How Much More Will We Take?
04. Jun, 2009 
67 Comments
by Jeff Matthews
One of the things most abhorrent to us sovereignty-seekers is the incredible amount of bloat in Washington, D.C. While some of us are coming around to seeing that Washington, D.C. is killing this country on a non-partisan basis, the following chart illustrates this fact.
What the chart above shows is that, had the federal government grown in proportion to the U.S. population over the past 60 years, Uncle Sam would have spent approximately $2,621 per person in 2008. However, our all-wise and powerful government spent a whopping $9,828 per person in 2008. And given the magnificent packages passed this year, 2009 stands to be a real whopper! (All of the dollar amounts in the chart are inflation-adjusted to 2008 dollars per capita of federal spending.)
This means that the federal government has grown 3.75 times faster than our population. This is no trifling figure. At that rate, how much longer can this trend continue to last? Quite interesting is that the longest-standing decline in spending occurred from 1992-2000. Of course, taxation (revenues) still increased during that period.
What this means is that there is a long, long tradition on the part of both of the predominant parties to grow Washington at an irresponsible rate. So, the question must necessarily follow: “Can turning the government back over to Republicans be viewed as a potential remedy to a government bloat that threatens the fiscal soundness of our entire nation?” The answer would appear to be a clear “no.” The track record over the last 60 years proves this.
If history is to serve as a lesson, then, it should be entirely predictable that when Republicans regain control over Congress and the administration, they will inherit a yet larger government and continue to grow it further. We should begin seeking solutions from sources other than our traditional parties. Perhaps the Libertarian Party should be given a chance.
It is admittedly difficult to forsake the Republican Party at the potential expense of leaving the Democrats in power for perhaps years to come. However, to stay true to the Republican Party is to vote to continue the trend over the last 60 years. It is definitely time for a change.
Jeff Matthews [send him email] is an attorney living in Houston, Texas. His current projects include the website SovereignStates, and the forthcoming organization, The National Taxpayer Takeover.
If you enjoyed this post:
Click Here to Get the Free Tenth Amendment Center Newsletter,
A government capable of a Waco style massacre, is capable of just about anything.
The one thing about Waco, though, was that it was secretly torched. Attacking a seceding State would have to be open and overt war, so the dynamics are different. At Waco, they had to conceal the arson and murder of 80 people, including women and children, and thus play homage to virtue and moderation by hiding what they wre really like and lengths they willing to go to. With a seceding State they could not conceal the aggression and killing. The whole facade of pretending to be righteous would have to be shed.
Also, Waco was perceived as a small group of nutjobs. It’s far different than taking on a whole state.
You guys are making the point and then missing it. What do you think a seceding state would be made to look like but a bunch of nutjobs hostile to the United States? C’mon.
…even by a (large) segment of its own citizenry, by the way; a segment of the citizenry that enjoys a form of dual citizenship – state and national.
Constutional convention or secession…This is why it is important – NO, it is CRUCIAL, to take over the state legislature. Everything else is smoke and mirrors. The tenth amendment is about the states. We should be focusing on the states. We should be looking at pulling people out of office via recall. We shouldn’t be waiting to just vote them out. Rip them out.
The good news is that WE THE PEOPLE happen to live in the states, not WE THE FEDERAL GOVERNNMENT.
“The one thing about Waco, though, was that it was secretly torched.”
True. But let me just point out that that was after the ‘compound’ and the people in it were ruthlessly attacked (by land and air) by a bunch of jackboot thugs who had already tipped off the media and everything else. So what, in reality, is different about it?
The ATF wasn’t too concerned about the image it was going to project, other than it concerned itself pointedly to projecting the image of POWER wielded for the noble cause of ‘justice’. Not to mention that there was a fifty one day ’standoff’ in which all manner of evil and lewd and lascivious behavior was going on at the hands of our illustrious government law enforcement officers taking their orders straight from the top (granted, this was all concealed). But the Congressional hearings on the matter, in which such things came out, were an absolute joke in which the government was made to look like the innocent and noble victim of a bunch of religious crazies in spite of it all.
Yeah; I can see that happening again.
You are all letting your imaginations get the better of you. Our federal government will not start a war with a seceding state. Think about it and tell me who will. Congress? Not on your life! The President? Fat chance. It will not happen. The feds would rather write them off than suffer the blow in the world’s eyes of having a civil war – not to mention the cost of such a war.
I ca just see it now. After secession, the first 2 FAQ’s on the State of Texas website will be:
“Do I still need to send in a federal income tax return?”
“Will I still get my federal income tax refund?”
Jeff,
A flyover state like Oklahoma (perceived by the general public to be populated by a bunch of ungovernable backwoods hillbillies) secedes. Upwards of thirty percent of its citizens cry foul. The U.S. government has an interest in that thirty percent because they are also U.S. citizens who disagree with Oklahoma’s move to secession. On top of everything else that group would be perceived as victims of an aggressive majority population whose rights would be threatened, and the U.S. government would be pressured (as if that would be necessary) to come to their rescue. And on and on and on.
Now, you can say I’m letting my imagination run away with me, but it doesn’t make it so. And you can’t simply say “not on your life,” “fat chance, it isn’t going to happen.” That’s a bit weak, don’t ya think? But what in God’s name does the fed care about world perception on the subject of a seceding American state? ‘The World’ routinely puts down such movements. So whose side do you think it would take?
I can imagine any number of scenarios involving secession that would ultimately result in bloodshed, but I can’t imagine a single scenario that would not. Nonetheless…
I’m content to leave it at that. We’ll undoubtedly see eventually because a state will definitely cross over that rubicon at some point in the not too distant future. And I imagine that others will soon follow. Until then, it’s all just speculation on our parts. But I’ll wager a cup of coffee on it if you like.
“I ca just see it now. After secession, the first 2 FAQ’s on the State of Texas website will be:
“Do I still need to send in a federal income tax return?”
“Will I still get my federal income tax refund?””
ROTFL!!
Or how about this one: “I am still a U.S. citizen, right?”
I see the issues you raise, Terry. I imagine it is possible to manufacture a “Fort Sumter” scenario all over again.
I find the whole scenario kind of eerie in a “Hotel California” sort-of way. “You can check out any time you like, but you can never leave.”
Jeff,
Believe it or not I’ve actually quoted that exact Hotel California line myself (several times) in these same kinds of discussions.
And don’t get me wrong; I’m not saying that a state seceding would necessarily result in an immediate aggressive counter-move by the national government (although that, to me, seems like the most likely scenario if some latitude is given to the term “immediate, for the reasons I’ve already listed and more.). On the other hand, I can hardly envision a “fractured” America (an America that does not universally recognize a single central governing authority) that could live in mutual peace and harmony for very long. So when I say that secession means civil war, I’m saying that a fractured America, from the very moment that it fractures into different (independent) governing entities and onward, is an America whose exposure to internal disputes automatically increases exponentially. Independent governing entities have, by nature and by necessity, authority to enter into treaties with other nations and states, coin money, provide for its own defense, declare war, and so forth and so on. So in the end, it all boils down to internal disorder between the various governing entities, and civil war. At least that’s the way I see it. And let’s face it, there’s no love lost between certain states and certain others in this union. But anyway…
I see it not as a matter of will everyone think what everyone else does is okay after a secession. I highly doubt that. We certainly don’t agree with all that England or France does, but we get along with them just fine (for the most part).
I see no problem existing that way and being the happier for it.
I would as soon see the Union stick together, but these clowns in D.C…. They are ruining it for all of us.
The one worrisome thing about any idea of secession is that Obama may follow (his inspirational hero) Lincoln’s lead and have a civil war on his hands.
Ha, ha!
Barack Hussein Obama, as I’ve said before, is such an illegitimate, inexperienced fool, that he can have (even at this point) no earthly idea about what he’s gotten himself into. This is evidenced by the mere fact that virtually everything he involves himself in publicly is (rightly) taken as an affront to historical Americanism. One would think that such an “articulate” figure would be smart enough to avoid the clearly hostile implications which his speeches invariably incorporate. But, no, like I’ve said from the gitgo, he’s totally and completely oblivious to them. What a useful idiot!
Michael. Do I get into the TenthAmendmentCenter Hall of Fame for article with most comments?