As we have come to expect, President Clinton’s State of the Union address was a well-received and emotional appeal to the American people. In his address, Clinton claimed America has the smallest government in 35 years, and the typical middle-class family will now have the lowest tax rates in 20 years.

Could this be true when federal revenues as a share of the Gross Domestic Product are at an all-time high? According to the Department of Commerce, the federal government uses 20.8 percent of every dollar generated by the economy. That’s slightly higher than the 20.7 percent in 1969 when a Vietnam War surtax was in effect.

Where taxation is concerned, the number of days the average American has to work to pay taxes federal, state, and local is at an all-time high, according to the non-partisan Tax Foundation. The average American works until May 9 to pay his or her share of taxes, and government at all levels takes 35.2 percent of our income. If government is not smaller by a percentage of the GDP or tax levels, how could Clinton’s statement be true? Well, there are fewer government employees now than four years ago, but this is primarily due to military downsizing, not cuts in bureaucracies.

Advertisement

What is equally confusing is that while Clinton claimed to support a smaller, less obtrusive government, he advocated 32 separate laws, government programs, taxes, or spending initiatives, ranging from expanding the already bankrupt Medicare system, to the rather superfluous notion of government spending to build a better Internet.

Clinton has proposed free TV commercials for campaigning politicians. If TV commercials are going to be free for politicians, how will the networks make up for lost revenue? We might pay through taxes, or perhaps broadcasters will simply raise their fees for other advertisers like Wal-Mart or Reebok. So how do Wal-mart and Reebok cover higher advertising fees? By raising prices. When ever you hear a politician say something will be free, it means that everyone pays for it one way or another.

Everything Clinton advocated sounds good and wholesome something we ought to do. But take his proposed child care subsidies for example. When the government had subsidized a service industry in the past, the result has been out-of-control price increases, and concurrent tax increases to pay for them. This is why Medicare is bankrupt. A tax break for families using child care is already in effect but Clinton said this is not enough, as many Americans simply can not afford good child care.

Initially, this would seem to suggest government intervention. Consider, however, what the situation would be if Americans could keep more of their earnings, rather than be taxed for government programs that sometimes worsen the situation they purport to reconcile. The reason so many more Americans are forced to place their children in child care facilities is because, in order to maintain a decent standard of living under higher and higher taxes, both parents are forced to work.

In this, and other cases, it would seem that the more collective good we try to do through government, the more collective harm results.