Is Government Too Big?

 A Common-Sense Look at the Scale of Modern Government

Some argue that government is too small, pointing to healthcare, infrastructure, defense, and social programs. Others argue that government has become too large, citing waste, bureaucracy, and an increasing disconnect from the realities faced by ordinary citizens.

But is there a practical way to evaluate the issue?

A simple common-sense way?

In 2000, the U.S. economy generated approximately $10 trillion of economic output (GDP). By 2025, that figure had grown to roughly $30 trillion—an increase of about three times.

During that same period, federal spending grew from approximately $1.8 trillion to more than $7 trillion—nearly four times larger.

Even more striking, federal debt grew from approximately $5.7 trillion to roughly $35 trillion—more than six times larger.

GDP tripled. Federal spending quadrupled. Federal debt sextupled.

Today, 25 cents of every economic dollar produced in America flows through the federal government—well above pre-pandemic levels.

More important, government spending has grown faster than the economy supporting it, while federal debt has grown even faster than government spending itself. Excluding the Federal Reserve, itself a government-created institution, the federal government has become the largest enterprise in the world—a $7 trillion mega entity.

Of course, government performs essential functions. But the question is whether the current scale of government reflects necessity coupled with sound fiscal management—or is it built upon bureaucratic expansion, institutional self-preservation, waste, and mismanagement.

Spending has grown faster than economic output. Debt has grown even faster than spending.

No individual, family, business, or organization can indefinitely spend faster than income while accumulating ever-growing debt. Common sense suggests government cannot either

Two Common Sense Reforms

If government has become too large, what can be done about it? The best place to start is with the people responsible for spending and the rules regarding spending – term limits and balanced budgeting.

First, implement term limits along with reasonable age restrictions. Public service should be an honor—not a lifelong profession. The Founders never envisioned generations of politicians spending thirty or forty years inside institutions increasingly disconnected from private enterprise and ordinary citizens. Long political careers create predictable incentives. Reelection becomes the priority. Difficult reforms are postponed. Institutional preservation gradually replaces institutional reform.

Age matters as well. Most Americans retire from demanding professional careers sometime in their sixties or seventies. Yet Washington routinely relies on elected officials serving well into their eighties. The issue is perspective. How can an eighty-year-old senator realistically represent the daily realities of a twenty-five-year-old software engineer, entrepreneur, or young family struggling to buy a first home?

In private industry, leadership eventually turns over. New generations bring new ideas, new technologies, and new ways of thinking. Government should be no different.

Second, implement a Balanced Budget Amendment phased in over ten years. Governments should retain the ability to borrow during wars, recessions, and emergencies. But structural deficits have become normalized, with politicians routinely approving massive spending while postponing the consequences to future generations.

A balanced budget is not a radical concept. It is one of the most widely accepted principles of responsible financial management. Families understand it. Businesses understand it. Most state and local governments already live with some form of it. Spending should generally be limited to what can reasonably be paid for.

Exceptions will always exist. But even then, borrowing should come with a realistic plan for repayment. The current practice of financing today's promises with tomorrow's debt is neither responsible nor sustainable.

A Balanced Budget Amendment would also make difficult political decisions easier. Rather than endlessly debating who is to blame for spending reductions, policymakers can point to a constitutional requirement that spending and revenues must ultimately align. In that sense, a Balanced Budget Amendment becomes more than a fiscal tool—it becomes a framework for achieving consensus. Difficult decisions still have to be made, but elected officials no longer bear sole responsibility for saying "no." The Constitution does it for them.

With these two reforms in place, we can begin restoring responsibility and accountability while helping ensure the long-term viability of our country.