One common measure is reflecting government size (i.e., spending) as a percentage of GDP. That oversimplifies the issue. Delving into the components of government spending sheds a bit more light. It's clear that some components have grown aggressively over time, while others grown less so. State and local government often gets hit with the same accusation. What are some clearer ways to frame the issue?
- Which large program do we want to eliminate? Chipping away may work for small problems, but it won't work for big ones.
- Which large programs do we keep? Roads, police, waste - all those are best handled by government oversight. Safety and security are too important to be left to a provider whose core mission is profit.
- Where do we make real sacrifices?
- What's the best relative metric for defining the size of government? No one would claim that India should have the same size government payroll as does Monaco. But it's also not exactly a linear relationship. Larger populations beget not only larger, but more complex problems.
