The Tyranny of the Flywheel
April 22, 2010 7 Comments
Gaining and keeping power in a democracy is simple: Get more votes than your opponents. If you do this consistently, you can build permanent bureaucracies to institutionalize your agenda, drive money to special interests, and ultimately enhance your power. It’s the flywheel of government growth: Pander to get votes; win elections; use your majority power to build institutions and pass legislation that drive money to special interests and key voting blocs; those groups support you in your next election; the support helps you win. Repeat.
Now imagine that the critical first step in the flywheel (pandering to voters) can be accomplished through a narrow political strategy: Spending. Recent data released from the Tax Foundation notes that a full 60% of Americans consume more government services than they pay in taxes. The Urban-Brookings Tax Policy Center showed that by 2011, 46% of Americans will pay $0 in federal income tax. This group, despite paying nothing into the system, will receive ov
er $40 billion in government services. That’s a pretty good deal.
Even better, according to the most recent data from the IRS, the top 5% of wage earners pay 60% of all income taxes (despite making only 37% of income). Under President Obama’s new tax-and-spend heavy budget, this number will increase year-by-year for the duration of his term.
So, if you were playing the political game, would you target the 5% payers, or the 60% consumers? If you could appease the vast majority of voters by giving free government handouts, would you favor small government or big government?
In a pure democracy, power is gained through votes. Votes are gained by appeasing the greatest number of voters. When the greatest number of voters are consumers of government service rather than payers, expansive liberal policy is simply smart politics. If you want to win, you had better deliver big government. That’s why billions of dollars are wasted each year in pork-filled legislation, why two-thirds of the nearly $800 billion “Stimulus” went directly to special interest groups, and why entitlement programs now consume more GDP than ever before.
In politics, it is much easier to provide handouts than encourage responsibility. It’s much easier to “solve” problems through programs than make hard
budgetary reductions. It’s much easier to hand out than to cut back. It’s much easier to give speeches wrapped in rhetoric of “compassion” and “help,” to promise that you will fix, bailout, and save, than to talk about fiscal responsibility, individual liberty, and self-reliance. It’s much easier to cast yourself as savior than as referee. If it is true that “the easiest way to get a vote is to buy a vote,” then liberalism simply makes practical political sense.
The problem, however, is that such a system creates a tyranny of the majority. The rights of 5% are trounced in favor of the political expediency of 60%. Politicians create irreversible entitlements (Social Security, Welfare, ObamaCare), build burgeoning bureaucracies, and pack the court system with activist judges. The political flywheel spins with ever-increasing fury as government grows and grows, until it eventually crumbles under its own malaise, mounting debt, and unsustainable liability. Liberty for some is pushed aside in favor of power for others.
That is why America was not founded as a pure democracy. America was founded as a Constitutionally-constrained Democratic Republic. Certain rights were to be inalienable, no matter the shifting tide of public sentiment or the growth of special interests. Personal property rights, the right to keep what you earn, to be taxed only when absolutely necessary, were to be protected by immutable Constitutional law. Our founders knew that unconstrained government always tends toward growth—men have always longed for increased power. That’s why our founders outlined limited places government could intervene and spend, and sought to isolate the major branches from one another. Sadly, we’ve drifted so far from Constitutional constraint that our country—yes, even America—is rapidly being consumed by the weight of the political flywheel.
The center-left Tax Policy Center recently ran data models to show what it would take to stabilize the deficit at 2% of GDP (the level economists recommend for long-term stability and economic growth) under President Obama’s new budget. They found that government would have to raise $775 billion in new taxes every year through the duration of his term. If he keeps his promise not to raise taxes on the middle class, the rich (those making more than $200,000 a year) will have to pay 90% of their income in taxes. But, not to worry, they only comprise 5% of the voting public.
We need leaders committed to principle over power. We need representatives who see themselves as citizens, not politicians. We need a government willing to roll back its unfettered reach, to return our nation to what it was meant to be. We may be at a tipping point for our country, and the stakes have never been higher.
-Matt Benchener is Supervisor of Newtown Township and Founder of TruPolitics.net

i just don’t feel that bad for the multi-millionaires. They’re wealthy for a reason, taxes won’t ruin what they have worked so hard for. It won’t take away their business savvy.
Jonas, this is not about “feeling bad” for the “rich.” It is about defending the unalienable rights of all American citizens. We were not, and should not be a country that picks and chooses who has more rights than others, or who the Constitution protects and who it does not. Wealth confiscation and redistribution is a very dangerous and slippery slope–one that eventually leads to a restriction of liberty. As a society, we push strongly against such things as racism, because it restricts the rights of some, or devalues some, in favor of others. Taking from some simply because they have more is no different than favoring some because of who they are.
I definitely can see Matt’s point. I don’t really know much about the tax structure … I assume its a percentage of your income? Are there brackets of income with different percentages? How much more are the rich currently paying than the “average” citizen? Matt, if you had to propose a tax structure, what would it be?
Keep in mind that many of the ‘rich’ ($200k+/year not multi-milionairres) are business owners. Business owners are directly responsible for the employment of others. When they feel the pinch it directly affects those who they employ. As a sales rep at a privately held company I want our owners to continue to gain in wealth. The more successful I have been at my job the wealthier they have become and the more people we have hired. Even during the downturn.
Dan, ideally, I’d like to see a flat income tax for all Americans. Every American who earns an income should pay taxes on that income–and it should be a flat and equal rate. That way, no one is penalized for being successful. Something like a 28% tax across the board might work. This, however, would be politically impossible because the 46% of Americans I talked about above would certainly not want to pay income taxes. I’ve also heard some good ideas about the so-called “fair tax,” where you aren’t taxed on what you earn, but on what you spend. So, no income tax, only a high national sales tax. This keeps fraud down (taxes are built into each purchase), and rewards frugal spending and wise investment. It is an interesting and fair idea, but also very difficult to implement.
The key for me in keeping taxes low is always controlling spending. It’s like any budget–the less you spend the less you need to raise revenue. Most of our financial strife, tax worries, and political disagreements could be solved by a balanced budget. One of the greatest periods of sustained economic growth was in the 1990s when we had a balanced budget under President Clinton.
I think I agree with you …. but what about the bottom rung of the working population? I know some people don’t like minimum wage, but can you actually survive with that type of income and that amount of tax (I guess that’s a matter of opinion)? I know you believe if people work hard enough they can be anything, but half the people are going to be below average. I know you often say, the right to pursue happiness not the guarantee of happiness, but if you work a full time job near minimum wage can you realistically afford food, shelter, have a family, etc.
I feel that is the thinking behind this, but I agree its not “fair”. I guess its not equal, and it depends on your opinion of fair. Maybe no income tax is the way to go and somebody at the bottom can make their money, and as long as their aren’t buying a huge tv they can not pay much taxes.
Interesting, I don’t think much about taxes because I don’t really have to deal with them yet.
Dan, interesting point. I think what you’d see if everyone was taxed at 20% (who earned an income) is an adjustment in minimum wage and lower levels of compensation. They would have to rise to make up for the increased taxes. Which wouldn’t be such a bad thing–it would place a slightly greater burden on businesses, but their individual taxes and corporate taxes (if filed as individuals which most small businesses are) would go down as well. Overall, I like the idea of a national sales tax with no income tax–you’d eliminate fraud and encourage responsible spending and saving.