Why has government grown so much?
Ever wonder how our country went from prosperity to financial disaster in such a short time? Consider this:
In 1900 the federal government spent about 3 percent of national income, and state and local governments spent about 6 percent. Most of the federal government’s spending was for national defense.
Today, the federal government spends about 30 percent of national income, and state and local governments together spend about 15%.
Most government spending today is on Social Security, Medicare and various welfare programs.
Although the paper at the link is pretty dry, the authors make a good case that interest groups frame proposed new government spending programs as "feel-good" ("for the children") issues. Voters then approve those measures because--duh--voting for them makes voters feel good, regardless of whether the programs can easily be shown to be financial disasters.
While I think the psychology of this is accurate, my problem with this analysis is that voters are rarely given the chance to vote on proposed new government programs. Instead, I think most of the time corrupt and vote-buying congresswhores vote for programs that will buy them votes or line their own pockets.
A much clearer analysis of government spending can be found here.
Short answer: we need to spend less. If we could merely reduce spending back to where it was when Clinton was prez, things would be a lot better. Were things so bad back then?
In 1900 the federal government spent about 3 percent of national income, and state and local governments spent about 6 percent. Most of the federal government’s spending was for national defense.
Today, the federal government spends about 30 percent of national income, and state and local governments together spend about 15%.
Most government spending today is on Social Security, Medicare and various welfare programs.
Although the paper at the link is pretty dry, the authors make a good case that interest groups frame proposed new government spending programs as "feel-good" ("for the children") issues. Voters then approve those measures because--duh--voting for them makes voters feel good, regardless of whether the programs can easily be shown to be financial disasters.
While I think the psychology of this is accurate, my problem with this analysis is that voters are rarely given the chance to vote on proposed new government programs. Instead, I think most of the time corrupt and vote-buying congresswhores vote for programs that will buy them votes or line their own pockets.
A much clearer analysis of government spending can be found here.
Short answer: we need to spend less. If we could merely reduce spending back to where it was when Clinton was prez, things would be a lot better. Were things so bad back then?
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home