A letter

in yesterday’s New York Times says:

"Yes to no new

services, and let’s get rid of some of the old ones while we’re at it. We have

had way more than enough "services" for decades! It’s about time that

somebody finally understands!

"I hope to see those bumper stickers

in 2004. Of course, I hope that people would realize what the slogan means: a

cut in services means a cut in expenses means a cut in government intrusion into

our daily lives!

"Isn’t it about time that we rewarded ourselves with

freebdom again?

"Disclaimer: the government has likely refined its

methods of intrusion, so it could feasibly cut back and still intrude more. So

let’s cut the budget even more and not let that happen."

I

think the writer is making a mistake, even granting his own basic values. His

argument is: Quite apart from the pain of paying taxes, government spending is

bad because it buys "intrusion." The parts of the government that he

presumably finds "intrusive" are the offices involved in regulation

and law-enforcement: the FBI, OSHA, EPA, etc. He wants to starve these agencies

as a way to increase personal freedom. But they are not expensive. All of

the discretionary programs outside the Department of Defense, put together, consumed

just 19% of the Federal

Budget in 2002, and that included entirely non-"intrusive" programs

like the Weather Service and medical research. Therefore, deep cuts in federal

spending will have to come out of Social Security (23% of the budget), Medicare

(12%), Medicaid (7%), and other means-tested entitlements (6%). (I assume that

Defense, at 16%, is untouchable; and the remaining 17% is interest payments and

other madatory spending.) If anything, a cash-starved government might resort

to more regulation, because it would need/want to respond to social problems

and it would find regulatory mandates cheaper than spending programs.