We hear it all the time: government is too big, wasteful, bloated...etc.
Problem is that it is not really true -- yet the American public seems to mindlessly nod in approval. Let's get some facts.
Never have the words "ad nauseam" been better applied than to the mind-bending current political mantra that “government is bloated, wasteful, and must be made smaller". Demonizing government is present in every debate, speech and discussion among conservative candidates. And with it goes a bundle of misinformation...meaningless sloganeering...specious facts...and a lot of fiction.
In their mantra, the critics do not even define "what" government they are talking about – there are three that are in play: Federal, State, and local. Are all too big? Some? Which ones? Starting at the most obvious target, the whole idea that the Federal government is somehow ballooning out at some explosive rate, is fiction. I’m not sure what criteria these folks use to support this claim, but a pretty solid one is the size of the Federal government as a percent of Gross Domestic Product (GDP), on a historical basis. Using this as factual backup...the government really has not grown over modern decades.
In 2009 it was (rounded) 24%, one of the higher years to fund the war. In fact, during WWII, the percent of government expenditures as a percent of GDP ranged as high as 48%. Among the higher years were those of the hallowed Reagan administration, when the budget as a percent of GDP was about 22% -- not much different from today. The idea that the government size is exploding, by these criteria is...in the fiction category.
Well then, what about all those new government employees and our burgeoning Federal payroll. Not true! From 1969 to 2009 we find that in 1969 there were 3.0 million Federal civilian employees, and in 2009 2.7 million – less employees on the Federal payroll than 40 years ago! Too many employees feeding at the Federal trough? Fiction again.
In budget terms, 62% of our budget 2009 expenses were "mandatory" expenditures; like Social Security, Medicare, and interest. Smaller government aficionados rail about Social Security and Medicare. What is lost here is that they are not pure government “expenses”; they are paid for insurance programs! Social Security and other similar payroll taxes will bring in almost a Trillion dollars in revenue.
In the remaining “discretionary” category (38% of the budget), the military consumes over half that budget. That leaves about 19% of places to cut to make "government smaller". Included here are such programs as Veterans Affairs, Homeland Security, and Transportation (great if you do not care about our roads, bridges, aircraft safety, etc,).
Ron Paul when recently asked which parts of government he would eliminate if elected, the Texas Republican responded "Well, that's a difficult question because that's a long list. I'd rather you give me the list of the things we should keep. That would be a short list."
We know conservatives would like to get rid of the Dept of Education. Ok, that would cut government size by about 1%; cutting out all of the EPA (another target) cuts government size by about .03%; and same with the Social Security administration, it costs about .03% to administer the program.
However, when Texas is burning, Rick Perry is totally reliant on government coming to the rescue. When Louisiana is flooding, Bobby Jindal begs for government help. And when Irene hit, Chris Christie was pleased to see Obama visit the state. All three are vehement “anti government” governors.
Well, maybe it is at the state level the "smaller government" folks are talking about. The facts are, states have been slicing and dicing their government for years now as revenues decline. A major effect of this is a significant reduction in state aid to cities and local governments. While the state has a range of revenue sources (diminishing as they may be), local governments rely almost solely on property taxes with some fees mixed in. This means towns and cities have two choices: cut services or raise regressive property taxes. Or both.
In fairness, much of the dislike for “government” stems from the current anger at Congress; but it is also amazing to me how rank and file government employees are demonized, as though they were some sort of strange breed apart from “normal citizens and taxpayers”. In fact…they are your neighbors and taxpayers as well. It recalls the famous Pogo quote: “we have met the enemy, and it is US!” Yes, the government in America is US – all of us.
Before you "wish for smaller government" consider the ramifications, because it is at the local level that most public services are rendered, and the "rubber meets the road". Revere the Constitution? "Justice delayed is justice denied.” Want security and safety – police forces are smaller. What about getting that fire engine to your house promptly – Minneapolis just cut staff there. But the harshest cuts of all are in your local school district, and if you do not think smaller class sizes, competent teachers and modern classrooms matter, then you do not really comprehend the ramifications of shouting out: "we want smaller government".
So, before you scream out, for "SMALLER GOVERNMENT" I would suggest – better be careful what you ask for. You might get it.