Bernard Chapin, if you are unaware of, is a micro-celebrity of You Tube fame who generates about 2-3 short 10 minute videos each day and is also a daily stop for your beloved Captain. The majority of Uncie Bern's material covers the daily news, with a focus and specialization on chronicling the efforts of marxists, feminists, and others to bring down the United State and destroy freedom.
However, while the majority of Bernard's focus is on exposing these scum, he does occasionally wander into the realm of philosophy and economics, a common refrain of his being the "10% State."
Bernard's argument is quite simple - that the entirety of the state should cost us no more than 10% of our production. That if we got rid of income transfers, forced people to support themselves, and government merely provided true public goods and services, our final tax bill would only be 10%. Naturally, he receives guff from the parasites that rely on the taxpayer to support them, but parasitism aside, he's 100% right.
The state really only does cost 10%.
If you look at the federal budget (which I know for some leftists is going to be a virginal experience), and add up ONLY the government services that are truly part of "governance" you'll find out that the 2015 federal budget really needn't be more than $1.1 trillion.
Take out social security.
Take out Medicare and Medicaid
Take out the EPA, Department of Education, Department of Agriculture, NASA and all the other unneeded bureaucracies and (if you did it right) you'll come up with a bare bones budget of $1.1 trillion.
Divide that by the roughly $17 trillion economy we have and you get 6.5%. Well below the 10% state Bernard portends.
Of course, this does not account for state and local spending which historical and on average run about 1/3 total federal spending. Add an additional 2% (or even 4% for Californians!) and you're still well below the 10%.
Naturally, this is merely an intellectual and academic exercise about what "could have been." The 10% state will never be revisited (we were there once) as the American public is too spoiled, too dumb, and too satiated by government goodies to appreciate what a potential future we could have. But I did want to at least validate and prove that what Bernard Chapin is calling for is absolutely and 100% feasible. A 10% state would and has worked.
Sadly, this is a democracy. And sadly, the masses are the most spoiled and idiotic in American history. And thus the 10% State will remain where we last left it - in history.
(Author's note - No wandering cauldrons of politically incorrect commentary were hurt in the writing of this post)
5 comments:
If not for the lies of politicians even social security would not be a burden. We pay into it while we work and we get it back when we retire. Unfortunately there are two problems. One, the politicians already spent the money as soon as it came in, so future generations will have to cough it up later, and two, people live longer now and with health care so expensive they use up all of that money within just a few years. Great idea but not really practical.
As for NASA, back when they actually did real things like send men into space and do research, before they became a political wing of the socialist democrat party and started doctoring climate records and creating Muslim outreach programs, they actually served a purpose. Putting satellites in orbit, predicting the weather, monitoring space for incoming asteroids, and maybe preparing us to live on other worlds, that is worth spending money on. But that's not what they do anymore. We can't even lift one person into orbit. We have to rely on our enemies for a ride. Go USA!
As long as women have the vote, they will vote to appropriate resources created by men, until they collapse society, which we are about to witness in the next 10 years.
Democracy can handle 30% of the voters being idiots (i.e. of the male population), as men who are low-information will stay away from the polls, but not 60-70% of the population.
Until the vote is taken away from women, all political discussion is a waste of calories.
Thank you Aaron!
Bernard
I don't see any reason why it should be more than 1%.
1% federa
1% state
1% county
1% city
Everything else is pay as you go.
James Wolfe,
You are assuming that the "benefits" of NASA programs would not have accrued had there been no government spending? Is there any evidence that private companies would not have done all of that and more had NASA never existed? There is a giant flaw in the "but look at all the awesome stuff that was invented through government programs" argument as it assumes that it never would have happened otherwise.
Post a Comment