Shrinking the Size of Government

Here's something interesting to try at your next dinner party. Ask for a show of hands for the question "Who thinks government has gotten too big?" You'll more than likely get a majority saying that it has. And that should not be surprising since, according to an analysis by economist Gary Shilling, 52.6% of American's receive a significant income from government programs. So over half of America is living off of the taxes that we pay. As Bastiat said "Government is the great fiction through which everybody endeavors to live at the expense of everybody else." There seems to be no slowdown in site, as entitlement programs (Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid) are expected to double by 2040.

So how did we get to have such a large intrusive government? I would maintain that is through our own selfishness. Each year Presidential candidates on both sides of the aisle offer us free handouts if we will vote for them. This year the big offereing is "universal health care," which could be called "health care paid for by someone else at the point of a gun." Even GOP candidates are jumping on this bandwagon with Mitt Romney bragging about the universal health care program he adopted in "Taxachusetts." Each year politicians use our greed or our desire to help others to expand the size of government, and we fall into the trap. Although many may rail against some program they think is frivolous (the bridge to nowhere is an easy target), everyone has their government program they are not willing to give up.

At one point the Republican Party stood for the party of small government. The goal under Reagan was to actually shrink the size of government, since as Thomas Paine put it "That government is best which governs least." He understood that voluntary interactions (e.g. charitable donations) were preferable to the force of government. But the Republican party has strayed from this ideal ever since Reagan.

Who do you think, of the current Candidates, has some hope of returning us to the limited government ideal? Who has the courage to say NO to to more spending? Who has the courage to say YES to cutting programs at the risk of popularity? And who has a track record of doing both these things, not just rhetorical statements? I've got my answer, but am eager to hear yours, and the evidence you have to back it up.