In a typical election year, there are state and local ballot initiatives across America, many of which aim to increase taxes and government debt (often dubbed “school bonds”). Or to increase government spending.

If you think government spending and taxes are too high, you probably vote against these campaigns for more Big Government.

We celebrate when we defeat them. “Holding the line” on taxes IS better than losing ground. Avoiding a loss IS better than suffering a loss.

And yet…
The states and local communities where tax increases go down are no better off after the vote than they were before the vote.

They still have the same Big Government and high taxes they had before the vote. They just don’t have even bigger government or higher taxes.

“No new taxes” is only enough to keep Big Government from getting bigger.

Or is it enough?

Government grows faster than the private sector – in good times and in bad. When there’s a severe contraction, Big Government Special Interests hang onto every dime they possibly can by raising taxes, borrowing and dipping into reserve funds. When the economy’s booming, big government grows even faster.

“No new taxes” slows the growth of Big Government. But it can’t even hold the line on growth given the insatiable greed of those who work to maintain the size of government.

“Repealing, removing, reducing taxes” – and forcing lawmakers to cut government spending – is the only way to make government small. And small government is the only way to make taxes low and keep them low.

Lobbying occasionally works to stop the growth of Big Government, but it almost never causes Big Government to actually shrink. The only way to create even a possibility for reducing Big Government from its existing size is by campaigning – for candidates and for ballot initiatives – that propose specific, bold cuts in tax and government spending.

Huge tax cuts now. Huge spending cuts now. Boldly move toward small government.

Why?

So taxpayers can reap the big, immediate, direct benefits of tax cuts and repeals.

To cut taxes, cut spending and advance liberty, we must go on the offensive.

To cut taxes, cut spending and advance liberty, we must put the supporters of Big Government on the defensive.

We must keep them on the defensive. Make them expend their energies trying to “hold the line” by running ballot initiatives – and candidates for public office – on proposals to cut taxes, reduce government spending and scale back or eliminate Big Government programs.

Instead of tax cutters always fighting for “No new taxes,” let them try to rally their supporters around “No new tax CUTS.”

Pro-taxpayer candidates and supporters must relentlessly launch ballot initiatives and campaigns that shrink government. Again and again. Year after year. Until we win.

Until federal, state and local government is small and constitutionally restricted to defending our lives, liberty, and property.

We must make small government – shrinking today’s oversize government, high taxes, high spending, and needless government meddling – the #1 Priority in America.

This could be the start of something small.

Related posts:

1. Tax Limitation: A First Step, Not the Last One
2. The Forgotten Truth About the Original Boston Tea Party — and Why We Desperately Need it Today
3. Big Government is Even Bigger Than You Think
4. Everything You Need To Know About Big Government, But Were Afraid To Ask
5. 10 Critical Ingredients To Ignite Small Government Campaigns

Small government is a mere fraction of the cost, authority, resources, power, and size of today’s Big Government.

Small government is simple and cheap.

Small government is thrifty and effective.

Small government is accountable and responsible.

There’s no place to hide waste and corruption in a small government budget.

Small government means individual liberty and personal responsibility.

Small government enables and encourages self-reliance and voluntary cooperation. Creativity and productivity. Progress and prosperity.

Small government leaves us with the resources and responsibility for supporting our families.

It leaves us able and willing to support mutual aid and voluntary charity.

It leaves us free to act from the love of our families, compassion for neighbors truly in need, and empathy for those unable to help themselves.

Small government is beautiful.

Do you want small government? If so, here’s one small but important step you can take.

Related posts:

1. The Weight Watchers Test

It’s not because the wrong people are in charge. It’s not because we have the wrong policies. It’s not because we’ve failed to implement the right reforms.

Big Government is the problem.

Consider the Five Iron Laws of Big Government:

1. Big Government Programs don’t work.
Big Government Programs don’t solve the problems they were created to solve. They don’t produce the results they were intended to produce. They don’t deliver the benefits they were supposed to. Do Government Welfare Programs get people back on their feet and enable them to become self-supporting individuals? Do Government subsidies of businesses make their recipients stronger and more competitive? Big Government Economic and Social Programs don’t work.

2. Big Government Programs often make things worse for the very people they’re intended to help.
Big Government decided that too many poor people in America lived in sub-standard dwellings. So it created Urban Renewal Programs — bulldozing and tearing down 4 times as many dwellings as it built. Result? Tens of thousands of families without roofs over their heads. (See The Federal Bulldozer by Martin Anderson.)

Big Government created “The Great Society” welfare system to help the needy. Results? A culture of irresponsibility and dependency. A welfare system that entices and rewards people for getting on and staying on the dole. (See Losing Ground by Charles Murray)

How many stories have you heard about Big Government Programs that backfire? How many others haven’t you heard about?

3. Big Government Programs create new problems.
The Federal Government created Medicare to help senior citizens and Medicaid to help the poor with medical care. Unintended consequences? Massive government funding for these programs drove up health care costs – for those participating and those not. It made doctors and hospitals accountable to the government — instead of patients. It breeched patient-doctor medical confidentiality. It set in motion the drive toward a Government Monopoly — “Single-Payer” — Health Care System. Toward Socialized Medicine.

Social Security? Government Central Planning of Education? Government Disaster Relief? The War on Drugs? Mandatory Minimums? All create new problems. Unintended consequences.

4. Big Government Programs are costly and wasteful.
Have you ever heard about government cost under-runs? How many times have you read about government projects that come in at 5 or 10 or 20 times the price initially agreed to? Why aren’t Big Government Programs thrifty? Because they don’t have to be. It’s not their money. Every year, the officials running these Big Government programs go back to their local or state or federal legislators for bigger budgets and more tax dollars.

5. Big Government Programs divert money and energy from positive, productive uses.
Big Government Programs are funded with hundreds of billions of tax dollars. Taken from productive workers and businesses. Every dollar drained from the private sector is a dollar that the individuals and business who earned it can’t spend, save, invest, or give to effective private organizations and programs that help those less fortunate.

Charities, churches, and service organizations strive to assist those in need – and help them become self-sufficient. Because these organizations rely on voluntary donations, they are directly accountable to their supporters. Because they operate on lean budgets, they streamline their operations, eliminate needless overhead, and seek better ways to help those unable to help themselves. They regularly produce good results – at a fraction of the expense of comparable Big Government Programs.

***************

Do these Five Iron Laws of Big Government fit in with what you believe?

Does this brief sketch of the costs and consequences of Big Government Programs match your experience?

Do you agree that Big Government doesn’t work? What’s the next step?

Take the Small Government Pledge^sm

Still not sure if Big Government is the problem?

Here’s everything you need to know about Big Government, but were afraid to ask.

No related posts.

When government gets too big, it won’t go away on its own. We must carve out pieces of it that don’t belong, that cost too much, or that do more harm then good. We must remove them the same way we get rid of a fallen tree: One piece at a time.

How do you take away a piece of government? By proposing and rallying for specific measures to repeal, remove, and reduce Big Government Programs. Cut taxes. Cut government spending.

Big Government politicians constantly propose to expand government. They propose tax hikes. New Big Government Programs. Higher spending for programs already in place.

Small government advocates, including candidates, usually neglect to put any small government proposals on the table. Or they neglect to highlight them and rally voters behind them. They spend most of their time and energy fighting against the latest Big Government proposal — instead of for small government proposals.

Small government measures rarely have a chance of being enacted — because almost no one’s proposing them or running for office on them. Elections are dominated by proposals for more Big Government, variations on Big Government Proposals, reforms of Big Government (that don’t shrink government), and opposition to these proposals. No small government proposals.

Should we be surprised that Big Government grows and grows and grows? And almost never shrinks?

What’s the chance of getting a tax cut – if no one proposes to cut one? No one rallies for it during an election?

What’s the chance of seeing a Big Government Program go away – if no one proposes to repeal it? Or merely footnotes it on a campaign website – where few will see it?

What’s the chance of total government spending going down – when every politician is proposing to increase it? Or keep it at the same level? And no candidate is calling for lower spending levels than what we have today?

To get less government, lower taxes, and smaller budgets, we must propose less government, propose lower taxes and propose smaller budgets.

Then talk about them, campaign on them, and rally for them.

We can allow Big Government politicians to dominate the news with proposals like these:

• Require everyone to buy medical insurance (whether they want it or not)
• Hand out taxpayer “cash for clunkers”
• Bail out banks, auto companies, state governments, mortgage holders – and just about anyone who wants to be on the dole, or stay on the dole
• Hand out stimulus checks
• Drive up taxpayer liabilities and debt
• Build another overpriced, unnecessary school or library
• Raise the sales tax
• Raise property taxes
• Raise “sin” taxes
• Raise meals and hotel taxes.

Endless Big Government proposals limit voters’ choices to options for more Big Government. It forces us to spend all our time and energy fighting against Big Government Proposals.

This keeps Big Government — big.

We have a much better alternative. We can talk up, campaign on and rally around small government proposals like these:

• Remove regulations that drive up the cost of medical insurance.
• End the income tax.
• Cut the sales tax.
• Cut property taxes.
• Prohibit or curtail government borrowing. Require lawmakers to pay for projects funded by current tax dollars.
• Prohibit government price-fixing of laboratory testing.
• End the Social Security tax and phase out Social Security altogether by selling off federal assets.
• End mandatory minimums for victimless crimes.
• Bring government employee retirement packages in line with what private sector workers get.
• Close down the federal Department of Education.
• Roll back the local, or state, or federal government budget to the level it was in 2000. Or 1990. Or 1980.

Small government proposals keep voters, politicians and the media focused on making government smaller that it is today — rather than on more Big Government.

Small government proposals help us to use our time and energy to advance our small government agenda — rather than merely defend against a Big Government agenda.

Small government proposals make the idea of shrinking Big Government real. Cutting taxes. Cutting back government regulatory powers. Cutting overall government spending.

Small government proposals allow us to chop up excess government — and haul it away.

Related posts:

1. All That is Necessary for the Continued Growth of Big Government is for Us to UN-do Nothing
2. Smaller Government? Smaller Than What?
3. Priority #1: Set a small government agenda

Small government politicians go with an eraser — to reduce, remove, repeal, and roll back Big Government powers and programs.

Big Government politicians go to Congress or the legislature to do Big Government’s work.

Small government politicians go to UN-do Big Government.

Big Government politicians are held back by their own “Do Nothing” allies.

Small government politicians are held back by our own “UN-do Nothing” allies.

Numerous elected politicians proclaim their support for smaller government. Many campaign for reducing and removing waste from federal and state government budgets.

But they Un-do nothing. Few even try.

They carp and complain and campaign against Big Government. But they UN-do nothing.

They do NOT introduce bills to reduce, remove, repeal, or roll back Big Government programs or spending.

They do NOT try to amend spending bills with a dramatically lower spending amount.

They do NOT introduce bills to repeal Big Government laws and regulations currently on the books.

They do NOT try to dismantle or cut back existing Big Government economic and social programs.

Almost every, if not every total government budget is higher this year than it was last year. And government spending was higher last year than the year before. Every year, elected politicians increase government spending.

But try to find even one self-declared smaller government office holder who authored legislation, offered an amendment, or voted to make this year’s government spending lower than last year.

They talk smaller government, but they UN-do nothing.

A true champion of small government, an advocate of smaller government is in office for one reason: to dismantle the destructive machinery of Big Government. Starting now. He acts to make government small. Every issue. Every time. No exceptions. No excuses.

He doesn’t just stand there. He UN-does something.

Elected champions of small government are there to pull up the weeds, not water and fertilize them.

To prune the poisonous and destructive branches of Big Government, not foster their growth.

To tie off and cut back the roots of Big Government: taxes, fees, and borrowing.

All That is Necessary for the Continued Growth of Big Government is for You and I to UN-do Nothing.

For unless we UN-do Big Government, we will be un-done.

###

Want to help UN-do Big Government? Sign the Small Government Pledge^sm today.

How do we UNdo Big Government? With bold, small government proposals.

Related posts:

1. Smaller Government? Smaller Than What?
2. Why We Need Small Government Proposals
3. Why Does Small Government Plus One Exception Add Up to Big Government?
4. The Weight Watchers Test

Proposition 13 rolled back property taxes and put a lid on Big Government growth in California.

Tax rollbacks and tax limitation ballot initiatives swept the nation.

In 1980, Proposition 2½ limited property tax increases to 2 ½ % each year in Massachusetts.

In 1992, TABOR both limited state expenditure growth and mandated refunds to taxpayers of all surplus revenues in Colorado.

Now we must build on the work of citizens who advanced tax limitation. We must add bold tax reduction. Here’s why.

Federal, state, and local governments have exploded over the last 20 years.

Big Government – and the budgets that fund it – have grown far beyond the rates of inflation and population growth combined. Astronomical debt. Billions of dollars hoarded in rainy day funds. New and expanding government bureaucracies.

Dramatically higher taxes. Dwindling tax deductions.

New tax-fees. Higher tax-fees.

Higher alternative minimums. Higher thresholds of income subject to Social Security tax.

New and increased taxes on retail sales, alcohol, phone services, utilities, gasoline, meals, tobacco, Medicare, gun permits and mortgages, to name just a few.

New income tax penalties when you don’t buy state-mandated medical insurance (whether or not you need it, want it, or can afford it).

Businesses are increasingly burdened, sometimes to the point of bankruptcy, with higher payroll taxes, new regulations, and expanding employee benefit mandates.

Individuals are increasingly burdened, sometimes to the point of having to lose their homes, with higher property taxes and regulations that drive up the cost of living – such as higher credit card fees.

The hidden tax we pay when the Federal Reserve prints money, which devalues the dollar and raises our prices, is yet another huge tax that keeps growing, and growing, and growing.

Local governments and local schools keep growing and getting more expensive – even though they are increasingly controlled by centralized, authoritative state and federal bureaucracies.

Why didn’t tax limitation stop the growth of Big Government? Why didn’t tax limits curb this massive growth?

Because tax limitation is designed to slow the growth of Big Government. Not to stop it. Not to freeze it. Not to make government small.

Tax limitation allows government to grow. Massachusetts property taxes grow at least 2 ½% every year. State government grows even faster.

This happened in California and in every other state that passed tax limitation.

Given the shameless demands of state legislatures, would taxes be even higher today without the work of tax limiters?

But even with tax limitation, taxes have roughly doubled at both the state and local levels in just ten years. In Massachusetts, property taxes have doubled and continue to rise an average of over 5% every year — well beyond the 2-1/2% limit set by Prop 2-1/2.

Politicians have expanded the federal government and most state and local governments FOURFOLD since the first tax limitation measure passed 30 years ago.

If you are satisfied to curb the growth of Big Government and to slow the rate at which taxes grow, then tax limitation is all you need.

If allowing Big Government to double in size every ten years is OK with you, then tax limitation is all we need.

But if want Big Government to shrink – or even just to stay where it is – we must do MUCH MORE than limit its growth. Regular tax and spending cuts are necessary just to maintain the Big Government status quo. To offset the rapid growth of Big Government.

If you want to move in the direction of small government, then we must cut taxes boldly and immediately.

We must substantially reduce the total taxes taken by government. We must slash spending and close down wasteful, ineffective, and damaging government bureaucracies.

We must challenge not just the presumption that government needs more of our money. We must expose the harmful results of Big Government spending already in place.

We must advance the idea that government needs less of our money. That you, I and every taxpayer will be better off wiht less government.

We must advance the idea that government itself will be not just leaner but BETTER, far less corrupt, and much more effective when we feed it only the money it needs – and no more.

We must attach these ideas to actual reductions. REPEATEDLY! We need a rapid succession of tax cuts, spending cuts, and reductions-repeals-removals of Big Government Programs.

The 2002 Ballot Initiative to End the State Income Tax in Massachusetts was one attempt to boldly cut back the size of Big Government. It won 45.3% of the vote (885,683 votes). It proved that there’s broad support for bold reductions in state government taxation and spending — even in liberal Massachusetts.

The 2008 Ballot Initiative, also to End the State Income Tax in Massachusetts, was another attempt. It got 901,802 votes.

These initiatives proved that bold proposals to shrink Big Government are possible.

While neither of them passed, nor do all tax limitation initiatives.

The very best a tax limitation can do is win – and keep Big Gvernment Big.

The worst that a bold reduction can do is lose – and keep Big Government Big. The best it can do is actually shrink today’s Big Government.

Proposals to boldly reduce Big Government make small government possible. Especially when they are the featured proposal of a candidate’s campaign for office or a ballot measure that voters can directly enact into law.

Another small government proposal is brewing in Massachusetts: a Ballot Initiative to cut the sales tax in half. It’s headed for the ballot in 2010.

If you want to actually stop the growth of Big Government, or shrink it, look for candidates and ballot initiatives that go beyond tax limitation to tax reduction. That go beyond opposing Big Government to reducing Big Government. That go beyond government spending limitation to overall government spending reduction.

Related posts:

1. Priority #1: Set a small government agenda
2. 10 Critical Ingredients To Ignite Small Government Campaigns

“Yes, I do,” you answer.

“Great! So do I,” he says. Then he tells you about his campaign — and asks for your support.

Should you support him? Should you vote for him?

Not until you ask him some pointed questions. Not until he gives you some very clear answers. And not until he demonstrates that he is sincerely committed to shrinking government.

Is this a jaded or cynical attitude? Not at all.

It’s simply a matter of making sure the politician means what he seems to be saying.

Because politicians are masters of sounding like they agree with you. Experts at saying things in ways that seem like they are on your side. Magicians with words and phrasing.

You use words honestly and honorably. You say what you mean. Clearly and directly. So do I. So do most people.

That’s why politicians are able to take advantage of good and honest people. Because it normally wouldn’t occur to us that someone would cold-bloodedly try to deceive and mislead us.

What We Assume
When you hear the phrase “smaller government,” what does it mean to you?

“Government smaller than it is today?” That’s what it means to most people.

Do you want to make government smaller than it is today? Harry Browne did. Carla Howell does. I do. You do, too.

We assume that people are talking in plain, straightforward terms.

But what if some people wanted to take advantage of our common sense assumption that “smaller government” equals “government smaller than it is today?”

What if some people wanted to lawyer the phrase “smaller government” to mean something different — without exactly lying to us?

Comparatives
“Smaller. Bigger. Taller. Shorter. Stronger. Weaker. Hotter. Colder. Higher. Lower.”

All of these words are comparatives.

In order to understand them, we need to compare them to something else: “Compared to what?”

Put each comparative term in a sentence ending with: “Than what?”

Smaller than what? Lower than what?

Smaller government? Smaller than what?

Lower taxes? Lower than what?

Smaller Government? Smaller Than What?
“My opponent will raise government spending by over 20%, but I will only raise it by 14%,” says the politician. “I am offering you smaller government than my opponent.”

“As a percentage of the Gross Domestic Product, even with the spending increases I propose, government will be smaller than it is today,” says another.

“On a per capita spending basis, my higher government budget will, in fact, give us a smaller government,” says a third.

“Adjusted for inflation, even with my spending increases, we will have a smaller government,” says a fourth.

When confronted with this language lawyering, when faced with this political slight-of-mouth, there’s only one thing to do:

Ask a plain, simple question where you supply the comparative.

Ask: “Are you proposing a budget that’s lower than this year’s budget?”

Follow up with: “How much lower than this year’s budget?” And: “Exactly how much is your proposed budget? How many dollars?”

Ask: “Are you campaigning for a government that’s smaller than this year’s government?”

Follow up with: “How much smaller than this year’s government?” And: “Exactly what do you intend to remove or reduce?”

Compare all political promises and proposals to this year’s government. To this year’s budget or spending.

This year’s government spending and size is the yardstick.

This year’s government budget and size is the standard of comparison.

Compared to what? Smaller than what? This year’s government.

Fill in the Blank — Include the Missing Standard of Comparison
Want “Truth-In-Labeling” for your political discussions about making government smaller than it is today?

Make the implicit, explicit.

Clearly and plainly state your standard of comparison: this year’s government spending.

This year’s government budget is the yardstick.

Example: “This year’s federal government spending is $2.8 Trillion. Is your proposed spending higher or lower than $2.8 Trillion? How much?”

Simply and directly challenge their claim of “smaller government” by filling in the blank with this year’s spending.

Example: “This year’s federal government spending is $2.8 Trillion. You are campaigning to raise spending to $3 Trillion. But you claim that your proposal would make government smaller. Please explain this.”

Use raw numbers — NOT percentages — in your comparisons.

Do NOT say: “This year’s federal government budget is $2.8 Trillion. You are campaigning to raise spending by 7%. But you claim that you’re making government smaller. Please explain this.”

A 7% increase in government spending sounds like pocket change.

Complaining about a 7% spending increase makes you look petty.

DO say: “This year’s federal government budget is $2.8 Trillion. You’re campaigning to raise federal spending by $200 Billion per year. But you claim that your $200 Billion spending increase will make government smaller. Please explain this.”

DO say:

“You want to spend $200 Billion MORE than this year’s budget. You’re making government bigger.”

Or: “You want to add another $200 Billion in federal spending to this year’s $2.8 Trillion budget. That’s bigger government.”

Or: “You believe that this year’s $2.8 Trillion federal budget isn’t high enough. You want to increase it to $3 Trillion next year. You’re making Big Government even bigger.”

Or: “You propose to make this year’s $2.8 Trillion federal budget $200 Billion bigger. You’re proposing more Big Government.”

Truth-In-Labeling Shall Set Us Free
Smaller than what? This year’s government budget.

Smaller than what? This year’s government spending.

Smaller than what? This year’s government.

Isn’t that what you want?

###

You may want to review The Weight Watcher’s Test for Big Government.

Want to stop limiting your choices to only those that offer Big Government? Want to help make government small? Take the Small Government Pledge^sm.

Related posts:

1. The Weight Watchers Test
2. Why Does Small Government Plus One Exception Add Up to Big Government?
3. All That is Necessary for the Continued Growth of Big Government is for Us to UN-do Nothing

“Government is too big,” says another. “We must cut back on the needless spending and go after waste. But America’s defense requires strong basic industry. We can and must have a vibrant steel industry to provide the materials we need for tanks, ships, airplanes, missiles, and other defense systems. We must have sturdy tariffs against foreign dumping, underpricing, and subsidies that injure our steel industry.”

“We must restore limited government,” says a third politician. “We’ve got to end the boondoggles and get rid of the pork. Yet none of us is free if our lives and properties can be wrenched from us by Acts of God. By hurricanes, tornadoes, floods, or earthquakes. That is why I am asking for massive funding increases for FEMA. (Federal Emergency Management Agency.)”

Each of these candidates says he’s for small or smaller or limited government.

PLUS one exception. Just one single critical, indispensable exception.

Isn’t small government plus one exception just a razor’s width from small government?

No.

Small government plus 1 exception adds up to Big Government.

Why?

Because the individuals who propose small government plus 1 exception are not all proposing the same exception.

They have different exceptions. With one, it might be agriculture. Another might back protectionism for textiles. A third may advance Immigration. A fourth, education. A fifth, military funding. Others may advocate expanding welfare. Or Social Security. Health Care. And on and on and on.

Try a thought experiment. Imagine electing 435 “small government Plus 1″ candidates to U.S. Congress. Each proclaims his love of small government plus his 1 exception.

We look at each Representative’s 1 exception and find we have 200 or 300 or even 435 different exceptions. And each single, critical, indispensable exception is the highest priority of the Representative who campaigned on it.

The only way one Congressman can get a vote for his 1 exception is to vote for the other Congressman’s 1 exception. Simple vote reciprocation.

So, to get a majority of votes, a minimum of 218 “small government Plus 1″ U.S. Representatives vote for — small government Plus 218 exceptions.

But it doesn’t stop there. Pretend that, over a 6-year period, we elected 100 small government Plus 1 exception U.S. Senators. They would need a minimum of 51 “small government Plus 1″ Senators to vote for the House Bill. And that means up to 51 new exceptions added to the 218 U.S. House exceptions.

Assuming that the President is agreeable, this means they voted for small government Plus 269 exceptions.

Small government Plus 269 exceptions adds up to Big Government.

Even if they sincerely limited themselves to one exception each, they produce Big Government.

Imagine what happens if each person advocates small government Plus 2 or 3 exceptions.

But it’s even worse than this. Because you’ll discover that politicians who claim to campaign for small or smaller or limited government Plus 1 exception almost always put the lion’s share of their time and energy promoting and lobbying for their 1 exception — and almost none into making government small.

The 1 exception is always their first priority. Small government is their last priority.

This is true of federal, state, and local politics. The number of office-holders varies, but the vote-trading continues.

Small government Plus 1 Exception adds up to Big Government.

There’s only way to get legislators who will make government small.

Elect candidates who promise and live the small government pledge:

“I vote small government. Every issue. Every time. No exceptions. No excuses.”

Take the Small Government Pledge^sm.

Related posts:

1. Smaller Government? Smaller Than What?
2. All That is Necessary for the Continued Growth of Big Government is for Us to UN-do Nothing

Another governor proclaims a multi-billion dollar spending reduction.

A third governor says that his proposal will save taxpayers a whopping billion dollars.

Should we break out the champagne? Is government spending truly going down? Will these governments get smaller?

No.

Magicians perform many illusions with sleight-of-hand.

Big Government politicians do it with sleight-of-mouth.

The first governor is cutting 20% off the top of a $3 billion increase. The budget will go up $2.4 billion this year.

The second governor is taking $4 billion dollars off the top of a $9 billion spending increase. State government spending will go up $5 billion.

The third governor got a lower interest rate on his state’s $30 billion debt. The lower payment “saves” $1 billion in interest, while freeing up $100 million a year to expand government “social services” and hire more government workers.

Big Government got bigger.

But all we hear from the Big Government politicians and the news media are stories of shrinking tax revenues, spending reductions, and program cutbacks.

How do they get away with this? How do they make it look like government is staying the same size — or getting smaller?

Big Government Adjustments and Comparisons

Here are a few things they do.

1. Adjust the Government Budget for inflation

If last year’s state budget was $20 billion, and inflation was 5%, and this year’s budget is $22 billion, they can argue that “adjusted for inflation, this year’s spending has only gone up 4.5%.”

This might seem reasonable and fair — except for one thing.

They do not adjust Taxpayers’ Income for inflation. If your family income was $40,000 last year, if you didn’t get a pay raise this year, and if inflation is 5%, then you are $2,000 poorer this year.

Adjusted for inflation, taxpayers are losing 5% this year – while government is gaining 4.5%.

Tax producers get gouged — while tax consumers benefit.

Whether Big Government politicians or the News Media call the government spending adjustment “constant dollars”, “cost of living”, “indexing”, “static purchasing power”, or something else — where is the same adjustment, same treatment, and same consideration for productive, hard-working taxpayers?

2. Compare the Government Spending to the economy

“Our state government spending is X% of our state’s Gross Domestic Product — in the bottom half of all state governments. We’re committed to fiscal conservatism and limited government.”

“During the last 10 years, our state’s Gross Domestic Product increased 108%, and state government spending only rose 79%. Government is taking a smaller share of a growing economic pie.”

What does this have to do with whether government is big or small? With whether government authority and power is growing or shrinking?

3. Compare this Government Budget to other Government Budgets

“We’re in the bottom half of all state governments in terms of state spending. We are committed to limiting government.”

“We’re in the bottom half of all state governments in terms of per capita spending.”

“Last year, our state spending was the 13th highest out of 50 states. This year, we’re down to 20th — pretty close to average.”

They can compare the whole budget or any part of it to other state budgets.

Does our tax burden lighten because that of others grows heavier? Are we better off because they are worse off?

The Weight Watchers Test

Tired of Big Government sleight-of-mouth on government spending and growth?

Want truth-in-labeling in politics? Full disclosure?

You won’t find it in the newspapers. But you will find it at Weight Watchers.

Weight Watchers is a wonderful organization that uses honesty, common sense and tried and true experience to help people lose weight and get healthier.

Suppose you weigh 300 pounds — and come to Weight Watchers to lose weight and get healthier. They’ll give you great information and support — to help you slim down.

But they want you to be honest with yourself.

What did you eat — today? What exercise did you do — today?

Then the Weight Watchers Test: Get on the Scale: How much do you weigh — today? 300 pounds?

For a week or 2 weeks or a month, you’ll make your own decisions about eating and exercising. You’ll probably log what you do. You’ll come to meetings. You’ll learn and share. Support and be supported.

Then the Weight Watchers Test: Get on the Scale: How much do you weigh — today?

290 pounds? You’re moving in the right direction. Making progress.

310 pounds? You’re moving in the wrong direction. How can we help you turn this around?

Weight Watchers is honest.

They will NOT adjust the scale so you can lie to yourself and others.

They will NOT justify your weight by telling you that on the moon you would weigh 50 pounds.

They will NOT condone sleight-of-mouth weighing cons and comparisons: “Well, my 4 closest friends started at 300 pounds like me, but now they weigh 330 pounds, while I only weigh 310 pounds. So I’m really 20 pounds lighter.”

“Because obesity is rapidly increasing in the United States, even though I gained 20 pounds, I’m much closer to the average weight than I was a year ago.”

Weight Watchers wants you to be honest with yourself.

Get on the Scale: How much do you weigh — today?

Are you heavier or lighter than last time? Is your weight going up or down?

Apply the Weight Watchers Test to government spending.

Put government on the Scale: How much did it spend — this year?

How much did government spend last year?

Is government spending higher or lower than last year’s spending? How much? Is this department’s spending higher or lower than last year?

How much?

How much higher or lower is government spending than it was 10 years ago? How much higher or lower is this department’s spending than it was 10 years ago?

Is government bigger or smaller than it was last year? Is this department bigger or smaller than it was last year?

How much bigger or smaller is government than it was 10 years ago?

How much bigger or smaller is this department than it was 10 years ago?

The Weight Watchers Test of government lets us know where we are, which direction we’re moving, and how fast we’re going.

The Weight Watchers Test of government frees us from sleight-of- mouth and political illusions.

It offers us the facts, the truth:

Are we moving toward bigger and bigger Big Government — or getting closer and closer to individual liberty, personal responsibility, and small government?

***************

Once you grasp the Five Iron Laws of Big Government and the Weight Watchers Test, you’re ready for the next step:

Take the Small Government Pledge^sm.

Related posts:

1. Smaller Government? Smaller Than What?
2. Priority #1: Set a small government agenda
3. All That is Necessary for the Continued Growth of Big Government is for Us to UN-do Nothing

“Property tax rates in our town are the lowest in the state,” says the newspaper editorial.

“Our welfare system is ranked in the top 10%,” beams a government official.

“Our state-funded affordable housing is the best…”

“Local government construction projects are the most cost-efficient…”

Again and again, government-funded, government-run programs are touted as the lowest cost, most economical, highest value, and highest ranked.

And they truly are — IF we make sure we compare them only to other governments.

Why?

Because somebody is always the soberest drunk in the bar.

This Friday night, after work, go to a bar. Pick a good bar. One where they welcome serious drinking. A bar where they drink to celebrate, to forget, to remember, or for no reason at all.

Grab a stool. Nurse a few beers. The social drinkers and amateurs have left. Nobody’s there but you, the bartender and the determined drinkers.

Keep your eyes wide open. You’ll see men and women bend elbows, drain their cups, pound ‘em back, and swill it down. They’ll binge and booze it up. Some will get pickled, stewed, smashed, sloshed, and blotto.

They’ll blow by the legal limit for intoxication. Some might get falling down drunk or even pass out.

Say there are 50 hard-core boozers in the bar.

One will be the soberest drunk in the bar. Five will be the 10% most clear-headed drunks in the group.

Want to catch a ride home with the soberest drunk in the bar?

Would you hand the car keys to the most clear-headed 10% of the drunks?

Would you want any of these drunks on the road?

Would you praise any for sobriety or self-restraint?

No?

Why? Because you don’t grade on the curve. You don’t rank drunks against drunker drunks.

You compare them to people who are stone-cold sober.

So, too, with government spending, efficiency, results, and ranking.

Don’t rate or rank, evaluate or judge one government against another. Nor one government program against other government programs.

Because one will always be the soberest drunk in the bar.

If we don’t compare governments or government programs against each other, what do we judge them against?

Private enterprise. Privately-funded, privately-run businesses and projects.

NOT government-regulated, government-mandated, or government-funded businesses.

Real private enterprise. Privately owned businesses, operating in an open and competitive marketplace.

Private enterprise is the standard of judgment. Private enterprise is financial sobriety as opposed to the tax-intoxicated spending of government.

How much does it cost competitive, private businesses to produce the results we desire?

How much per year does it cost a home schooling family to educate one child?

How much per year does it cost a competitive private or parochial school to educate one child?

How much per year does it cost your tax-funded, government-run public school to educate one child? (Be sure to include off-budget and separately accounted for spending like school building construction, retirement packages and health benefits.)

Now compare the costs and results of each.

Do the same with tax-funded, government-run welfare. Compare it to private charity.

Or tax-funded, government-run “affordable” housing or housing projects. Compare them to “Habitat for Humanity” housing or low-cost efficiency apartments and multi-family units.

How about tax-funded, government-sponsored or government-run job training programs? Compare them to On-the-Job training — or business and charitable sponsored job training programs.

Compare Government to Private Enterprise. Costs and results.

For example, when you assess the costs of building a college dormitory for a tax-supported university, compare them to the costs of a similar apartment building. (A college dormitory is nothing but an on-campus apartment building for students.)

Compare tax-funded to privately-funded. Compare government-run to privately-run. Compare government costs and results to private enterprise costs and results.

Rate or rank, evaluate or judge government’s costs and results against private enterprise’s.

Stop settling for the soberest drunk in the bar.

###

Want to stop limiting your choices to only those that offer Big Government? Want to help make government small? Take the Small Government Pledge^sm.

No related posts.