The Federal Government is Out of Control

The Federal Government 
is Out of Control

© 2016 Rick Adamson

by Rick Adamson 6.11.16

The vision of government that our founders established is no longer with us. Instead, we've allowed the Federal Government to expand its reach into every corner of our daily lives. They didn’t intend for a system of central planning; rather, they aimed to create a government focused on safeguarding our freedoms.

In those early days, hard work was the norm. People rose each morning with the intention of earning their living.

These founders had fled an oppressive, authoritarian regime that suppressed freedom under the guise of religion. Their goal was to avoid recreating such a system. They implemented checks and balances as a means to limit the scope and power of the new government, fully aware that the essence of human nature could lead to overreach.

While their system may seem cumbersome and slow compared to autocratic or communist governments, the founders accepted this because its primary aim was limited to defense. They understood there would be challenges in governance, acknowledging that their design was meant to operate within constraints.

This is where the idea of “limited government” comes into play. It has often been argued that effectively managing government growth and preserving the people's rights hinges on keeping it limited. Acknowledging human nature, especially the desire for power and control, is essential in this context.

Fast forward about a century, and those in power decided they could more effectively manage lives by shifting authority from states to the federal level. This shift swelled into a torrent during the 1960s, and it shows little sign of abating today. A couple of examples illustrate this shift:

In 1913, the introduction of the income tax provided the Federal Government with a steady source of revenue. That same year, the ratification of the 17th Amendment changed how Senators were chosen. Instead of being appointed by state governments, they began to be elected by popular vote. This change often led to Senators prioritizing national political agendas over the specific needs of their states, especially since their campaigns relied heavily on funding from national parties. Lastly. The Federal Reserve System was created in that same year.

More recently, a segment on “60 Minutes” highlighted a concerning reality: Congress members are reportedly expected to dedicate a significant portion of their time—around four hours a day—to fundraising for their parties, leaving only a fraction of their time for actual legislative work and constituent engagement. This pressure is equally felt by Senators from both parties, reflecting the broader challenges of a government increasingly distant from the people it serves. 

See the episode here: http://www.cbsnews.com/news/60-minutes-are-members-of-congress-becoming-telemarketers/

Over the years, the federal government has tapped into what seems like an unending financial reservoir, giving political parties almost unchecked influence over our elected officials. This, paired with an inherent thirst for power and dominion, has led the federal government to extend its reach into territories that were never envisioned by the Constitution.

Today, it has evolved into an extensive network of more than a dozen major departments, draining nearly $4 trillion annually. With numerous agencies under its roof, it administers over 2,253 subsidy programs and employs around 2.1 million civilian workers, 1.4 million active military personnel, and 560,000 postal employees. It’s an enormous bureaucracy.         These departments and their respective agencies oversee a wide range of areas, imposing upwards of 3,000 new regulations every year, with the total body of regulations stretching to an astounding 168,000 pages. Clearly, the federal government is making countless decisions that impact every facet of our lives.         Given its persistently low approval ratings, the effectiveness of the federal government is highly questionable. While it excels at collecting and expending funds, many citizens feel it does so neither efficiently nor for the right reasons. Just consider the long-standing criticisms surrounding the VA, IRS, and other similar entities.

For a more recent sample, see this report on TSA http://www.cnn.com/2016/05/13/aviation/tsa-long-lines-us-airports/

        In addition to its internal departments and workforce, FedGov extends its reach by ensuring compliance with its laws and regulations through a staggering 2,253 subsidy and benefit programs. This is often summarized as a “Catastrophic Mistake.”

        Among these initiatives are “Grants in Aid,” where funds are allocated to states, local governments, businesses, and individuals under the banner of goodwill. However, these grants come attached with numerous requirements and restrictions that ensure adherence to FedGov's policies.

        A recent instance includes the Department of Education’s threat to revoke funding from schools that fail to comply with its guidance regarding bathroom policies.

        Bureaucrats across every federal agency have crafted thousands of rules, leading to what many perceive as coercive tactics.

        FedGov appears to have overlooked a crucial point: the money they distribute originates from the citizens.

        For another perspective, refer to America’s Trillion-Dollar Bureaucracy. (http://www.downsizinggovernment.org/americas-trillion-dollar-bureaucracy).

        The root of the issue lies in the fact that citizens’ money is being taken by FedGov and redistributed by career bureaucrats and politicians, who design these programs based on the notion that they know better how to utilize taxpayer funds.

        This approach is largely speculative, leading to significant waste, fraud, and mismanagement. Desired outcomes are often not achieved, yet bureaucrats remain unchanged in their methods, as that is all they know.

        It’s important to clarify that this is not a critique of federal employees as individuals. They, like anyone else, are driven by personal ambitions—such as higher salaries and career growth. However, in a government setting, these ambitions can interact adversely with bureaucratic incentives, explaining numerous failures. Government employees and managers often find themselves in situations that push them to act contrary to the public interest.

        They operate outside a framework that incentivizes value creation.

        Without a profit motive, concern over losses, or clear performance benchmarks, the system becomes increasingly susceptible to undue influence from special interests and favoritism.

        The impact of FedGov's expansion can be illustrated with the following chart:

In 1970, the federal government spent just over $1 trillion, and by 2016, that figure ballooned to around $4 trillion. To put it into perspective, $1 trillion is nearly 990 times the estimated worth of Donald Trump, which is around $10 billion.

There's a prevailing concern that middle-class wages have stagnated for years. It's worth comparing your income with the trends depicted in the accompanying chart. If your earnings have kept pace, that’s great; however, many have not experienced the same growth. If we do not take decisive action to address this issue, we could face severe financial consequences as a nation.

A potential path forward involves reducing the federal government's role in our daily lives. This could be accomplished by cutting numerous departments and agencies, halting excessive regulations, and lowering taxes, allowing individuals the autonomy to manage and allocate their money as they choose.

While Congress holds the exclusive power to authorize spending, there’s little hope they will willingly curtail it. After all, they were complicit in leading us to our current predicament, so why would we expect them to resolve it?

What we need is a convention of the states, as outlined in the Constitution. This would bring together the states to determine the conditions under which they agree to operate as a united republic. It seems logical that the collective wisdom of 50 states can be more effective than a centralized federal government.

When this convention occurs, I would suggest several important measures, including term limits for Congress members, mandatory annual balanced budgets, and restricting federal government powers to those explicitly granted in Section 8 of the Constitution, excluding the vague “all other” clause.

And That’s that!