Feb 4, 2006
Illustrating the Growth of Leviathan
The first picture is of George Washington and his cabinet and the second of George Bush and his cabinet. Any questions?
comments powered by Disqus
More Comments:
Charles Johnson - 2/2/2006
Three of the five men pictured in the first portrait -- Washington, Jefferson, and Randolph -- exercised absolute personal tyranny over more than 1,000 of their fellow human beings, and politically supported the system that extended that tyranny over some millions of their fellow Southerners. As far as I know, none of the men pictured in the second portrait hold slaves or support slavery.
Might it be the case that Leviathan has distinctly grown for some groups of people, but that it has also distinctly shrunk for others?
Keith Halderman - 2/1/2006
My favorite measure: When Coolidge was president all levels of government took about 6% of people's income in taxes, today it is approaching 50%.
Anthony Gregory - 2/1/2006
I just think about how much it has grown since Reagan was elected to get the thing off all out backs, and I cringe.
Robert Higgs - 2/1/2006
In 1800, federal government outlays amounted to about $10.8 million. In 2006, federal government outlays will amount to about $2.6 trillion.
Between those two dates, the price level rose by 15-16 times; to be generous, let us say, 20 times. Therefore, the real outlays of 1800, expressed in dollars of today's purchasing power, amounted to about $216 million. Therefore, the increase in real federal outlays since 1800 has been about 12,037-fold.
In 1800, the U.S. population was about 5.3 million persons. Today it is about 298 million, or roughly 56 times greater. If real federal outlays had increased at the same pace as the population, they would have increased from $216 million to $12.1 billion.
The actual increase of real outlays, however, was to $2.6 trillion, which is to say, by 215 times more than needed to keep pace with the growth of population.
Greg Newburn - 2/1/2006
At the beginning of Doris Kearns Goodwin's book "Team of Rivals," there's a picture of Washington, D.C. at the start of the Civil War. Contrasting that picture to today provides a nice measure of big government.
(I know that Pulitzer Prize winner Goodwin is not the eminent Lincoln scholar that T. DiLorenzo is, but I thought I'd mention this nonetheless).
john j trainor - 2/1/2006
A smaller, competently managed government, with some sense of fiduciary responsibility. A modest expectation.
John Reed Tarver - 2/1/2006
So, what? The nation has 50 instead of 13 states. What do you expect?
john j trainor - 2/1/2006
The growth from a limited republic to a mass democracy captured in one photo. I say limited in recognition that voting was restricted,mass democracy in that literally all can vote. The demand for services, sometimes misplaced, the dimunition of states rights,questions of growth and complexity, and the urge to barter government programs for votes lead to a cabinet that if it gets any bigger, will have to meet in a catering hall.
Sudha Shenoy - 2/1/2006
In the late 19th/early 20th century, the Secretary of State never went to the office in the afternoons, 'because there was nothing to do'.
Mark Brady - 2/1/2006
What a great post!