to nowhere, stopped spending to study cactus insects and researching robot bees and much more. I for one definitely want smaller goverment.

Posted by: John at 03/13/2010 05:19:53 AM

What a silly article. Pompous too. And uninformed. A trifecta! The government that is big enough to give you what you want is also strong enough to take it away. Government is by nature a monopoly. I want choices, not a better-organized, smarter monopoly with direct access to my paycheck for the things I need in life. The Federal Government should protect our borders, protect interstate contracts/commerce and uphold the Bill of Rights. The fact that they the Federal government has grown to tax us so excessively that they can take money away from one state and give it to another...and that basic State/Local services like education and snow removal have become dependent on Federal GOV doles of money should be abhorrent to any United States citizen. Unless we continue down the national socialist path of taking over companies like General Motors, no government job "makes" money. Government jobs take and spend money. Sometimes for essential services like education and snow removal. You have discovered the dirty little secret of GOV budget cuts - they always go straight to cutting GOV services we expect and notice - like education and snow/garbage removal. Have you noticed how much the Federal Government is spending on advertising lately? For things like the Census? Why in the world can't we cut THAT budget if we need to make cuts? Government jobs have grown so much that the #1 and #2 employers in many states are the State and Federal Government. If we fool ourselves into thinking that our economy requires more Government jobs to reduce unemployment, it gets to a point that we are agreeing that we can lift ourselves off the ground by our shoelaces. The only problem with Socialism is that you eventually run out of other people's money.

Posted by: DaveC at 03/13/2010 06:09:40 AM

stupid, the smaller the government the better. government welfare doesn't help the poor, it makes them poorer. every single thing the government does can only disrupt the free market, the free market is the best means of improving the lot of everyones lives, even the people at the bottom of the economic ladder. if you want to see big governments track record, just take a look at all the famines, wars, corruption, abuse etc all throughout history. the government has no moral high ground, there is no justifcation for theft and force.

Posted by: drewbie at 03/13/2010 06:42:02 AM

I think the poster Nomen below has really hit it on the nail. Its endemic corruption at the top levels of government making "boneheaded" decisions with astronomical sums of money, with no accountability (coincidence?) and only a margin of a result of what was initially promised. Sound familiar? Its been especially obvious and prevalent since the bush days and up to now. Unfortunately the two party system, is the same party defrauding and fleecing the public equally as well, only serving different lobbyists. Universal health care--why is there trepidation from the people? Because we see politicians left and right trying to chop up this billion gazillion cash cow into the right portions for their conspirators, even knowing the pie is orders of magnitudes smaller right now, and for those that want no part and have private insurance, doubling of premiums and doubling of doctor, prescriptions, and medical charges. How will they fleece us next, while simultaneously dealing horrendous damage to the economy and function of this country?

Posted by: The Foundation For larger Government at 03/13/2010 08:17:54 AM

It would appear Kiplinger has misjudged it's readership to be sane and thoughtful. They'll be surprised to find they are raving right wing Tea Baggers...or not.

Posted by: Otto at 03/13/2010 09:36:49 AM

True. Rational conservatism (ala Bill Buckley, Irving Kristol, et al) has been driven to near extinction by a new paradigm of thought-challenged, flag-waving fear mongering. Angry villagersroused to fever-pitch by wise elders such as Beck, Hannity, Limbaugh, and Coulterlighting their torches and setting out to slay the evil monster of "big" government. How big is too big? How small is too small? Privacy? Freedom? The legitimate role (and duties) of government? State versus local? How is the world of 2010 different from that of 1776, and how did the framers accommodate for those changes? Or didn't they? Who cares, we're conservatives. Pass me a torch. Taxes bad, government bad, socialism bad. We're the the defenders of the constitution, the good guys, the true patriots. Rush said so. Conservative thought has become an oxymoron. It has degenerated into self-parody. Complex ideas have been replaced with mindless slogans and talking points, and dialog has been replaced by diatribe. Perhaps, in this fast-food world, it was inevitable. Perhaps it's just easier that way ... and Americans love "eas"y.

Posted by: Scotthew at 03/13/2010 10:49:58 AM

This article is ridiculously stupid. Right now our government is larger than its ever been. Ever. In our history. Ever. I can't express that enough. So our huge government what have they screwed up? The missed the whole bank crisis (Bush's government was almost as big, massive), Katrina, the bridge in Minnesota (? I don't remember where and the quality of this article is hardly worth me taking 2 seconds to look it up), missing the Toyota problem...anything else? Oh, the massive corruption in the government itself in places like congress, the HUD (just wait, it's coming), and somehow we missed that Van Jones was a 9-11 truther and an outspoken communist. Big government also missed Acorn on numerous occasions helping pimps take out bank loans to house 14 year old prostitutes illegal immigrants from El Salvador and how to get tax credits (your/my money) for it. Let's see, what else? No, enough. I could go on for hours but I think my point is made. Why have bigger government when our most massive government in history has done all of this? Shouldn't we be moving power away from the federal government to, oh I don't know. The constitution says any power not specifically mentioned in it is reserved to the state and or the people. I like those options better. 50 small governments are much more effective than 1 massive government, not to mention we the people are pretty slick.

Posted by: E Hess at 03/13/2010 11:10:36 AM

The article is missing the point that people are fed up with the BIG Federal government and not the state governments which are being squeezed and unable to give their citizens the services they needbecause too many tax dollars go to the Fed

Posted by: Jimmy at 03/13/2010 11:38:29 AM

This article is 100% correct, we need a BETTER more EFFICIENT non-corrupt government. Size is irrelevant, the size of government fits what the people need. Seriously, so many people spew about small government and they don't realize what the government supports. Unemployment, welfare, medicare, VA, highways and roads, schools. It's not about size at all. If you want to say its about local vs fed gov't, (which I have heard some people refer to small government as their local, and big as the fed), then again it's not an issue of size, but rather scope. This whole big government this, small government that talking points are such crap.

Posted by: AKK at 03/13/2010 12:52:27 PM

My problem is with the FEDERAL government. Not the State government. I look at my paycheck and see money given every month to finance two wars that I hate, entitlement programs that will bankrupt this country, while "big corporate fat cats" get tax breaks and bailouts. I would have no problem diverting all that tax money to the State level, to solve the problems you raise. At least my State will spend the money on things I care about like schools, roads, etc. And don't kid yourself about the amount of Federal aid to the State level, when compared to what Federal Agencies and the private sector got. Didn't Obama flatly refuse Schwarzenegger's appeal for a Federal bailout of States a year ago because he said it would set a dangerous precedent?

Posted by: akk at 03/13/2010 12:57:19 PM

By the way, do you know how minuscule a problem the brake issue with Toyota is? From Robert Wright's blog post on Opinionator on NYTimes, "So driving one of these suspect Toyotas raises your chances of dying in a car crash over the next two years from .01907 percent (thats 19 one-thousandths of 1 percent, when rounded off) to .01935 percent (also 19 one-thousandths of one percent)."

Posted by: Tea Party Patriot - Jeff at 03/13/2010 12:57:49 PM

Mr. Willen! What reviews! Thank you for the opportunity. I personally have no problem with your article. Republicans and Democrats have been debating this for a long time now. Typically this is THE struggle between Republicans and Democrats. Democrats being the kindhearted big spenders and the Republicans being the cold hard tight wads (very unfair labels). Defining "big government" will always be an issue that those who involve themselves in the process will be debating. But as political propaganda to blurt out to the masses in undefined terms IS a waste of time! Even Republicans struggle over the issues all by themselves. Look back over history and see how much opportunity they have had to work on cut backs. It is a complicated and career jeopardizing job! I believe the solution is though, that the voting public get off their high horse and start supporting their representatives. And I don't mean vote for them then abandon them. I mean get INVOLVED in the process. They are not psychic. Help vote on the options. Be willing to accept the cutbacks in your own services and not just someones else. Be willing to accept the necessary tax hikes when they come around. Stop being so spoiled.

Posted by: AC at 03/13/2010 01:07:02 PM

This article is what happens when you have absolutely no understanding of economics...Somebody fire this guy. And fire the guy who hired him...

Posted by: erie_angel at 03/13/2010 01:44:06 PM

Its not BIG government vs. SMALL government. It's about efficient government vs. inefficient government. Right now almost every area of government federal, state and local is woefully inefficient. No bid contracts, like the one given to Halliburten at the start of the Iraq war was a blatant sign of that inefficency. And the news of corruption that has been coming about Halliburten proves that the government ultimately runs a better military than private contractors; though the inefficiency in the Pentagon is huge. And how was Madoff able to fleece investors of so much of their hard earned money for so long? Because regulators were asleep at the wheel at the same time the banking and investing industries were fighting for fewer regulations. We all saw what happens when you deregulate an indurstry: the current economy happens and it started in the last months of Bush's term. But the deregulation process has been going on in a big way since Reagan. Yes, local and state governments are far better at delivering many of the services that we need, like public schools, but the idea behind No Child Left Behind was an attempt at getting every or at least most schools in the country on a level playing field to the point where it didn't matter where you went to school; every child would have the same basic education as every other. Unfortunately, NCLB fell for short of its goals, encouraged my school district to advise lower achieving junior and senior high school students to drop out and focused on test results rather than true achievement. Some students just don't perform their best when it comes to tests--for a variety of reasons the NCLB has never addressed.

Posted by: Michael at 03/13/2010 07:01:15 PM

All these tea-baggers or the likes that keep blaming their misfortune on "big government" or overspending say ridiculous things like we should just wipe the budget completely, stop all spending. Well, as anyone who knows how to balance a budget knows, you start by cutting the biggest accounts - and gee one of those happens to be the military. But we all know these same Conservative(s) love the military, will spend blindly towards no matter what the ROI is, thinking anything less than everything they ask for is unpatriotic. Many of them or their friends/family were in the military so they have those government jobs to thank for their livelihood. No disrespect to the military, but it is a government job too, except you get shot at. Some commenters blame it on the waste, inefficiency and fraud on government...Don't compare it to some mom-pop screw driver factory that you work in - if you've ever spent a day in a Fortune 500 company you'll see more waste, inefficiency, fraud, no-bid contracts then even the government. Like executive salaries that are 30-100x the regular staff. The source of all this pain is simply that America is no longer competitive. The growth in our economy depends on a highly educated workforce with expertise in science and engineering, but that's just not cool here; people here like to drop out of high-school or if they go to college they study stupid things like art and English. Well, lots of foreigners are smarter than that - they're the ones getting the CS and engineering degrees and taking all the high-paying jobs...If we want a guy to turn a screw all day we can get a guy in China to do it for $0.81/hour - and we have. Shutting the borders won't help, ..The stimulus was a stop-gap to give all these screw-driver turners a few bucks so they won't revolt, but it's just delaying the inevitable. Greenspan knew the housing boom was a bubble, but it was better than having all these unemployed screw-driver turners revolt...tea-baggers...just further proves how poorly...informed these people are, with their main sources of information from Faux News and Rush Limbaugh. Your only hope is if China allows you to immigrate there and you can pickup one of those $0.81/hour job.

Posted by: John at 03/14/2010 01:38:41 AM

I am truly curious. FOr those of you who say "it doesn't matter how big Government grows", where do you propose to generate tax money once we reach a tipping point of 60/70/80 percent of the US workers working for the Government?

Posted by: T-rav G at 03/14/2010 03:12:02 PM

I feel this article was a waste of my time personally. I didnt not get any facts to even debate small vs. big. I am all for small government, it represents the free nation our founders created. I find it very amusing that some people have yet to realize that when you get a entitlement from the "government" that means tax payers. If entitlement programs continue to run ramped and out of control there will be no more evil rich people to get all the "free" stuff from. The only thing I got from this is this site favors the progressive Woodrow Wilson and FDR movement that really came from Carl Marx who infact thinks that the people should be controlled and people that have worked hard and earned what they deserve should be stolen from then and given to lazy people that refuse to earn their keep.

Posted by: Techres at 03/15/2010 11:24:45 AM

It's ridiculous to talk about dieting because everyone know that Americans love Big Mac's! So let's just not concern ourselves with responsibility and addiction to tax sponsored social spending. I like the toys I get when I over spending on my credit cards, but it does not make it a good idea or something to get used to doing every month. Seriously.

Posted by: S at 03/20/2010 08:54:30 AM

Send this to the Federalist and Anti-federalists of our time.

Posted by: Brigman at 04/10/2010 02:24:01 PM

The article is actually correct. A vast majority were upset over the slow pace of snow removal this winter. Without a government agency (State or Fed) to do the job of clean up what would you do. The alternative is to not have them and quit complaining garb a shovel and remove it yourself, but I didn't see too many volunteering to do it. Some government services we do need, education among the top of that list. Some we can do without. Welfare being one. If you physically or mentally can't work I don't mind paying taxes for a Government program to support you (I don't mean you have an ingrown toe nail or a touch of arthritis and there for you can't work... bull). I'm talking of true inhibitions, and debilitating arthritis is one. One of my professors from my college years had Scoliosis (curvature of the spine from arthritis) very painful disease but he still worked. Stephen Hawking has Amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS), often referred to as "Lou Gehrig's Disease," and he still works. Those that want to work will find a way regardless of the obstacle before them. Those that don't want to work will have excuse after excuse as to why they can't work, but they don't seem to have any problem getting to the mailbox and to the bank to cash their Welfare check. Like I said most of us don't mind paying for someone who is legitimately handicapped, but I have a real problem paying for those who can work but don't. I say do away with Welfare and create a new program of Disability payments for those that truly need it! I stop now and wait for the Flaming response.

Posted by: Observations at 05/29/2010 04:55:09 PM

I don't understand why everyone is missing the larger point here. Most people are pointing to the fact that everyone wants "good" Gov't and the Gov't is the largest since the great depression..Than you say the articale is stating the obvious..Hmmm...The fact is "Strave the Beast isn't good Gov't, it's actually a method to destroy it. Cutting taxes for the rich while fighting two wars, adding the homeland agency(i.e., expanding Gov't)...etc. was not smart Gov't..Debunked..I'm not going into a million points here, I could really go on for ever..As to the large Gov't issue..Its not the Gov't postions to own all these bailouts..They are reacting to bad polices of the past..If history teaches us anything, once the corprations payoff the consertaives incombinatio with winning electiions, they explore some utlra" free market" policies than we end up bailing out the nation shortly after..History repaeats itself and we can just look to history as the facts..Theres a reason for this..There isn;t a real free market..At its imperfect best, true freedom (i.e., Markets) occurs somewhere along a continum between "total" Gov't Control and "No" Gov't Control..Yes a blend of freedom from gov't restrictions and indicvidual behaviors...to protect us from social and finacial predators..Socities are always cntrolled by someone or some group..A group of people who "should" debate the cause is better than the corpations which do not act demcratly (i.e., no debating)...



Featured Videos From Kiplinger





Connect With Kiplinger

E-mail Updates: Select the Kiplinger columns and topics to be delivered to your inbox.

email-sign-up

facebook
twitter
RSS