Here are some definitions of Big Government from a few online dictionaries.

“Government perceived as being excessively big-spending and attempting to control too many aspects of people’s lives.” MSN Encarta

“Government that seems to have too much control over people’s lives.” Macmillan

“Any government wielding excessive control over its citizens or interfering with their lives.” Dictionary.com

You see the themes – control, interference, wasteful, big-spending.

That’s true, of course, but we’d like to be a little more specific and thought-provoking in our definition.

Big Government, in its most raw form, is a group of individuals that through coercion turns human beings into either beasts of burden or perpetual children.

It is that group which preaches entitlement over responsibility, dependency over self-sufficiency.  It purports that people are incapable of caring for themselves through free and voluntary choices, and therefore must be coerced into “doing the right thing.” It prevents human beings from being fully actualized, keeps them in a form of subjection and – in its most extreme form – slavery.

Does it do this deliberately and willfully?  Not in the beginning.  Isabel Paterson, in her book The God of the Machine, said:

“Most of the harm in the world is done by good people, and not by accident, lapse, or omission. It is the result of their deliberate actions, long persevered in, which they hold to be motivated by high ideals toward virtuous ends… …[W]hen millions are slaughtered, when torture is practiced, starvation enforced, oppression made a policy, as at present over a large part of the world, and as it has often been in the past, it must be at the behest of very many good people, and even by their direct action, for what they consider a worthy object.”

Even the alleviation of suffering, so long as it is done through plundering third parties, will result in more total suffering induced than ever relieved.  The total amount of suffering in the world cannot be reduced by forcing one group of human beings to relieve it in the way the tyrant desires.  The tyrant’s coercion makes more of mankind miserable, turns them away from productive endeavors.  In its extreme forms, Big Government paradoxically kills innocents in order to save lives.

Seen in this way, Big Government can either be a Tyrant or a Nanny, or a combination of both.  Either it enslaves you and coercively makes you work on its behalf, or it “protects” you from yourself, restricting your freedom while promising to care for your every need, in exchange for your agreement to keep it in power.

Either way, it treats you as either an animal to be burdened, or a scolded child to be suckled forever at its teat.

How you are treated often depends on whether or not you are willing to keep the ruling cadre in power.  If you do, you may lose your freedom but win the privilege of being coddled.  If you don’t, you may lose your freedom and be burdened.

So Big Government divides people into two groups: one group is the animals burdened with the task of producing the mothers milk forever; the other is that group which forever – or so it’s promised – drinks the mothers milk.

Now, in pointing this out, we’re not talking about any specific group that is favored by government and eats from the labor of others, we’re talking about all such group, from bailed out banks and companies, to subsidized farmers, to protected unions, to groups that benefit from tariffs, to the ever-growing unproductive government bureaucracy; in short, any form of corporate or public dependency program.

One of the central features of Big Government is that it encourages bad behavior in order to remain in power.  It bails out those who have made bad decisions in order to gain their support.

The individuals that comprise Big Government, of course, play god, determining which group of human beings will be the beasts of burden, and which will be the bailed out, dependent children.

Over time, people learn that it does not pay to behave responsibly.  In fact, the consequences for poor judgment will be so lessened as to have no moral authority over behavior.  People learn that they can live life however irresponsibly they want and some one else will be forced to pick up the tab … that is, until there’s no one left with any money or productive resources.

At that point, the system collapses soviet-style.  The beasts of burden decide that it’s easier to be suckled infants and then there are no longer enough producers to support the dependents.

One interesting phenomenon that we have noticed over the past decades is how Americans have behaved regarding debt and savings, and how the past decisions they made are now affecting them.

Look at what has happened in the U.S. over the last few decades.

This first graph shows the U.S. Savings rate (what percentage of their incomes Americans saved) over the past 50 years.

Notice that, for whatever reason, over the last 30 years people have been putting less and less money away for a rainy day.

Now, look at this graph of household debt as a percentage of disposable income over the last 30 years.

Despite saving less money, people are using more borrowed money to support their lifestyles, especially over the last decade.

Low savings rate + high and increasing debt load = people living beyond their means

At some point, the gig is up.

Now, look at this graph of the number of food stamp recipients over the last decade.  In the decades prior to 2000, the number of food-stamp recipients had been trending down.

So here’s the questions:

Are these events merely correlated or is there an element of causation?  That is, do government bailout promises encourage people to not take responsibility for their own lives, to prepare for “unforeseen” – yet predictable – misfortunes in the future?

Understand that we’re not arguing for or against this particular social program, just merely asking questions about whether or not Government Dependency Programs create Moral Hazard.

What do you think?  Do government handout programs enable bad behavior?

Does the knowledge that someone will be there to give you food, coupled with the knowledge that the government has the capacity to forever force someone else to pay for your livelihood, make you take less responsibility for your own well being, live on borrowed money, not save for a rainy day?

By asking these questions, of course we’re not advocating for letting the hungry starve.  We advocate for the support of voluntary charities, and lots of it, and we believe that each of us has a personal responsibility to responsibly care for the poor among us in ways that do not create dependency and thereby rob recipients of their dignity.

If you reward bad behavior, you’ll get more of it.  If you punish responsible behavior, you’ll get less of it.

Big Government must be opposed.  If we don’t oppose it immediately, over time in its most extreme forms it reduces people to animals or infants.

As Cato’s Letter #38 taught:

“What is government, but a trust … which ought to be bounded with many and strong restraints, because power renders men wanton, insolent to others, and fond of themselves.”

So what can you do? 

Sign up for our RSS feed and become a fan of our Facebook Page. We’ll continually send you information about how you can help keep government in its place.

Then, Join DownsizeDC.org and participate in it’s campaigns.  It takes less than five minutes per day, and you just participate in the campaigns you like.  In our opinion, it is the best project around for reducing the size and scope of Big Government.

originally published May 21, 2010.

Tim Carney’s book Obamanomics does a great job spelling out how and why. We highly recommend this book to you.  Carney also spoke on a Cato panel about his findings. The video of his speech is at fora.tv – definitely worth the watch.

If you think that the current Goldman Sachs SEC probe is a sign of Big Government taking on Big Business, then I’ve got some beachfront land in Iowa to sell you.  Goldman will get a “slap on the wrist” (if anything at all, since it looks like the charges are extremely overblown and may be without merit) while – wink wink – the resulting financial regulation encouraged by their public castigation will ensure that the new and onerous compliance costs hurt Goldman’s smaller competitors.

Big Government gets more power, Big Business gets less competition from smaller competitors.

It’s a familiar story.  Watch it unfold, yet again, in the coming months and years.

Read that Carney book.  Free your mind.

Please subscribe to our RSS feed and join our Facebook group.

Over the last few weeks Congress and the Administration have been trying to call government takeover of health insurance and health care “competition”.  They have hijacked words and are using them in completely new ways to try and trick people into believing they are selling something they’re not.

The expansionist and interventionist nature of Big Government means that it always has as its goal to set up Monopsonies (single payer systems in which they control the production of goods and services) or Monopolies (single provider systems in which they control the provision of goods and services).  They try to do it in the name of “competition” as if they actually plan on competing fairly (if at all) with the private businesses and charities they’re trying to muscle out of a market.

Battles against Big Government are often won or lost over whether or not we are willing to concede the actual terms of the argument to Big Government, or whether we’ll refuse to conduct the argument with Big Government’s terms.  Below are a few examples of how we can change the terms and, therefore, how people feel about Big Government’s activities.

“Revenue” vs. “Confiscation”

Here’s a glaring example.  Big Government calls taxation by the name of “Revenue”. The agency in charge of collecting taxes is even called the Internal Revenue Service (IRS).

Set aside whether or not it’s technically correct or not or has become such through use of the word for a long time, “revenue” is a business word.  That’s our word. That’s the word for sales – the free market exchange of goods and services between voluntary parties who are both made better off by the trade.  Revenue is something freely given for something of value freely received. Taxation is coercion and wealth confiscation by force.

At the very least, we should refuse to grant taxation legitimacy by calling it that.  Moreover, revenue is a “positive” word that government has hijacked.  When our goal is to reduce the size and intervention of Big Government, why would we ever concede to use words that might grant Big Government any semblance of legitimacy?

While taxation is an OK word to use when talking about the means through which Big Government finances itself, it is one that has become desensitized and still does not make strongly enough the central point that it is coercive.

So we propose to use the word “confiscation” instead.  When discussing our opinions with friends, family, employees and co-workers, we would say, “I think government confiscates too much,” or “Government confiscated 10% more of our private property this year than they did last year.”

“Earnings” vs. “Private Property”

Notice that in the statement above we used the word “private property” instead of “earnings.”

“Earnings” actually should be a pretty good word to use because it implies that what is taken from people is something they’ve earned, or labored for, but this word has also been used for so long that people have become desensitized to it.

How about talking about confiscation in terms of “private property“?

Also, how about talking about the confiscation of private property in terms of “productive people” or the “productive sector” funding the “unproductive people” or “unproductive sector”?  Big Government, after all, merely redistributes the confiscated property of productive people, so let’s call it what it is.

“Welfare” vs. “Dependency Programs”

We talk about Government “Welfare” programs in language that implies they help others “fare” more “well”. We even use terms such as “Charity” or “Entitlement” to talk about these Big Government Programs. While it is true that some of these programs can provide temporary relief to those in need, the full truth is that they often create permanent dependencies and reward dependents for inactivity and bad behavior.

Furthermore, private charities (which have to compete for donations) are far more efficient at helping those in need and suffer when Big Government confiscates more private property to itself, rather than allowing those resources to be employed by the more efficient and accountable charitable organizations.

So, instead of calling these programs “welfare programs,” we can call them by the more accurate terms, “Government dependency programs” or “Government handout programs.”

Then we could say things like, “Government dependency programs confiscated 10% more private property from the productive sector” or “Government handout programs saw their rolls grow by 5% in the last quarter.”

That helps others see the truth about Big Government.

Big Government not only uses words to justify its big programs, but it also selects words that can be used to silence dissent and opposition to the programs. Think about the “Patriot Act.” It has nothing to do with being a patriot, but by using that name anyone who opposes the act it can be labeled “not a patriot.”  Cunning.   If you oppose “No Child Left Behind” you can be labeled as someone who does not support helping children succeed.  Think about the Medicare Prescription Drug Improvement and Modernization Act.  Nothing was improved or modernized so much as spending was drastically increased – the biggest Government Dependency Program expansion in decades.  But if you didn’t support it you were labeled as one who didn’t want to improve and modernize Medicare, and therefore were against the well-being of the elderly.

And that’s why it’s important to do our best to not conduct the debate in the terms Big Government tries to force upon us.

Our movement must use the terms we choose, words that expose Big Government for what is really is, helping others to see clearly the forces that impinge upon their freedoms. As we do so, we’ll help undermine the legitimacy of Big Government and we’ll counteract its efforts to hijack and change the plain meaning of our language and then use it against us.

We would love to hear your thoughts about what to call various government agencies and practices in order to more accurately show what they really are.  For example, IRS “audits” are really . . . what?

In the comments below, please provide your ideas for how we can use language to expose Big Government for what it really is. Also, if you’re aware of other resources on the web that have attempted or are working on this project, please provide links to them below.

Please share this post with five friends, family members, employees or co-workers and then subscribe to our RSS feed and our newsletter, and join our Facebook group.

He then recounted to us how Arizona came to find itself in this predicament.

At bottom, the cause is a fatal flaw within the state’s Medicaid program.  How that fatal flaw came about is the key lesson that we must not forget during the national health care debate.

The flaw was a Trojan Horse that once entered into Arizona law ensured an economic crisis years down the road, and that day has now arrived.

Some nefarious lies were told to the Arizona electorate that misled them in 2000 into voting for something other than what they thought they were.

Does this sound like any tactics you’ve seen employed by Big Government recently?

In Arizona, the state Medicaid program is known as The Arizona Health Care Cost Containment System (AHCCCS, pronounced “Access”).  As a Medicaid program, it is a joint-expense program between the State of Arizona and the Federal Government, by way of its Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS).
In 1998 Arizona, along with 46 other states, agreed to settle a lawsuit it had filed against the tobacco industry.  The tobacco manufacturers agreed to pay each state a part of the total $206 billion settlement.  The payments were to be made to the states over 25 years, a portion paid each year.

Arizona’s share was at the time estimated to be $3.2 billion, with adjustments for inflation and with a provision to lower payments if the number of cigarettes sold in the US dropped over that time.  Each state was permitted to spend its settlement money in whatever way it saw fit.

Enter Proposition 204.  The proposition was proposed to “Set into law the method of disbursing and spending the approximately $3.2 billion the state anticipated to collect as part of the Tobacco Master Settlement Agreement. Targets for the funds include education aimed at the prevention of tobacco use among minors as well as health care.” (emphasis SBABG)

So what you had was this chunk of money coming in, and a proposal to use it to prevent tabacco use among minors and help out with public health care.  Well, who doesn’t want to help kids not to smoke, right?  And if there’s “free money” coming in, heck, we can use it to help provide health care, too, right?

This is what was sold to the public.  A claim that it the proposition was to just use tobacco settlement monies to fund children’s and health programs.

But the actual language of the proposition was far different from what was sold to the public.

The proposition actually changed who was eligible for AHCCCS by broadening the eligibility threshold  from 34% of the poverty level to 100% of the poverty level. And it stipulated that if the tobacco money was not sufficient to cover this increase in spending that the spending increase would have to be covered by general funds and no limitations on enrollment could be made.  Straight from the horses mouth.

That part in bold, just 17 words, tacked onto the end of a paragraph, snuck into a proposition 2 pages, 24 paragraphs, 65 sentences, 836 words long, just 2% of the language in the proposition, was the Trojan Horse.

The taxpayers had no idea that language meant they were on the hook for this program for any amount not covered by the tobacco settlement. They had no idea they had just massively expanded taxpayer exposure to an “all-in” program with no caps on enrollment up to 100% of the poverty line.  And because AHCCCS is a first-dollar program, it meant that all tax revenue went first to meet all AHCCCS needs, and then whatever was leftover would go to the budgets of other programs, like, say, education, police, fire, etc.

And to add insult to injury, the provision allowed persons with incomes above the poverty line to spend down their income on medical bills to qualify for coverage.  Perverse incentives, anyone?

Fast forward to 2009.  What have been the consequences?

If you have a modicum of common sense, what happened was about what you’d expect.  More people went on AHCCCS and more money per person on AHCCCS was spent.  By 2003 Arizona had more people on AHCCCS than they had in public education!

From 2001 to 2003 alone AHCCCS payments increased from $200 million to $1.2 billion – a 500% increase. You’ll remember that the entire tobacco settlement, over 25 years, was only $2 billion more than that!  Gulp.  In three years they gobbled up nearly 40% of the settlement funds.

In 2009 alone the amount spent on AHCCCS is projected to be $1.5 billion.  The tobacco funds are long gone.

Before going on to more carnage, let’s just point out again that AHCCCS is an acronym standing for “Arizona Health Care Cost Containment System.”  You have to love the ironies embedded in Big Government misnomers.

Cost containment.  To be fair, Arizona is a growing state and its population increases regularly, therefore the number of the poor in the state has increased, as well.

However, by 2006 real (adjusted for inflation) per capita spending increased 46% by 2006! (see the graph below, created by the Goldwater Institute).

By 2006 AHCCCS accounted for 22% of ALL state expenditures.  Today, in 2009, 20% of Arizonans are dependent on a health care program that was originally intended for only the poorest of the poor.

And there’s another kick in the teeth. The $3.2 billion is turning out to be less than that amount, because smoking has decreased.

Finally, the end game has arrived.  Barring a miracle, AZ will likely pull a California and begin handing out IOUs at some point this year.  Of course, AZ could always sell the state capitol building and kick the can further down the road.

And all of this because of the unintended consequences brought about by little Trojan Horse snuck into a proposition.

Now, why is this important to the current health care debate?

That there are unintended consequences of giving out free health care that will make costs rise for everyone?  Check.  But that’s no Trojan Horse.  That’s right in the bill and has been well documented by the Congressional Budget Office.

That health care will be rationed and choice reduced?  Check.  But that’s no Trojan Horse, either.  That’s also right in the bill and is being well documented.

Is it that the program doesn’t bode well for the nation or the rest of the states since, “As Arizona Goes, So Goes the Nation?” Well, of course that’s true, but that’s no Trojan Horse.

The Trojan Horse is something called “The Public Plan.”  The Public Plan is a proposal being put forth in the Health Care Plan (HR 3200) which establishes a government-run insurance provider.

The government is telling us that the purpose of this provider is to keep the private insurers honest, to lower costs, and to make health insurance more competitive.

But that’s a lie.  Not only doesn’t it do those things, saying that the purpose of the plan is to achieve those objectives is an effort to obscure it’s real purpose.

Its real purpose it to lay the groundwork for the creation of what’s called a “single payer” program.  That is code for a government-run, socialist, health care system, where the government makes all payments for all health care procedures and therefore, sets pricing, determines care, and determines coverage for all citizens.

Don’t believe it?  Just have a listen to the President and his advisers.  When they thought we weren’t watching, they stated very clearly that their intention with The Public Plan was to reduce choice and competition.

Of course, they are out in full force, trying to spread disinformation, and telling you that they’ve said no such things as you just observed.

And they will tell you that they want an open debate, but they don’t. And they will tell you they’re being transparent, but they’re not.

And they will tell you that their plan will save money, but it won’t. And it will be more expensive than even the Congressional Budget Office’s worst predictions.

You can add that spending to the already projected Budget Deficits:

And let’s not forget the deficits that Social Security and Medicare are already on target to hit over the coming century (A Cumulative Deficit of $83 Trillion by 2080).  Tack the expenses of this plan on top of these.

Public opposition is building against the Health Care Plan and the Public Option particularly. Only 32% of Americans support Single Payer while 57% Oppose it.

Now, watch out. The Senate knows that the public is against single payer, and they know that the public is becoming increasingly informed that the road to single payer is through the public plan, so they’re preparing to introduce a public plan by another name.  They’re calling the plan a  co-op plan. The co-op is Health Care’s version of a Freddie Mac or Fannie Mae.  One Senator warned that it will:

You know this is the case when Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid concurs and says:

So don’t be deceived.  It’s the same old Trojan Horse the Public Plan is  They’ll lie about it now.  And in a few short years we’ll have a real mess on our hands.

Learn from Arizona.  Don’t be deceived by what’s being sold you.  Read the fine print in the bills, listen to the past statements of the people who are lying to you now.  Be forewarned.

Reject the entire Health Care Bill as it currently stands, and particularly the Public Plan and its brother-in-arms the Co-Op Plan.  It’s the Trojan Horse of Single Payer.

Please visit DownsizeDC.org and use their free service to send your Representatives a message.

We’re always interested in your hearing from you in the comments below.  If you have any “Trojan Horse” stories of your own, please also share them.

Hey, while you’re here, please subscribe to our RSS feed and our newsletter, and join our Facebook group.

SBABG.org

The Wall Street Journal published a piece yesterday that ties this corruption in NJ to the cankering influence of Big Government programs and policies and also highlights the malaise the state is suffering as its Big Government programs make war on Small Businesses.

It’s worth the read, and is a case study on where the country is headed.  We already have a pretty good case study in California where 7% of the US population lives, yet where 32% of Welfare recipients reside and where the Big Government there has squandered all prosperity it once had.

Read the article for the details of the whole sordid case study.  Here are the key conclusions:

Big Government is why New Jersey created only 6,800 private sector jobs from 2000 to 2007—while public sector jobs grew by more than 55,800. Big Government is the reason New Jersey ranks as the worst of 50 states on the Small Business Survival Index. And Big Government is a leading reason New Jersey has a “corruption problem” that an FBI agent at Friday’s press conference characterized as “one of the worst, if not the worst, in the nation.”

Sandy McClure, co-author of the book “The Soprano State: New Jersey’s Culture of Corruption,” agrees that big government is a big reason behind the state’s corruption problem. “You have all these little authorities that everyone has to go to for permission,” she says. “Too much government means too many opportunities for officials looking to cash in. And there’s no way that the press can keep track of it all.”

Ms. McClure is right: The more extensive government’s reach, the more opportunities the governing class has to steal from and shake down the productive class …

…The point is that politicians and officials have more to sell in an environment of high taxes, big spending and overregulation—the same things that help explain New Jersey’s anemic economic growth and job creation. When government gets too big and complicated for businesses to get their permits and approvals and funding honestly, the dishonest prosper. And the honest get fed up and flee.”

Big Government fails everywhere it is tried.  Where does your state rank on the Small Business Survival Index?  Any correlation you’d notice with Big Government’s influence?

Please subscribe to our RSS feed and our newsletter, and join our Facebook group.