Staff Ed: Does our government care about us?

Photo courtesy of Caleb Oquendo/Pexels

We cannot deny—it is getting crazy out in the United States, and the rest of the world. Here at The Lamron, we have been following the news and reporting on shooting after shooting, discussing mounting barriers to freedom of speech and expression, considering the way we process violence as a society, debating buzz words like “woke” and their role in today’s torrid political landscape. The role of the federal government inevitably comes to the fore in all of these conversations, and this week we have decided to indulge—just a little bit—our collective “tin-foil hat” mindset on the subject.

There exists a vast spectrum of opinions on the federal government’s role in our lives, both what it actually is and what it should be. The traditional interpretation of what it should look like tends to be stratified by party affiliation: democrats are generally supposed to opt for a stronger federal government, and republicans typically lean toward stronger state and weaker federal powers.

Given these positions, it is no surprise that the left- and right-leaning perceptions of federal power are accordingly opposite: the narrative is often such that democrats believe individual states have too much power and the government should be more consolidated, while republicans claim that states do not have enough agency and frequently invoke the term “overreach” when discussing the federal government’s actions and abilities. From our perspective, however, debates about government overreach or underreach become overshadowed by what we perceive to be an overarching malintent (to put it lightly).

In response to the violence we have been witnessing and reporting on, we find ourselves frustrated at the lack of legislation attempting to regulate issues which pose direct threats to the American public. Some pertinent examples we find ourselves particularly frustrated by include gun violence, cyber crimes, and terrorism, all of which perpetually dominate headlines, but somehow never seem to be successfully addressed in any meaningful way by our representative bodies.

For instance, an article published by BU Today explores the United States’ prolific history of failed gun control legislation. The article cites the failure of bills responding to the shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary in 2012, preventing individuals on no-fly and terrorist watchlists from purchasing firearms in 2015, and even a bill introduced in 2014 for the express purpose of limiting domestic abusers’ access to guns. 

It is evident that the safety of Americans is not a concern when it comes to health and wellness either; it is no secret to anyone that the United States is the only country in the world of developed status that has no system for universal healthcare. 

But what is more insulting is that the federal government is now shrinking even New Deal-era programs that have long established pathways to care, as well as more recent healthcare legislation like President Obama’s Affordable Care Act (ACA). The cuts alone made by the Trump administration’s budget in the past year will result in an additional 15 million individuals losing healthcare, according to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities Estimates.

The question of access to healthcare (or lack thereof) becomes yet more pressing when we take into account the uptick in food recalls that some of us here at The Lamron have been observing. Possibly corresponding with a relaxation of food safety regulation and cuts to the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), recalls of shrimp for possible radioactive contamination from Walmart and Kroger and outbreaks of listeria in a range of meat products have raised some eyebrows among our staff.

And as climate concerns also seem to factor less and less into the government’s agenda, the issues of food safety, contamination, and collective health become even more prevalent. Each of these instances could be placed neatly in the category of too little federal government, lacking sufficient regulation, intervention, or support. But the concern of too much federal government in our lives is also very real and bears its own unique risks.

In the past several months, the deployment of the National Guard to US cities per the direction of the Trump administration has many concerned about what could be a severe overreach on the part of the federal government. The arrival of the National Guard amid protests against immigration raids in Los Angeles, followed by the deployment of the Marine Corps to the city, has opened the door to a wave of ensuing deployments in cities like Washington DC and soon, Chicago.

This moment echoes other deadly clashes with the military on US soil—such as the 1970 Kent State massacre in which four students were shot and killed by the National Guard at a peaceful protest against the Vietnam War—and begs the questions: at what point is there too much federal intervention? Is our safety the real priority?

As the latest government shutdown drags on, we are all but forced to demand where we factor into our government’s decision-making. In a Reuters breakdown of those affected by the shutdown, the priorities become clear: furloughs include 41 percent of workers in the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), 49 percent of USDA employees, and 62 percent of those working for the Department of State. 

Some of the highest rates of furloughs are in the Department of Education at 87 percent, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) at 89 percent, and the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) at a whopping 91 percent of employees — the majority of whom are tasked with “reviewing corporate filings, oversight of investment advisers, and routine enforcement.”

So where are we in this picture? Where do our needs factor in? And could it possibly be that these questions do not even factor into the larger picture of the federal government?