It has finally happened. Conservatives have seen the light.After decades of abusing executive power and running train all over the U.S. Constitution, a republican leaders claim they’ve rediscovered their conservative values and now want to fight for a constitutionally limited government.The timing of this ideological flip-flop is pretty suspicious — especially following the recent passage of President Obama’s heavily-scrutinized health care overhaul.But even if conservatives’ new-found respect for limited government is genuine, there’s still a fundamental flaw with their argument: No government has ever actually remained small or willingly ceded their power. Even “conservatives” such as Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush drastically increased government power despite campaigning on “free market, limited government” rhetoric.To be fair, these conservative icons aren’t entirely at fault. Slicing out pork and slashing entitlement spending might make sense economically, but from a politician’s standpoint, it’s career suicide.For instance, today’s most widely popular federal programs — Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security — are also some of the largest “nanny state” programs in history.Conservatives might not fully endorse the rationale behind “big government,” but I highly doubt they would willingly vote to reduce their portion of the “nanny-state” pie — even though it’s clear these programs are effectively bankrupt.
In any case, there’s a simple lesson here: It’s easy to grow government, but it’s virtually impossible to contract it because so many people “benefit” from existing government programs.In this sense, getting people addicted to big government is as easy as getting a baby addicted to crack cocaine — once citizens get a tiny taste of federal “aid,” they might as well be labeled lifelong junkies.Because governments are inherently programmed to metastasize, conservatives might want to consider refocusing their efforts toward more realistic goals. Instead of futilely trying to restrain government growth, political activists should promote meaningful reforms that are actually consistent with what governments really do best: limiting the input of their citizens and catering to special interest.As a voluntarist, I’d love to see the government grant citizens a voluntary and unconditional opt-out clause. But assuming that doesn’t fly, here are a few ideas I think would enhance our government’s efficiency:1. Strip away voting rights from anyone who doesn’t pay income tax. This specifically includes citizens living off of existing entitlements, like Social Security and welfare. On the plus side, this reform would extend suffrage to workers of all ages. Why should our nation discriminate against hard working 14-year-olds?2. Banning all public officials and state employees from taking part in elections. This is another prime example of perverse incentives. Public employees shouldn’t be able to directly vote for pay raises or government expansions. As public servants, their compensation should be based on good performance and determined by the government’s primary customers — the taxpayers. 3. Making citizens who support bad policies pay “punishment taxes.” Rather than diversifying risks and offsetting costs to the general public, citizens who actively support federal programs that lose money should have to personally cover the losses. This unlimited liability would drastically reduce the amount of uninformed voters and pork-barrel projects.4. “See-saw” tax rates. For instance: If the lower tax brackets decide they want to “spread the wealth” by voting to raise tax rates for higher brackets, and then subsequent data reveals that for this reason overall real incomes actually declined, tax rates will automatically switch. In practice, this means the poor would pay the higher rate the next year while the rich would get a sizable tax cut. After all, turnabout is fair play.5. Unlimited liability for culpable voters/taxpayers. When businesses run out of money, they go bankrupt. When governments run out of money, they pillage current and future generations via inflation, taxation and debt … and then go bankrupt. This reform forces the captains of calamity down with the ship rather than forcing every taxpayer to bail out the bozos.If none of these ideas tickle your fancy, that’s fine. Maybe you’d prefer a benign dictator who’s wise, winsome and intelligent.If so, my name is Scott Burns, and I gladly accept your nomination.Scott Burns is a 20-year-old economics junior from Baton Rouge. Follow him on Twitter @TDR_sburns.—————Contact Scott Burns at [email protected]