In the United States, we have a two ideologies that disagree on the role of government in the daily lives of people and the economy. Conservatives believe that the role, size, and power of government should be limited to only what is necessary. Liberals believe that the role of government is to serve the people, regardless of its size. Both ideologies have merits and both have their weakness: conservatives will err on the side of smaller government and some ‘public’ demands may not be met while liberals will err on the side of larger government with an ever-expanding burden on the taxpayer and gross bureaucratic inefficiency. Many believe our system to be a free market, but general opinion in this case is somewhat incorrect, particularly when it comes to the way that we redistribute wealth. In 2006, according to the IRS, the top 1% of households (in terms of income) pay about 40% of federal individual income taxes while receiving only 23% of total income. The top 5% paid nearly 61% of federal income taxes while earning 37% of total income. What this means is that the average American is not experiencing the costs of domestic policy… so the calculation of the average American is grossly skewed when it comes to deciding government policy.

In having an economic situation where the majority of people suffers little or no tax consequences for passing expensive and inefficient government programs, the average American is being given an inducement to grow government by shielding them from the costs. Interestingly enough, the much criticized Bush tax cuts that ‘benefited’ the rich ended up increasing the amount and percentage of income tax that top earners had to pay, more than during Clinton. Eventually though, we can expect that when the cost of running government becomes sufficiently high, these taxes will start to ‘trickle down’ and affect everyone, else we chase all of the wealth away form the country. We must take this into account when we decide on the Health Care Reform plans that the administration and Congress are trying to pass, especially since we did not think twice about passing the stimulus package which has turned out to be slow, ineffective, yet exceedingly expensive.

If a society burdens only a small percentage of its population with the majority of the costs of running government, wouldn’t this end up encouraging the growth of government? More importantly, wouldn’t this mean that the people who are most affected by government programs are grossly underrepresented? Has our government become a tyranny of the majority (people who pay little to no income taxes)? Our republic has strayed from its founding principles and for the last two decades we have experienced an uninterrupted period of growth of government under both Republican and Democratic administrations. We need to return to our first principles that emphasize freedom and individual responsibility. We have become a nation that no longer believes that happiness should be pursued but instead handed to us and rationed by an all-powerful government. Oh how times have changed…

-AG