Jacob S. Hacker

That Americans increasingly question the value of collective action is well documented. This manifests itself in a fear that big government acts as constraint on their freedom.

This book turns around that equation and says big government is and has for decades worked to make America a prosperous nation. It goes on to say that Congress has moved in the opposite direction and is starving government of much needed resources.

Who is to be believed?

According to usgovernmentspending.com, Americans will spend $7.56 trillion on government in 2019. About one quarter of that goes to operate state government, another quarter of it goes to operate local government, and roughly one half of that will go to operate the national government, including almost $1 trillion toward national defense. Another $1.69 trillion will cover health care and $1.45 trillion pension and social security benefits. Combined from all levels of government.

The American people would have to be blind or dumb or both not to know what their national priorities actually are.

When their houses burn, when law enforcement acts, when ambulances scream through their streets, Americans must know they, indeed, are paying for it. Fully one-half of government spending is not directed by Washington, and I don’t hear many cries for the dissolution of cities or state governments.

Much of the propaganda generated by libertarian businessmen, by pro-business lobby groups, and not a little by FOX television, is admittedly propaganda directed at national institutions.

Government spending isn’t going away anytime soon.

This book ably documents many of the reasons why people mistrust their national government, as does Jane Mayer in her “Dark Money: The Hidden History of the Billionaires Behind the Rise of the Radical Right,” which came out at roughly the same time as this book.

Government could be bigger or smaller depending on your perspective. On a purely operational basis, government could be a lot smaller, in my opinion, and get the same amount of work done. In the US, 52 state governments duplicate many of the same services and administration, and a hundred or more cities also do the same things.

The barrier to this sort of institutional change would undoubtedly be the compromise in sovereignty people would have. Would uniformity in building standards, or highway construction standards, or even kindergarten curriculum be such a bad thing? Really.

I’m sure there are better commentators than me who argue for less defence spending. Does $1 trillion guarantee no attacks by foes? Does it guarantee fair access to foreign markets? Not likely. Not even $2 trillion would do it.

Part of the inertia built into the American system of government came from the founding fathers themselves who confounded popular sovereignty by including a Senate that answers to all states equally regardless of population. Not to mention an Electoral College who chooses the President by similar means.

If Americans could once agree to dilute their sovereignty in favour of a national government that helped propel them to superpower status, surely it is not such a leap that they could do so again to help peoples around the work contain carbon dioxide emissions, eliminate tax havens for the ultra rich, and curb the power of international crime syndicates.… (lisätietoja)