Palatable Politics Part 1: Small Government vs. Big Government

Every four years in the United States, an election is held to determine the next President. Average Americans rightfully take the democratic process very seriously, and sometimes this has the unfortunate side-effect of becoming an ugly affair. Mudslinging during Presidential elections is not a new phenomenon, but in the age of internet and smartphones and 24/7 news coverage, opinions and falsehoods have the ability to spread with unprecedented fervor, and have the ability to change the course of history.

Abraham Lincoln famously said, "A house divided against itself cannot stand." As a patriot and a veteran, my desire is of course to see this wonderful country unite and prosper. And if science can be used to that end, everyone wins.

FEMSHEP supports, above any political opinion or candidate, science. Cold, hard, unambiguous, universal laws of science (and its sister, math) cannot be swayed by the desires of man, and thus can be a priceless tool to allow everyone to take a breath, sit down, and rationally evaluate the things that are bombarding us all.

This series of posts will use timely, factual, widely-available, non-partisan data to assess popular political platforms. The methods for collecting this data are the same for me as they would be for you, if you would like to check my work for yourself or duplicate my analysis. I will cite sources for each data point presented and my analysis will be as transparent as possible. Data from sources with questionable or obvious affiliations will be discarded (that is, no Fox News, Huffington Post, or data presented by partisan-backed think tanks), as will opinions, disproven studies, and any data sourced from questionable methods (that is, any data published by an author, working from a neutral source, who has well-documented political leanings). Data will be double-checked from at least two reputable sources before being presented here. My own political opinions will be shelved and data will be presented in support of and against both Democrat and Republican positions. I will not, however, even go anywhere near the topics of gun control or abortion, and, for now, immigration/refugees. If these topics interest you, I highly advise you exercise your right as an American to find your own data and draw your own conclusions using the methods I am using today.

For simplicity, only for explanations of generalized concepts or biographical data, I will be using links from Wikipedia. If you object to Wikipedia references on these same grounds, Wikipedia articles cite their own sources for the data presented. If any data is objectionable to you, I urge you to evaluate the sources used in the references section of these articles. Please note: no conclusions will be presented based on information from this source.

I will do my very best to take very complex issues and condense them into the tl;dr version, and to compare apples to apples (or note when this is not possible). For the sake of uniformity and clarity, I will also paste this preface into each post of this political analysis series.

Issue #1: Small Government vs. Big Government

Small Government and Big Government are unofficial terms used to describe the relative scope and reach of the federal government.

Small government is defined as a government that manages its own activities. The general idea behind small government is allowing the people to care for themselves as best they can without governmental interference. In his First Inaugural Address, Thomas Jefferson explained the concept as "... a wise and frugal Government, which shall restrain men from injuring one another, shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned."

Big Government is defined as a government that is involved in creating policy related to public affairs and social programs. In a "Big Government," the federal government is tasked with managing areas like public health, education, welfare, Social Security, labor relations, space programs, and unemployment.

First Amendment scholar Zechariah Chafee once stated "Each side takes the position of the man who was arrested for swinging his arms and hitting another in the nose, and asked the judge if he did not have a right to swing his arms in a free country. 'Your right to swing your arms ends just where the other man's nose begins.'"

One metric used to determine the efficacy of laissez-faire government versus a more social market economy is the overall perceived happiness rating of the population. A group of independent experts in the areas of economics, psychology, survey analysis, national statistics, health, and public policy, have convened annually since 2012 to evaluate aspects that impact the happiness of the general population in countries around the world. The publication, The World Happiness Report was the result of this massive undertaking. The central purpose of this study was "to survey the scientific underpinnings of measuring and understanding subjective well-being." (World Happiness Report, Introduction, 2016). From 2013 to 2015, Denmark was rated as being the happiest nation on Earth, followed by Switzerland, Ireland, Norway, Finland, Canada, Netherlands, New Zealand, and Australia. The United States came in 13th place according to this index. Syria and Burundi came in last. Variables implemented to smooth international differences (the apples to apples comparison I referred to) include GDP per capita, life expectancy, social support, freedom, generosity, and absence of corruption.

Figure 2.2: Ranking of Happiness 2013-2015, World Happiness Index

So let's compare the United States to Denmark, the country that researchers and participants concluded has the highest overall happiness rating of its populace.

First: population (July 2015 estimate) and geographical area.
United States: population - 322,369,319; geographical area - 9,833,517 sq km (third largest in the world)
Denmark: population - 5,581,503; geographical area - 43,094 sq km (ranked 134th in terms of geographical size)

The United States is unique compared to other developed nations as a result of its geographical and population size. What works beautifully for a smaller country would face implementation issues if attempted within our borders. In addition, cultural considerations must be taken when evaluating the need or scope of governmental programs - what works in Denmark might never work in the United States, and vice versa.

Gross Domestic Product is a measure of the value of all goods and services produced during a period of time, and is used to determine the economic health of a country. According to the United States Department of Commerce's Bureau of Economic Analysis, the Gross Domestic Product (GDP) as of the fourth quarter of 2015 was $18.060 trillion.

By comparison, Denmark reported a GDP of $342.36 billion and according to the official EU Country Report, has grown for eight out of the last nine quarters. This is expected to increase as a result of "rising real disposable income, due to the increase in employment, wage growth, and low inflation." (Denmark Country Report, page 4).

Denmark is famous for their social welfare programs - and the high taxes that are necessary to sustain them. Citizens of Denmark are entitled to health care, secondary education, job training, subsidized child care, job training, and rent subsidies for elderly citizens. So, by our definition above, Denmark has what is considered a "big government."

Let's look at the second happiest country on that index, Switzerland. Population 8,121,830 with a geographical area of 41,277 sq km and a GDP of $482.7 billion (2015 estimate). Universal health care was instituted in Switzerland in 1994, with approximately 30% of health care spending coming from private payments such as copayments and deductibles. The Swiss people seem to be fine with this, since all decisions regarding national healthcare system must be decided by popular vote, and according to the article linked above from the New England Journal of Medicine, "The Swiss population has repeatedly voted for retaining customer choice ... even if it comes at a higher cost." Switzerland might be considered an example of "small government," since it is, essentially, fully democratic, with every citizen given the ability to propose legislation (which can then be voted on once the initiative has gained 100,000 signatures). One such piece of legislation was the Basic Income Stipend. This proposal seeks to give each adult citizen of Switzerland a monthly stipend of 2,500 francs (approximately $2,800 USD). This income would be provided by in part by the country's social security insurance system and has been facing a groundswell of support since it was first proposed in 2013. Conservatives in Switzerland believe that this stipend will "significantly reduce the size of our federal bureaucracy" and would serve to replace welfare, food stamps, subsidized housing, and a multitude of other social programs.

Now, let's bring the data home, and look at the United States. According to the National Center for Education Statistics, for academic year 2013-2014, the average cost of a secondary education (including tuition, fees, books, supplies, room, board, and other expenses) was approximately $22,190 for an in-state university student living on-campus. For a private nonprofit university, this figure is $44,370. (We will evaluate the pros and cons of state-funded secondary education in another post in this series).

National Center for Education Statistics, Average total cost of attending degree-granting institutions for first-time, full-time students, by level and control of institution and student living arrangement: Academic year 2013-2014

Passed into law in 2010, the Affordable Care Act (ACA) became the United States' first universal health care for members of the population not otherwise covered by other government health care programs, Medicare and Medicaid. According to the Internal Revenue Service, taxes were raised in key areas to fund the ACA. A subsidy of the Department of Labor, the Employment and Training Administration provides funding for job training for any adult Americans in need. Low-income, employed families are currently eligible to receive assistance for child care.

Americans have a long-held aversion to taxation. The Boston Tea Party of 1773 was the result of growing frustrations over taxes being paid to the British government, and helped push the colonies toward the American Revolution. The whole "no taxation without representation" thing was a very big deal to the citizens of the Thirteen Colonies. The Gadsden Flag was created by General Christopher Gadsden and was flown by the Continental Marines during the American Revolution.

Gadsden Flag

So, while Denmark's plethora of social programs contribute to the country's first place on the Happiness Report, and Switzerland's proposed universal stipend contributing to their second place, the United States would have to increase taxes in several areas in order to implement either of these basic ideas across the country. Given the historical aversion to increase in taxation in the United States, Americans might just have to get comfortable with being number 13.