The Republican/conservative/tea party politicians have been ultra-critical of all "government" (even though they themselves are part of our "big government") — especially since Obama first took office. They have been demanding less government regulation — while also demanding cuts in taxes and less government spending. They've insistently pushed for cutting budgets or eliminating government agencies altogether (such as the CDC, EPA, IRS, FBI, FAA, FCC, FEC, FDA, etc.).
But not once have any of them begged for a cut in their own excessive pay or generous government benefits. Just who exactly is on the "government dole" anyway? Members of congress are paid $174,000 a year for doing very little while at their part-time jobs. As for Republican politicians in general, ALEC lawyers (on behalf of corporations) write most of their laws for them (as though THEY were our elected representatives.)
The right-wing has never been demanding "better government" — although they believe the Obama administration could never do anything right, even though many of those who work at government jobs in government agencies have been there 30 years or more. No, the right-wing has been demanding "less" government" — except of course, when a tornado, hurricane or other "natural" disaster devastates one of their red states — or when one of their campaign funders lobbies for more government cronyism (such as "a bridge to nowhere" or a defense contract).
Then there was "Ebola" — and ever since then (especially since that Texas healthcare worker became infected) the right-wing has been complaining that we need "more government". On Fox News pundits have been complaining that Homeland Security get more involved — but what about "states rights"?
The right-wing has been demanding that we close our borders and ban flights from Africa — but what about "government intervention"? They have been demanding more screenings at airports — but shouldn't we be cutting their budgets? They've been demanding more and better training at hospitals — but shouldn't we be putting less "government burdens" on those who run their healthcare businesses?
If the Republicans want "more government", we should ask them how they plan to pay for it — should we cut food stamps (more), cut Medicare, cut Medicaid, cut Social Security, or completely eliminate what's left of unemployment benefits? Or should we raise taxes on those who only earn less than $27,500 a year (meaning, the bottom 50% of all wage earners?) How do the Republicans propose we pay for all this extra "government service"?
And the same thing goes for the war on ISIS. How do we also pay for that? The Republicans need to be more specific, because we know they will never tax the uber-rich with a "war tax". When it comes to budget items that poor or working Republicans will most likely need at sometime in their lifetime (e.g. Social Security, etc.), but something that rich Republicans will never need, the GOP leadership is all too willing to cut those "government entitlements".
But we can always suppose that when it's THEY who have a chance of dying from a fatal disease (or being decapitated by a terrorist), then there can never be enough "government intervention" to please them — because even rich people can die from a pandemic or from a beheading (French guillotines and Bubonic plaques proves this).
But nonetheless, no matter what we do, the Republicans will still blame Obama for anything that ever goes wrong in Iraq — or for anyone dying from Ebola — no matter how little or how much "government" ever spends or does.
If a huge Earth-destroying asteroid were bearing downing on us right now, Obama would probably be blamed by the Republicans for that too, even though the Republicans also cut NASA's budget. So we can only suppose that rich Republicans, unlike Ebola or Muslims, don't consider asteroids an immediate enough danger to them — so for now they want MORE "government, because it's for THEIR benefit (unlike Social Security or unemployment benefits).