The Human Nature of Government

We have all experienced the pleasure of receiving a windfall in terms of money in our pockets. It may have been that quarter that your dad (or, perhaps, the Tooth Fairy) gave you when you were a kid. Who cannot recall the thrill of running down to the local Woolworth’s with that shiny quarter looking for a way to spend it? Later in life, perhaps you received a nice Christmas bonus. But, boy, doesn’t it feel good to have an extra infusion of cash, no matter how much or what the circumstances? Just a couple of years ago, the federal government gave most of us (even those that pay no income taxes) a nice little stimulus check.

---

With that extra shot of cash, who hasn’t felt like the proverbial kid in a candy store? “How am I going to spend it?” you asked yourself. Maybe you went out and bought that flat-screen television that you had been wanting. Or, if the amount of the windfall was sufficient, perhaps even a new car. A very small percentage of people may have actually used the money to pay down existing debt and even  fewer still put it away for the proverbial rainy day. We have been inundated these past few weeks with news stories pertaining to the national debt and the proposals to increase the debt ceiling – or not. Conservatives have steadfastly maintained that our nation simply cannot afford to take on any additional debt and most of them have been fighting any proposed increases to the debt limit. Most of the Republicans that have acquiesced to the debt limit increase proposals have tied their approval to corresponding spending cuts. Liberals, on the other hand, have espoused a carte blanche raising of the borrowing limit to allow government spending programs to continue more or less unabated. But the problem with government and its inherent attitudes toward spending is this: Government, being of the people, is susceptible to the foibles of human nature. Providing government with an infusion of cash – or borrowing latitude – is like giving the seven-year-old child the shiny new quarter. Just like the child, government wants to go out and SPEND it right away. Anyone that has ever done business with a governmental entity knows how this works: As they approach the end of their fiscal year, agencies need to spend like crazy to make certain that they spend their entire allotment of funds. If they do not, they receive less the following year. Perhaps you came back from Woolworth's with a few pennies left over from that quarter to drop into your piggy bank. But government spends the whole darned twenty-five cents. Heaven forbid that they should place a single CENT in the piggy bank! So what would lead us to believe that any increase in revenue - i.e., greater taxes on "the rich" - is going to result in a decrease of the deficit? Government is like the majority of human beings: Instead of using the new-found cash to pay down some of the 14.5 trillion dollar debt, government will merely find new, creative programs on which to spend it and, in the process, buy votes. Here's an analogy: Take a traffic-clogged highway in any city. When the Department of Transportation widens the highway, what happens? Does the traffic congestion decrease? Of course it does not. More people decide to use the newly-widened highway, the number of vehicles increases, and the road is just as congested as it was before the widening project - if not more so. And so it is with government. Increasing revenue (or capacity to borrow) does not result in a paying down of the debt; government merely grows to accommodate the extra monies. Human nature in general has changed little, if any, over the centuries. Man is still driven by greed and the desire for instant gratification. Why should we expect government to behave any differently?