How the Government Is Swallowing the Economy

November 9, 2009 RSS Feed Print
  • Comment (290)

You know about the bailouts, the stimulus plan, cash for clunkers, and moola for mansions. But for all the anxiety they've caused, those government giveaways are just a tiny part of a mushrooming problem.

By one measure, the government already plays an outsize role in our so-called free-market economy—and it has little to do with the recession. Economist Gary Shilling has calculated that 58 percent of the population is dependent on the government for "major parts of their income," including teachers, soldiers, bureaucrats, and other government employees; welfare and Social Security recipients; government pensioners; public housing beneficiaries; and people who work for government contractors. By 2018, Shilling estimates, an astounding 67 percent of Americans could be dependent on the government for their livelihood. The implications aren't comforting.

[See 4 problems that could sink America.]

Tea-party ranters might cite this as evidence of liberal policies run amok, but the growing-government phenomenon transcends party politics. In 1950, the starting point for Shilling's analysis, just 29 percent of the nation depended on government for its income. By 1980, that had risen to 61 percent—higher than it is today—thanks to demographic factors and the needs of a changing nation. The military got larger and defense spending grew as America took up its role as a superpower. Baby boomer kids required many more schoolteachers. The number of Americans receiving payouts from Social Security, enacted in 1935, increased 10-fold. Food stamps and other safety-net programs of the 1960s and '70s began to reach millions of Americans.

From 1980 to 2000, Americans became less dependent on government. California and other states cut their budgets and reduced spending. The military got smaller after the Cold War ended. Welfare reform in the 1990s kicked many people off the dole. And the private sector boomed during those two decades, accounting for a larger share of the labor force. By 2000, the portion of the population dependent on government had drifted down to 54 percent.

But it reversed course after that, and it seems poised to keep going up. The size of government has generally held steady since 2000, but globalization, technology, and other factors have led to weak private-sector job creation over the past decade. And that was before the recession destroyed more than 8 million jobs. So the government has employed an increased share of Americans. The other big change since 2000 has been a near tripling of food-stamp recipients, as low earners got left out of the housing and stock-market booms and then suffered worse during the recession.

[See 9 signs of America in decline.]

The next big shift will come as baby boomers begin to retire, boosting the number of Social Security recipients 27 percent by 2018 and threatening the solvency of the program. Shilling has another dire prediction: Economic growth will be so weak for the next several years that without government support, the unemployment rate will rise to 23 percent in 2018. Since that's politically intolerable, government will continue to spend money to create jobs, he predicts, with nearly 25 million additional Americans employed as a direct outcome of government spending by 2018.

If that happens, more than two thirds of the nation will owe their livelihood to the government, which is unsustainable for a number of reasons. It will require federal deficits far larger than the $1.4 trillion bogy we've got now, which is already alarmingly high. If irate voters don't rein in America's debt binge, market forces will, perhaps because foreigners will stop lending us the money or the rates they demand will rise and effectively bankrupt the country. Higher taxes would help solve the problem—and are probably inevitable—but enacting them on rich people alone won't be enough. At some point not too far off, the U.S. government will have to close the vast gap between its income and its spending, and the pain will be widespread.

[See why stocks are surging as jobs disappear.]

Some economists are more optimistic than Shilling, with stronger projections for economic growth that might eliminate the government's need to create 25 million new jobs. But rosier scenarios are taking their time to materialize. The unemployment rate has soared to 10.2 percent, a 26-year high, with no indication that companies will start hiring again anytime soon. So instead of restraint by government, Congress and President Obama have extended housing subsidies and unemployment insurance, cut taxes on struggling companies, and even made plans to send a $250 check to every senior citizen, just as a nice gesture. Americans who can get in on this bonanza should get theirs while they can. Sooner or later, the door is going to slam shut.

Tags:
government,
economy

Reader Comments Read all comments (290)

Add Your Thoughts
Your comment will be posted immediately, unless it is spam or contains profanity. For more information, please see our Comments FAQ.

Less than 10% of Americans workers work for the government. We've sent 300,000 teachers lose their job because of lack of revenue (taxes). Just when I thought I'd buy Newman's argument, I'm going to vote for Hope and Change again.

Give me back my Republican Party -- the one that cares about people.

Charlie B. of OH 5:52PM September 01, 2012

There is no real negative with the SCOTUS' decision regarding corporate political donations, UNLESS one accepts the premise that only certain organizations should be allowed to make contributions. Heck, the unions have been doing that for years! If one type of organization can do it, why not others? Unions have a vested interest in who gets elected. So do corporations. Elected lawmakers pass laws that can ensure "takers" (those who receive from the government) get preferential treatment over the "creators" (those who create jobs). When those laws impinge upon our constitutional rights, the real danger begins. Government over-reach is the cause of today's malaise, not Wall Street. Some of us would like to expand and hire more but aren't doing so because the DC Crowd won't tell us what to expect from them. How much will my taxes increase over the next five years? They will. The DC Crowd knows they will, but won't tell the American public the truth. How much more will new Constitutionally-questionable actions, like this new health care law, increase my expenses? What new questionably "useful" regulations (CFL vs. incandescent bulbs) will the DC Crowd impose that will increase my costs? The more government interferes with true capitalism, the less effective capitalism is in policing itself. Just take a look at our housing and health care woes. Government has interfered with both industries to a great degree and neither of them has worked out very well at all. The housing debacle would likely have been avoided had the government kept its hands out of it; and, health care in the U.S. has never operated in a free-market atmosphere. As much as I would like to I, for one, won't be hiring anytime soon simply because the federal government has forgotten that it is supposed to be a FEDERAL government, not a NATIONAL one.

David of MN 7:08AM October 02, 2010

You mention the lost decade in Japan and you have no idea what caused it! The same Big Government intervention that is now being dumped on America is what led to their problems. YOU and those like you are the problem! You are ignorant!!!

ANITfollowthemoney of LA 11:58AM August 11, 2010

Rick Newman

Rick Newman

The global economy is mysterious, even scary. Chief Business Correspondent Rick Newman connects the dots. In addition to his writing for U.S. News, Rick is the co-author of two books: Firefight: Inside the Battle to Save the Pentagon on 9/11, and Bury Us Upside Down: The Misty Pilots and the Secret Battle for the Ho Chi Minh Trail.


Read Rick's latest blog entries here.

advertisement

advertisement