Summarizing the federal government is not easy. There’s nearly $4 trillion of spending to disentangle. There’s a 75,000-page tax code to decipher. And there’s a regulatory morass that defies understanding.
So when people ask me questions about the cost of the federal government, there’s never a satisfactory answer.
I sometimes respond by pointing to sub-par growth rates during periods when the burden of government is expanding.
For what it’s worth, I think the best way of approaching such questions is to look at broad measures of statism vs. markets, such as you get with the Economic Freedom of the World rankings, and then compare nations with better scores and those with worse scores.
Though if I’m feeling snarky, I sometimes direct people to my collection of cartoons that simply portray government as a blundering, malicious, incompetent blob.
Today, though, I’m going with a different approach.
We’re going to try to capture the spirit of Washington. And we have a couple of videos, each of which deals with one tiny aspect of Leviathan, but they both do an excellent job of showing the perverse zeitgeist of this parasitical town.
Last year, I wrote about a grotesque example of waste at one of the new bureaucracies created by the Dodd-Frank bailout bill.
The head of that bureaucracy recently testified before a House Committee at was asked what steps were being taken to protect the interests of taxpayers. Here’s a video of the exchange.
Wow. Lots of taxpayer money flushed down a toilet and this Obama appointee cavalierly says “why does that matter to you?”
This is the fiscal equivalent to Hillary Clinton saying “what difference at this point does it make” about four butchered Americans.
And kudos to Congresswoman Wagner for saying it matters because it was the American people’s money (though I’ll wait to see how she votes on the Export-Import Bank to see whether she was posturing or if she actually cares about protecting other people’s money).
Now let’s look at our second video.
You probably didn’t realize that there was something called a Raisin Administrative Committee, but you probably won’t be surprised to learn that the federal government has Soviet-style rules that give this Committee cartel-like powers over raisin growers.
Check out this video from Reason TV to see an example of bizarre, stupid, and destructive government intervention.
Geesh. This re-confirms in my mind why we need to get rid of the Department of Agriculture. And it’s yet another piece of evidence that FDR was either incompetent of malicious on economic policy.
But the main lesson of this video is that it symbolizes the federal government. The well-connected insiders benefit and ordinary people suffer.
P.S. Remember the powerful graph showing that giant increases in education spending have had no positive impact on student performance?
Well, here’s the equivalent chart from the world of mass transit. Spending has skyrocketed but ridership is stagnant.
Yet another reminder that government is just a giant money pit of waste (and a reminder that we should also abolish the Department of Transportation).
International Liberty 
[…] would require several people, working around the clock, to provide daily updates about the bizarre and senseless actions of the crowd in […]
[…] would require several people, working around the clock, to provide daily updates about the bizarre and senseless actions of the crowd in Washington. And you’d need many additional people to monitor the foolish […]
[…] would require several people, working around the clock, to provide daily updates about the bizarre and senseless actions of the crowd in […]
@Andrew Garland: Lysander Spooner’s take (from No Treason No. VI: The Constitution of No Authority):
“It is true that the theory of our Constitution is, that all taxes are paid voluntarily; that our government is a mutual insurance company, voluntarily entered into by the people with each other; that each man makes a free and purely voluntary contract with all others who are parties to the Constitution, to pay so much money for so much protection, the same as he does with any other insurance company; and that he is just as free not to be protected, and not to pay any tax, as he is to pay a tax, and be protected.
But this theory of our government is wholly different from the practical fact. The fact is that the government, like a highwayman, says to a man: Your money, or your life. And many, if not most, taxes are paid under the compulsion of that threat.
The government does not, indeed, waylay a man in a lonely place, spring upon him from the road side, and, holding a pistol to his head, proceed to rifle his pockets. But the robbery is none the less a robbery on that account; and it is far more dastardly and shameful.
The highwayman takes solely upon himself the responsibility, danger, and crime of his own act. He does not pretend that he has any rightful claim to your money, or that he intends to use it for your own benefit. He does not pretend to be anything but a robber. He has not acquired impudence enough to profess to be merely a “protector,” and that he takes men’s money against their will, merely to enable him to “protect” those infatuated travellers, who feel perfectly able to protect themselves, or do not appreciate his peculiar system of protection. He is too sensible a man to make such professions as these. Furthermore, having taken your money, he leaves you, as you wish him to do. He does not persist in following you on the road, against your will; assuming to be your rightful “sovereign,” on account of the “protection” he affords you. He does not keep “protecting” you, by commanding you to bow down and serve him; by requiring you to do this, and forbidding you to do that; by robbing you of more money as often as he finds it for his interest or pleasure to do so; and by branding you as a rebel, a traitor, and an enemy to your country, and shooting you down without mercy, if you dispute his authority, or resist his demands. He is too much of a gentleman to be guilty of such impostures, and insults, and villanies as these. In short, he does not, in addition to robbing you, attempt to make you either his dupe or his slave.
The proceedings of those robbers and murderers, who call themselves “the government,” are directly the opposite of these of the single highwayman.
Dr.: I would suggest “vicious” instead of “malicious.” The state does not have malice toward itself or perhaps others. It and its agents are just doing what a state does, at any cost.
Reblogged this on a political idealist..
This is only stupidity if you presume that eventual collapse is not their intent. I am not so optimistic
They never give a glimpse of what they are planning for AFTER collapse..
The nature of the state – Cafe Hayek
=== ===
[edited] There is a notion that the state is a legitimate agency deserving respect; that despite its flaws, it generally promotes or tries to promote the welfare of its citizens. This is increasingly difficult to understand, much less to accept.
The late Mancur Olson had a far more realistic view: The state is a stationary bandit. Ordinary people might have to tolerate this, but they should understand that dealing with the state is dealing with organized thuggery. Obey the state because it can unleash its guns and prisons on you. But, please don’t pretend that the state’s commands are issued with your best interests in mind.
=== ===
The fundamental problem with politics is that it is driven by incentives, like all other activities. Political parties are organized to collect the spoils of government. They benefit from implementing good policy only to the extent that they can confiscate more of the wealth of the citizens.
Their fight for dominance is not primarily driven by greater prosperity for the average citizen, and so increased prosperity will often suffer from the fight.
Possibly the populace will reject nanny (protection racket) government after the general economic collapse which is coming. But, the example of Franklin Roosevelt in the 1930’s, and of Hugo Chavez in Venezuela doesn’t cheer me. Each became more popular as his country declined.
The most efficient government would just take the resources (taxes) it could. But, this is a democracy. So, the bandit wastes resources on poorly implemented buy well advertized benefits to convince the majority that they are good guys dealing with a difficult world.
Motto: Things are bad now, but without us in government, they would be so much worse.
@Rev. Dragon’s Eye
It will be easier to maintain a list of constitutionally allowed and useful federal departments.
[…] WAIT, THERE’S MORE… […]
Thank you!
I will add these to my personal “list” of “Agencies to be disbanded” along side the DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION (for obvious and similar reasons), and the FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION – because they are really about protecting the profit margins of those (Big Agra, Big Pharma, Bio-Tech Firms, etc.) who willingly do us all harm.
For just about every (UN-Constitutional) government-sponsored answer, there is a very effective free-market alternative.
[…] By Dan Mitchell […]