We have just witnessed one of the fiercest battles for the President of the United States in history. It was a two-year clash of ideas and worldviews. The partisanship and rancor reminds one of the contentions over the judgment seat seen in Helaman chapter one. The incoming administration has made many promises to the citizens of the country. These include promises of universal health care and pre-school, $4,000 in free college tuition, an increased minimum wage, environmental regulations and guaranteed pensions, to mention a few. Congress is enacting emergency aid to ailing businesses in the billions. Despite their good intentions, these programs will inevitably result in an increase of the size and scope of the federal government. But is more government the answer to our current social problems? We can find guidance by looking to the Constitution and the original intent of our Founding Fathers. In the Federalist Papers No. 14, James Madison states, “The [federal] government is not to be charged with the whole power of making and administering laws: its jurisdiction is limited to certain enumerated objects . . .” The 10 th amendment of the United States Constitution reflects Madison’s sentiment – “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.” Due to considerations of efficiency and liberty, only those Federal actions authorized by the Constitution are valid. All residual power belongs to the people and the states. Unfortunately, Madison’s tenet and the 10 th Amendment have long been forgotten. There has been a shift in power from the states and people to the Federal Government for almost a century, which has helped to erode the principles of limited government. Power, influence and money have become increasingly centralized. This change rests on the assumption that the federal government is more effective than state and local governments or civic and religious initiatives. What are the reasons for such a shift away from the Founder’s intentions? The Trend Toward Big GovernmentPrior to the 19th century, the U.S. was marked by a distinctive reverence for the Constitution. It was generally, and rightfully, held to be the foundation upon which American liberty and equality stood. Though there were arguments over Constitutional interpretation, it was accepted as an enduring document resistant to change. This can be seen by the simple fact that it is written, unlike England’s unwritten constitution, and by the arduous process that requires Constitutional amendments to be ratified by two-thirds of the states. The notion that the Constitution was sufficient for the ages changed under President Woodrow Wilson. Wilson was heavily influenced by the scientific theory of Darwinian evolution and the German philosopher, G.W.F. Hegel. In an article published in 1887, Wilson states, ” The philosophy of any time is nothing but the spirit of that time expressed in abstract thought; and political philosophy, like philosophy of every other kind, has only held up the mirror to contemporary affairs.” 1For Wilson, reason and philosophy do not have access to truth, but are merely expressions of the opinions of the times in which they are practiced. Wilson believed that human nature and historical epochs evolve in an evolutionary sense, and accordingly, that government and the Constitution needs to evolve to fit such trends. As Wilson says, “The government of the United States has had a vital, and normal organic growth and has proved itself eminently adapted to express the changing temper and purposes of the American people from age to age.” Thus, the notion of a living Constitution was born. Franklin D. Roosevelt actualized Wilson’s evolutionary Constitution by arguing that true “individual freedom cannot exist without economic security”. He stated that this security must be obtained through additional rights. FDR’s New Deal served as the vehicle to transform these additional rights into entitlements – namely, a “second Bill of Rights” To quote FDR, “[The original Bill of Rights have] proved inadequate to assure us equality in the pursuit of happiness.
Thus, in the spirit of a second Bill of Rights, FDR instituted social welfare programs, new controls over banks and public utilities, and an enormous work relief program for the unemployed, among other things. “[M]ost ordinary Americans thanked God that [the Federal government] was securing their bank deposits, helping labor unions boost their wages, giving them a pension when they retired and pumping money into the economy to make sure it never fell into depression again. They didn’t feel unfree; they felt secure.” (Peter Beinheirt, Time.com, Nov, 19, 2008) Lyndon Johnson’s Great Society and Richard Nixon’s administration extended the bourgeoning government influence under the pretense that freedom from want requires an extensive welfare state. Johnson initiated numerous federal programs such as Medicare and Medicaid, Head Start and more. Nixon expanded these even further, and in fact, b oth federal spending and federal regulation grew faster under Nixon than they had under Johnson. Social spending surpassed defense spending for the first time. In light of such federal activism, Charles Kesler, of the Claremont Institute, aptly summarizes, “Nowadays, the purpose of government is not so much to secure our natural rights as to provide us new rights, to bestow on us social and economic and other kinds of entitlements – the list goes on and on, and it’s still being added to.” 3 Think of abortion rights, gay rights, the right to affordable day care, the right to privacy and the list goes on. Why More Government? All of these new “rights” are initiated on the federal level and require that more and more power gravitate towards the federal government. One must ask the fundamental question: why has this desire for centralization persisted? Nobody really wants a big government. The ineffectiveness of the DMV, the Post Office and the IRS are fodder for comedians. Judging by Congress’s single digit approval ratings, no one really even likes what politicians are doing. The real answer to this, I believe, is that people want security and politicians want power. If politicians can promise their electorate security, they will stay in power. It’s that simple. This security is largely comprised of aid delivered through federal programs. And where does the government get the resources to distribute this aid? Taxes. The current tax structure is progressive in nature. The more you earn, the more you pay taxes on a percentage basis. It is a redistribution of funds. Some argue that this is necessary given the communal nature of our society – what is often called the social compact. Those well off must help those in need. This is true by most accounts and certainly well intentioned. It is certainly the case for the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. But the problem arises when the federal government serves as the arbitrator. It is one thing for religion and civil society to facilitate welfare and people to voluntarily be involved, but when the government gets involved, funds are redistributed through compulsion. As George Washington said, “Government is not reason; it is not eloquent; it is force. Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master.” This entire notion of government charity assumes that the best way to assist others is to establish massive federal programs that funnel taxes from individuals through bureaucrats. Charity, then, is portrayed as involuntary and impersonal government assistance replaces it. Legalized Plunder As the French statesman Frederic Bastiat put it this way, “When a portion of wealth is transferred from the person who owns it – without his consent and without compensation, and whether by force or by fraud – to anyone who does not own it, then I say that property is violated; that an act of plunder is committed… (The Law, p. 22) Redistribution of funds creates a situation where the government is “legally” robbing Peter to pay Paul. Contemplate what this means if you are Paul. You are incentivized to vote for the politician that promises you aid and security, as was the case with FDR’s New Deal, and the average politician is happy to give you that security if it will win your vote. Bastiat comments, “.the person who receives the benefits is not responsible for the act of plundering. The responsibility for this legal plunder rests with the law, the legislator, and society itself.” (The Law, p. 23) No wonder federal programs are so popular with their recipients. This cycle only increases in size and scope. Those in need will demand more and more; meanwhile, the government must tax more and more. European and Scandinavian countries, for example, have income tax rates as high as 40-60% to fund their innumerable social welfare programs. At one time, under the Roosevelt administration, the highest tax rate in the United States was 79%! (This is in addition to sales, property, gas, corporate and state taxes.) At the same time, many at the bottom of the ladder pay no taxes at all. William Beach, an economist from The Heritage Foundation, has said that federal programs “will probably grow as more and more Americans pay no taxes for the government services they receive.” In 2007 nearly 39 million Americans paid no income taxes and millions more paid next to nothing. That’s 28 percent of all taxpayers. “Some will wonder how likely it is that Congress can restrain the growth of dependency-creating programs when more and more Americans pay nothing to receive aid.” 4 Even worse, Daniel Henninger, of the Wall Street Journal has noted, that the incoming Presidential Administration’s plan would “place some 48% of Americans … out of the income tax system.” This is exactly the opposite of taxation without representation. This is representation without taxation! The Difficulty of Slowing the Growth of Government As federal programs grow and multiply, we find that they are almost impossible to discontinue. Groups are more vocal and passionate about benefit reductions than the population is concerning the implementation of a new entitlement plan. This makes it difficult to decrease the size and scope of government. Even the Reagan administration, vehemently opposed to big government, failed to significantly curb non-defense spending. Bill Clinton’s 1996 State of the Union declaration that “the era of Big Government is over” rang as false as his denial of sexual relations with Miss Lewinsky. Peter Robinson, a former Reagan speechwriter, points out that “the current Republican president and Republicans in Congress.enacted a prescription drug benefit that represents the biggest expansion of the welfare state since the Great Society. They also indulged in a massive increase in discretionary domestic spending and passed the biggest farm bill in history, a massive transfer of resources to the 2% of the population still engaged in agriculture.” 5 Current projections show that if nothing is done about our current entitlement programs, the “combination of the ‘big three’ entitlements – Medicare and Social Security and Medicaid – will double from the current 8 percent of GDP to . to nearly 20 percent of GDP . in 2050. The unfunded future obligations of the federal government are now the equivalent of a mortgage of over $50 trillion. This translates into a financial burden of $170,000 for each American. Without reform of entitlements, balancing the budget would mean driving up taxes to European levels within a generation at the risk of European economic stagnation.” 6 This means little to no economic growth and unemployment levels that hover between 10-12%! The Problems of Big Government People must be unfettered to help their fellow man – not forced. It is freedom that allows for virtue. Thinkers such as John Locke and Charles Montesquieu, who heavily influenced the Founders’ philosophy, proposed a regime in which virtue is effectively removed from the government’s purview. This is because virtue can be most effectively fostered through limited government and a free society. The U.S. Constitution clearly makes provisions for the Lockean model of limited government and individual liberty by means of its explicit enumeration of federal powers and separation of powers. Any proposition that infringes on the constitutional restraint on intrusive government necessarily infringes upon freedom.
Thus, a large and intrusive government that promises security and equality of means for all undermines the very conditions necessary for the cultivation of virtue. As Benjamin Franklin said, “Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both.” Or as Peter Robinson states, “The land of the free and the home of the brave could soon be transformed into the land of the dependent and the home of the infantilized.” 8 In stark terms, we face a continuation of the War in Heaven. As Ezra Taft Benson has said, “In the war in heaven the devil advocated… security at the sacrifice of our freedom.” (GC, October 1961) Remember that Satan promised that all would be saved – all would have security and there would be no risks. The Father’s plan, however, allowed for freedom, for that is the only way to really obtain virtue. This country’s greatness was, and is, founded on freedom, and its democracy can only survive with a hard working and virtuous people that help those who help themselves. Most politicians, I believe, have the best intentions when they create government programs. FDR wanted the country to get out of the Great Depression and Lyndon Johnson wanted to eliminate poverty. But as history has shown, we must be careful of the centralization of power. “What has destroyed liberty and the rights of man in every government? Thomas Jefferson asks. “The generalizing and concentrating all cares and powers into one body.” President Gerald Ford summed up the problem of an overreaching government well when he said, “.a government big enough to give you everything you want is a government big enough to take [away] everything you have.” 9 Notes 1 Wilson – The Study of Administration , July 1887, An Essay, from https://teachingamericanhistory.org/library/index.asp?document=465 2 President Roosevelt’s January 11, 1944 State of the Union address. 3 Spalding (2001) p.56 4www.heritage.org/Research/Budget/cda08-08.cfm 5www.forbes.com/2008/11/13/friedman-liberty-republicans-oped-cx_pr_1114robinson.html 6www.heritage.org/research/Budget/FWUT.cfm 7 Mansfield, Harvey C. and Delba Winthrop (1999). “Liberalism and Big Government: Tocqueville’s Analysis,” Tyranny and Liberty. Institute of united States Studies: University of London. P.4 8www.forbes.com/2008/11/13/friedman-liberty-republicans-oped-cx_pr_1114robinson.html No Comments | Post or read comments FEATURES |
May 3, 2026
May 3, 2026
