Introduction

Do you realize that the average American must work 129 days per year to pay taxes? This means that one must toil for the bloated federal government until May, 10th! To quantify this in a different way, the average American must labor two hours and fifty minutes to pay his or her taxes. This is more time than most people work to pay for food, clothing and shelter (two hours, forty-eight minutes!)

The time spent laboring for the government is not getting any shorter either. The era of big government lives on. Bill Clinton's last State of the Union speech "unveiled a vision of a European welfare state transplanted to the North American continent." The Government wants to make it self a bigger and bigger part of our lives.

"If you've got a problem - an ear ache, a sick kid, a sick dog, a dragging muffler on your car, low self-esteem, not enough time to pick up your kids after school and get them to the next soccer match - Bill Clinton undoubtedly has a government program just for you."

There is good news and bad news about the expansion of the government.

"The bad news is that Bill Clinton wants to federalize every area of American life - a virtual blanket of protection from cradle to grave. The good news is that if the president has his way, we won't need state and local governments anymore. Oh, and we probably won't need churches, families, charities or other civic institutions any longer either."

How you ask is this possible? How could the government grow so huge, so unwieldy? How did the United States turn into a semi socialist empire, against the will of our fore fathers, against the will of the Constitution? Simply put by the philosopher Anthony DeJasy "constitutions are chastity belts on governmental promiscuity." The problem, according to DeJasy is that "government always has the key."

We can not blame the people in the government for expanding. It is only a natural response to be self interested. The politician is motivated by attaining votes, the voter is motivated by what the politician has done for them as of late, and the bureaucrat is motivated to acquire as much money as possible and to spend it totality. This is simply greed in action. The voter votes for the politician who gives them the social program that they personally want, be it social security, subsidies, tax breaks, etc. The politician in turn legislates these various programs that are suited to differing sects of the population for everyone. Which in turn produces more bureaucrats who wish to maximize their budgets, creating a very inefficient cycle indeed. Not only is it one size fits all legislation, but legislation is many times counter productive for the rest of the nation. The framers of the constitution knew this, which is why they attempted to give so much power to the state, and limit the federal government.

Now the conundrum, how do you restrain the government, without abolishing it as DeJasy would have it? How do you impede governments natural propensity to grow uncontrollably? This is an age old question that many a philosopher, leader and statesman have attempted to answer.

First we must look why we have government in the first place. Government is a necessary evil. It allows us to be safe and secure within our own borders, it keeps foreign aggressors at bay and it provides a forum to resolve disputes. These are services that otherwise would not be provided by the free market, known as Public Goods. These are services provided that can be easily and freely used by others without paying for them. Military protection is a good example of a public good. The military protects everyone in a geographical area from other countries. Adding one more family does not use up more military service as is the same in reverse. Therefore it is easy to shirk your responsibility to pay, for if you do not pay they can not turn off the military service. Eventually it becomes an economic disadvantage to pay, for no one else is, and then military service no longer exists. The government can solve this enigma by taxing the citizens and forcing the payment for Public Goods.

The point of contention is not that the government is not requisite, it's simply performing functions that are outside its sphere of constitutional influence. The "chastity belt" is there, it is simply too easy to unlock. By giving the government the power to tax we give up some of our freedom. By giving the government the power to tax omnipotently we give up all of our freedom. This is the status quo. The government has total unfettered access to the pocket books of the American people. In spirit the constitution attempted to prevent this from being the case, but with no clear proclamations of such the constitution allows this to happen.

This is where improvement is possible. If you can somehow restrict the inflow of tax revenue into the federal coffers you can then chain the Leviathan. Determining how to restrict the federal government's ability to tax is the difficult part.

If you set government spending at a prescribed amount how do you allow the spending to grow with inflation, or adjust to the natural ebb and flow of the economy. Inflation adjustment schemes seem to be a valid way to adjust the model but the definition of inflation could be changed by the rent seeking politicians to suit their bureaucratic needs. Therefore, the most effective cap on the federal government tax collecting abilities would be to tie it to the nominal Gross National Product or GNP. The legislation would have further provisions to force the government into a balanced budget as not to allow a loophole to form. The federal budget is tied to the nominal GNP because this way it will adjust for inflation as well as economic expansion.

In order for this strategy to be effective it must be worded in such a way and legislated in such a way that it would be very difficult to circumvent. Ideally this legislation will be implemented as an amendment to the constitution. This would internalize this structure into our system of government and make it very difficult to work around. There would be exceptions to this rule in times of war and national disaster. Such exceptions would be clearly outlined and require executive and legislative support.

Now the only question that remains is what percentage of the GNP would our federal budget comprise. Ideally the government spending only enough to provide national defense and a judiciary. With supplemental spending for such things as interstate transportation projects, congressional and presidential salaries and expenses, Federal Reserve, the IRS, the Treasury and Washington (for upkeep of national treasures such as The Smithsonian, The White House, etc.) All of which only take up only approximately 5% of our current budget.

This would totally abolish entitlements such as the Social Security System, Medicare and Medicaid, along with Aid to Dependent Families. It would also abolish the national debt, for it would be illegal to spend more than the GNP cap allowed. Giving the American taxpayer at least a 71.5% cut in federal taxes. For entitlements comprise 57.5% of our budget and net interest 14% (See chart below.)

Furthermore this would abolish such commissions as The FDA, The USDA, The FBI & CIA (to be combined with the military), The FTC, The NLRB, etc. The only programs that would survive would be ones that had voluntary regulators. Ones that would operate without a budget since programs would be impossible to add unless a cut was made somewhere else. The revenue to run such programs would not be taxable. Perhaps a new FDA staffed by volunteer doctors, a new FTC staffed by volunteer business men, a new USDA staffed by volunteer farmers, a new NLRB staffed by volunteer union bosses. These commissions offering advise on legislation ranging from strict laws holding pharmaceutical companies liable for bad drugs or business men offering advise to the federal reserve on how to control the money supply.

Such reform would harbor an efficiency to bureaucracy that is unknown now. Bureaucrats would have to stretch every dollar to maximize its use. For they have a limit on what they can spend, a limit that can only be changed by good economic policy. It would make politicians residual claimants to the economy. If they create growth they get a pay raise. When they legislate poorly impeding growth and get a pay cut.

What about the poor and the Vulnerable? What about the elderly? Such issues would have to be worked out by the states. If California residents want to pay there welfare victims 25,000 dollars a year, so be it. If California residents want to allow everyone in their state to retire at 55 and collect a pension, so be it. California residents will also pay the associated rate of income tax for such benefits. Perchance a particular tax payer does not wish to pay for such entitlements? They can vote with their feet and move to a laissez faire state such as Virginia. This would put an end to one size fits all programs. There would no longer be productive individuals in Colorado paying irresponsible farmers to not grow in Kansas. No more Kansas farmers paying to save the spotted owl in Washington. If residents of Washington want to save the owl, they can vote to save the owl, and again pay the appropriate income taxes.

Conclusion

The creators of our constitution did not want the federal government to become so huge. "The operations of the federal government will be most extensive and important in times of war and danger; those of the State government in times of peace and security...the State government will here enjoy another advantage over the federal government. " The Federal government unfortunately in reality has grown too large, we now must simply correct the damage that has been done. The above paragraphs offer a simple solution to a very complex problem. Perhaps the solution is too simple, too naive, too in-feasible, but this solution provides a very attractive foundation on where to begin to domesticate the Leviathan.

It will never be possible to completely tame the Leviathan, for by its very nature it is a wild and nefarious beast. We can only hope to domesticate it and force it to work for us rather than against us. We have to take the good with the bad and simply attempt to accentuate the positives. DeJasy was correct, the government will always have the key to it's "chastity belt." We simply have to keep that key far away and elect leaders that will have the strength and character to resist using it.