http://obsidianwings...mmint-so-big.html

Conservatives of virtually all stripes are united in their belief that the federal government is too large. The founders, they will say, never intended or envisioned a federal government of the size and scope we have now.

IMVHO, they are correct. At least about the founder part. The entire federal budget in 1800 was $11M. That is more or less the annual budget for Congressional franking expenses today. Even Hamilton would freak.

How'd this happen?

Here is a snapshot of the world of the founders, circa 1800:

[...]

"Specialization of labor" means you might be an HR consultant whose niche is outplacement for lawyers who are looking for a lifestyle change.

A friend of mine does that. No joke. She does a good business.

[...]

An excellent, enlightening, and entertaining read.

Cheers,
Scott.

The total cost of the Louisiana Purchase was $15M in 1803 or $217 in inflated dollars. http://en.wikipedia....ouisiana_Purchase $11M was a lot, but not that much.

There are different ways of making comparisons to now:

$/(total US population)
$/(population of original 13 states)
etc.

It's not clear that the comparison is really meaningful.

As you point out, we're spending more now, and more per person now. I think his main point was that society as a whole is doing a whole lot more than Madison and Hamilton would have thought possible. The raw numbers and a simple comparison to 1800 doesn't mean that "government is too big".

I agree with (what I understand to be) your thesis.

I have learned to keep in mind the 4 words coming after "provide for the common defense" in the Declaration of Independence, and the single word that comes after the (late addition of) "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance when those on the right cite the quoted phrases in their bombast about the way government "should be". Live by the "provide the common defense", then live by the "promote the general welfare". From the beginning of our national government, there has been a strong plank that it shouldn't be passive when it comes to advancing society as a whole. Unity matters. The general welfare matters, and what those terms mean evolve over time. Our system is not just one that lets people make money any way they can.

FWIW.

Cheers,
Scott.

http://avalon.law.ya...century/fed41.asp

[...]

I will address one additional reflection only to those who contend that the power ought to have been restrained to external taxation by which they mean, taxes on articles imported from other countries. It cannot be doubted that this will always be a valuable source of revenue; that for a considerable time it must be a principal source; that at this moment it is an essential one. But we may form very mistaken ideas on this subject, if we do not call to mind in our calculations, that the extent of revenue drawn from foreign commerce must vary with the variations, both in the extent and the kind of imports; and that these variations do not correspond with the progress of population, which must be the general measure of the public wants. As long as agriculture continues the sole field of labor, the importation of manufactures must increase as the consumers multiply. As soon as domestic manufactures are begun by the hands not called for by agriculture, the imported manufactures will decrease as the numbers of people increase.

In a more remote stage, the imports may consist in a considerable part of raw materials, which will be wrought into articles for exportation, and will, therefore, require rather the encouragement of bounties, than to be loaded with discouraging duties. A system of government, meant for duration, ought to contemplate these revolutions, and be able to accommodate itself to them. Some, who have not denied the necessity of the power of taxation, have grounded a very fierce attack against the Constitution, on the language in which it is defined. It has been urged and echoed, that the power "to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts, and excises, to pay the debts, and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States,'' amounts to an unlimited commission to exercise every power which may be alleged to be necessary for the common defense or general welfare. No stronger proof could be given of the distress under which these writers labor for objections, than their stooping to such a misconstruction. Had no other enumeration or definition of the powers of the Congress been found in the Constitution, than the general expressions just cited, the authors of the objection might have had some color for it; though it would have been difficult to find a reason for so awkward a form of describing an authority to legislate in all possible cases. A power to destroy the freedom of the press, the trial by jury, or even to regulate the course of descents, or the forms of conveyances, must be very singularly expressed by the terms "to raise money for the general welfare.

''But what color can the objection have, when a specification of the objects alluded to by these general terms immediately follows, and is not even separated by a longer pause than a semicolon? If the different parts of the same instrument ought to be so expounded, as to give meaning to every part which will bear it, shall one part of the same sentence be excluded altogether from a share in the meaning; and shall the more doubtful and indefinite terms be retained in their full extent, and the clear and precise expressions be denied any signification whatsoever? For what purpose could the enumeration of particular powers be inserted, if these and all others were meant to be included in the preceding general power? Nothing is more natural nor common than first to use a general phrase, and then to explain and qualify it by a recital of particulars.

But the idea of an enumeration of particulars which neither explain nor qualify the general meaning, and can have no other effect than to confound and mislead, is an absurdity, which, as we are reduced to the dilemma of charging either on the authors of the objection or on the authors of the Constitution, we must take the liberty of supposing, had not its origin with the latter. The objection here is the more extraordinary, as it appears that the language used by the convention is a copy from the articles of Confederation. The objects of the Union among the States, as described in article third, are "their common defense, security of their liberties, and mutual and general welfare. '' The terms of article eighth are still more identical: "All charges of war and all other expenses that shall be incurred for the common defense or general welfare, and allowed by the United States in Congress, shall be defrayed out of a common treasury,'' etc. A similar language again occurs in article ninth. Construe either of these articles by the rules which would justify the construction put on the new Constitution, and they vest in the existing Congress a power to legislate in all cases whatsoever.

But what would have been thought of that assembly, if, attaching themselves to these general expressions, and disregarding the specifications which ascertain and limit their import, they had exercised an unlimited power of providing for the common defense and general welfare? I appeal to the objectors themselves, whether they would in that case have employed the same reasoning in justification of Congress as they now make use of against the convention. How difficult it is for error to escape its own condemnation!

Emphasis added.

IOW, the power of the federal government is broad, flexible, and vague, with some restrictions. It's written with that flexibility for a reason.

FWIW.

Cheers,
Scott.