Taking the Federal Government Back to 1890
genferei ·
February 27, 2012 at 3:48pm
We often hear talk from candidates about keeping the revenue of the federal government to its 'historic average' of 18 or 19 or even 20%. This has always seemed odd to me for a few reasons.
- There is no set of natural forces that has kept revenue at this level, except the performance of the economy and a series of political decisions. Other decisions are possible.
- The history used is rather short - essentially since the Great Society. Why not go back further?
- It seems a bass-ackwards way of approaching budgeting - here's how much we can get, now what shall we spend it on? The question should always be 'what do we need to do, and can we afford it?' (Since every rise in tax is a diminution of liberty.)
So let's take a look at the Federal Government back in 1890-ish, just before the disease of progressivism insinuated itself into both parties and everyone's life. The US had just become the richest country in the world. Laissez-faire had delivered the best period of economic growth in the country's history. What would you miss from the responsibilities the Federal Government has taken on since then? Any of these?
- Interstate Commerce Commission
- Sherman Antitrust Act
- Federal Trade Commission
- Food & Drug Administration
- Income Tax
- Federal Reserve
- FBI
- SEC
- Davis-Bacon
- Minimum Wage
- Wagner Act
- The Departments of Commerce, Labor, HHS, HUD, Transportation, Energy, Education, Veteran's Affairs and Homeland Security
- etcetera, etcetera, etcetera
- Comment (43)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (1)
Comments:
Sep '10
Re: Taking the Federal Government Back to 1890
The historic avg. argument is used primarily by big government advocates in both parties to justify continued big government. As Milton F. and others have pointed out the spending rate is the tax rate and total government spending has risen from 27% to 40% of GDP. Since a sizable portion of the state spending has been mandated by the Federal government placing responsibility in DC is appropriate. I seriously doubt that the size of government will do anything but grow until there is a second party .
May '11
Re: Taking the Federal Government Back to 1890
Except for Davis-Bacon and all the Departments, I think your list plus the military, is what I would KEEP of the federal government. The rest of it can go.
Nov '11
Re: Taking the Federal Government Back to 1890
You forgot an important major one: The War on Drugs
I'd be happy to cut things back to 1890, but its not practical politically, and even most of the people reading Ricochet don't want it..
Liberals want the welfare state and conservatives want an enormous military, Republicans and Democrats want both, and all of the above want the War on Drugs.
There's two presidential candidates who talk about what you suggest. Ron Paul, who is deemed "crazy" and Gov. Gary Johnson who was driven out of the Republican party.
Both are regularly completely ignored by the media.
Oct '10
Re: Taking the Federal Government Back to 1890
"Since every rise in tax is a diminution of liberty" is not the best argument, no matter how true it may be. I would also not glorify the 19th century, given the multiple depressions, the Civil War, the post-war deflation, etc.
Look, targeting a percentage of GDP is how tax policy works. What you are saying would never, ever work politically, not even if Republicans had total control over the government. For one thing, voters rather like a lot of big government programs, which is why Republican policy tends in the direction of federalism (shifting the programs onto the state level and away from DC).
Voters do not care about "diminuation of liberty" when it comes to tax policy, and the upper class actually sees higher taxes as somewhat in its interest, since it helps limit status competition from upwardly mobile middle-class entrepreneurs.
Voters do, however, care about a perception that America is declining, that opportunity is less, etc. Approaching taxes from that perspective is much more effective.
Oct '10
Re: Taking the Federal Government Back to 1890
The Federal Trade Commission's mission is:
Is that worth $300 million? Does anyone think that "public understanding of the competitive process" has been improved by the FTC?
The SEC's mission is:
Is the SEC doing a billion dollars' worth of good?
Mar '11
Re: Taking the Federal Government Back to 1890
I'm with Genferei. All of those things can be pulled, and the nation would be better for it.
Re: Taking the Federal Government Back to 1890
I think this is an excellent goal. However, we need to proceed stepwise, just as the leftists did in getting us to our current fiscal precipice. It may take eighty years to get back to an 1890s government. However, the key will be to avoid going wobbly--remember the "kinder and gentler" successor to Reagan?--after taking the successful first step.
But we need that first step, otherwise the Obama administration and its allies may take the country past the point of no return.
Jan '12
Re: Taking the Federal Government Back to 1890
I Like this Goal! Re Fred Cole on "The War On Drugs"I am against making drugs legal --- Why you say?See. drugfreeworld.org
Jun '10
Re: Taking the Federal Government Back to 1890
I think that when we focus on eliminating agencies, our focus is wrong. To me the question is which ones should be kept, with agency elimination the default.
Apr '11
Re: Taking the Federal Government Back to 1890
You know, there's a place where the dream of the 1890s lives on...here.
May '10
Re: Taking the Federal Government Back to 1890
I agree. It's probably better to be known as a guardian than a destroyer.
Jun '10
Re: Taking the Federal Government Back to 1890
You raise a great point. A good test for government functions is the question: If this function went away, would any citizen or important principle be harmed (other than bureaucrats losing jobs)?
One problem is that when you mention each Department, they respond with something we really do need (keeping silent on all the crap we don't). Yes, we need air traffic controllers, but that doesn't mean we need the DOT.
Dec '10
Re: Taking the Federal Government Back to 1890
We're working against a very difficult mindset. When people look at these agencies they see them as performing some function that was necessary enough for government to start doing it in the first place. We have to argue they myriad things these agencies do that are redundant and ridiculous against the one or two valid services they may provide. I think the "we can't afford it" approach superior to the "we don't need it" line of argument.
Dec '10
Re: Taking the Federal Government Back to 1890
I think you're on the right track here. The country needs to be sold on a program that has the proactive feel of the progressive approach. Taking things away is a hard sell. However, when you see how liberals and progressives flock to "TED Talk" style innovation, you can see an opening for the anti-ratcheting effect of privatization.
States have to lead by privatizing seemingly inconsequential or obviously ineffective gov. provided services like snow removal or gov't facility maintenance. Demonstrate cost savings or efficiency increases and the people will ask for more, even if only in small increments.
If one state had the courage to privatize their DMV I think it could spark a reawakening of the degree to which we need the Gov't intervening in our lives.
Edited on February 27, 2012 at 6:51pmApr '11
Re: Taking the Federal Government Back to 1890
How to dissolve a Federal department in a political world narrated by NPR.
1. Claim a Department is has too much power and influence. (i.e. Big Energy, Big Education... need something catchy)
2. Stake out about 50% of what that Department does and pass an act that returns those responsibilities back to Congress.
3. Claim that Department is overstaffed and inefficient since it has too many people for what it does.
4. Pass act to shrink the Department. Use that act to get rid of all senior people in the Department and create a hiring freeze.
5. Rinse and Repeat with every Federal Department.
May '10
Re: Taking the Federal Government Back to 1890
Fred Cole asked an interesting question on the Intel tab: "What would Federal Spending look like on an inflation-adjusted, per capita basis?"
Diane Ellis answered it, and her data shocked and depressed me:
Nov '11
Re: Taking the Federal Government Back to 1890
Ottoman Umpire:
Diane Ellis answered it, and her data shocked and depressed me:
You weren't the only one.
Feb '12
Re: Taking the Federal Government Back to 1890
Start with Article 1 Section 8, see what is and is not enumerated. if not, eliminate. Repeal Davis-Bacon, minimum wage, Dodd-Frank, Wagner Act, Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, SCHIP, and thousands more like them. Eliminate the U.S. Departments of Agriculture, Commerce, Education, Energy, Health & Human Services, Homeland Security (including FEMA), Housing & Urban Development, 60% of Justice, 90% of Interior, 65% of State, 80% of Transportation.
Audit administrative-bureaucratic regulations and rules versus the strict "necessary and proper" clause, and repeal both regulations by the millions and agencies by the hundreds.
Just by happenstance that will take government spending back to about 1951, then slightly -- just slightly -- adjusted for population growth.
In this context the matter of whether the process starts from zero and builds or starts at today and cuts, methinks, is a distinction without a difference.
Apr '11
Re: Taking the Federal Government Back to 1890
genferei:
The SEC's mission is:
Is the SEC doing a billion dollars' worth of good? · 4 hours ago
Over all neither of these two seem that expensive 1 billion together...they account together for less than 1/1000 of the total budget. Without the SEC who would monitor and audit financial institutions to prevent fraud of the Enron and Madoff kind...without over site people can game the system easily by with holding information or just straight up lying to investors. The SEC makes that kind of manipulation harder to do. Its presence gives me confidence that the mutual fund I am giving my money to is on the level. Totally worth 1 billion dollars.
Without the SEC I could never hope to audit a financial institution, myself and even if I tried what would compel them to give me all the information. The SEC can just shutdown their business if they refuse to comply with an audit. All I could do is not give them my money, but so what, I'm not that rich and there are plenty of suckers out there.
Nov '11
Re: Taking the Federal Government Back to 1890
Valiuth
Without the SEC who would monitor and audit financial institutions to prevent fraud of the Enron and Madoff kind...without over site people can game the system easily by with holding information or just straight up lying to investors. The SEC makes that kind of manipulation harder to do. Its presence gives me confidence that the mutual fund I am giving my money to is on the level. Totally worth 1 billion dollars.
Your error is in assuming that
1. A government agency can perform these functions well.
2. If they disappeared nothing would replace them.
Nature abhors a vacuum. In its absence, any vital functions of the SEC would be performed by free market entities.
Edited on February 27, 2012 at 8:08pm