Charlie Kirk said, “Big government sucks.” he was right.

Op-ed views and opinions expressed are solely those of the author.

I’ve always believed that the United States transitioned from its founding to the world’s largest and most prosperous economy in about 150 years due to four fundamental principles: low taxation, individual freedom, individual responsibility, and a limited role for government. Unfortunately, we’ve veered far from these principles, and the consequences are indeed disheartening.

All four of those principles are controlled by the government, and particularly the size of government. Today, our government is much too large. With a large government comes a strange and unfamiliar set of values.

Since 2008, and especially in the four years leading up to the current administration, we’ve witnessed rising tax burdens, diminishing individual freedoms, and a troubling shift from personal responsibility to social responsibility. The sheer size of our government now sucks.

When government grows, tax revenue must rise, or the debt burden on taxpayers skyrockets. Both are in disarray today. Federal debt has topped $37 trillion, with tax revenue exceeding $5 trillion annually from approximately 130 million households.

This nexus of big government leads directly to excessive spending, soaring taxes, and enormous budget deficits. Simply put, this situation clearly sucks.

Moreover, a large government often encroaches on individual freedom and reduces individual responsibility. It results in a significant transfer of wealth from those who earn income to those who, for various reasons, do not earn income.

Consider the decision was made 15 years ago to ensure healthcare for every American, regardless of the ability to pay the bill. This ambition necessitated sweeping changes and the establishment of new government agencies to manage the funding—an initiative that has proven costly and, in many instances, inefficient.

At that time, about 89% of all households had health insurance. While costs were rising, most were generally satisfied with their coverage. Following the implementation of the new system, the percentage of insured households increased to 92%.

Yet today, that same 92% express dissatisfaction due to skyrocketing costs. It’s evident that big government didn’t resolve the issue; rather, it worsened it—especially when more cost-effective alternatives could have served the needs of that small percentage of uninsured Americans that the new system helped.

As government programs proliferate, individuals become increasingly reliant on government support, gradually transferring their personal responsibilities away from themselves. This erosion of personal responsibility ultimately harms everyone involved.

Perhaps the most detrimental impact of big government is its effect on individual freedom. As the government funds various services, citizens must comply with the rules and regulations imposed, even if they would prefer to act differently. This stifles their freedom.

Furthermore, big government often assumes it knows what’s best for Americans, restricting access to services or products that consumers desire and the market demands. That constriction of choice is another limitation on freedom, and it truly sucks.

I believe most of us would concur with Charlie Kirk: big government really does suck. However, the challenge lies in the difficulty of shrinking it.

Reducing government necessitates the elimination of certain programs, thereby reducing both spending and the overall size of government. The issue, however, is that while the majority of people support cuts, nearly every program has its advocates—politicians with enough influence to thwart meaningful reductions.

Take, for example, the discovery by Elon Musk’s group that among the 70 million Americans on Medicaid, about 10 million should not be receiving it, either due to illegal collection practices or because they are able-bodied and could work. In an environment where a President and the entire Congress favor smaller government, reducing funding for those 10 million remains a challenge. Instead of cutting funding, recent negotiations have led to smaller anticipated increases that are misleadingly marketed as cuts.

I always believed that the government should provide certain public goods, like defense of the country, a legal system, and leadership, etc. Regarding the income transfer part and the amount of social responsibility, I believe this:

The federal government should ensure that all Americans have at least a minimum standard of living.  Then they should also ensure that every able-bodied American who takes on the responsibility of being prepared has the opportunity to pursue their self-interest.

That requires a smaller government, mostly because big government sucks.  Or as Thomas Jefferson noted, “The government that governs best, is the one that governs least.”

Dr. Michael Busler, Ph.D. is a public policy analyst and a Professor of Finance at Stockton University where he teaches undergraduate and graduate courses in Finance and Economics.

Latest posts by Michael Busler (see all)

We have no tolerance for comments containing violence, racism, profanity, vulgarity, doxing, or discourteous behavior. Thank you for partnering with us to maintain fruitful conversation.