A nation of takers
Writing in The Wall Street Journal on Friday, Stephen Moore argued that the United States has become a nation of takers. He explained that there are twice as many people earning a salary from government than those working in manufacturing. “It gets worse,” he wrote. “More Americans work for the government than work in construction, farming, fishing, forestry, manufacturing, mining and utilities combined. We have moved decisively from a nation of makers to a nation of takers.”
Takers of what, I ask. Money, of course. But there’s more at stake.
Moore’s article is about the struggle that states like Michigan are having due to swollen government payrolls and a drop in private sector tax-generating jobs. Moore argues that U.S. manufacturing has declined as government has taken money from the manufacturing sector and transferred it to a rapidly growing government labor force. He notes that Michigan and my state, Pennsylvania, the former auto and steel capitals of the world respectively, “have more government bureaucrats than people making things.” Pittsburgh’s 64-story U.S. Steel Building is a sign of the times—it bears the logo of a local healthcare company. Can we anticipate a day when the Steelers’ iconic helmets feature a scalpel?
Lew Uhler—who chaired Ronald Reagan’s Tax Reduction Tax Force during Reagan’s tenure as governor of California—has argued for years that the optimum size of combined federal, state, and local government spending is 20 percent of gross domestic product. Today it’s a growth-killing 33 percent, he notes in his co-authored book Red State Uprising. Note that U.S. Rep. Paul Ryan’s controversial budget proposal reduces federal spending alone to 20 percent of GDP, which is far too much by Uhler’s standard.
With all the talk about spending, we’re overlooking a far more important issue—freedom. Several years ago, Uhler made this point to me emphatically over dinner in Washington. When government grows beyond its optimum limit, he explained, it chokes our freedom by taking too much of our private property, our money, to fund programs that exceed government’s rightful boundaries while trampling American rights and values.
Stephen Moore is right, and so is Lew Uhler—we’ve become a nation of takers. Freedom takers.

















Click to Print
Include Comments











back to top50 Comments to “A nation of takers”
“…argued for years that the optimum size of combined federal, state, and local government spending is 20 percent of gross domestic product. Today it’s a growth-killing 33 percent,…”
And the idiots in congress wonder why we’re hacked off and give them such a low rating? It oughta be as obvious as a carbuncle on the end of their collective noses…
Report comment to moderator
Perhaps too many local churches have taken the easy way out by simply giving stuff to people in need rather than do the hard work of teaching people the Biblical value of responsibly caring for self and family. “Entitlements” (what an awful, deceptive word), rather than rescuing our country are a major part of the problem.
Report comment to moderator
Just remember any govt that robs Peter to pay Paul can always count on Paul to turn out in full force on election day.
Again, as I’ve always said: do a flat tax or a national sales tax. Or make everybody loddy doddy pay taxes quarterly with no withholding permitted. Or have the election the day before or day after tax due day!
Report comment to moderator
And the whole “entitlements” issue has been our undoing. If you tell folks they are entitled to this or that they and some attorney will then tell you they have a full-blown RIGHT to it. And once granted, no entitlemt can ever ever be withdrawn even if it is no longer necessary.
Report comment to moderator
Yeah, but…
Lumping all government employees together as “takers” is a bit unfair. Government employees serve us by repairing our streets, picking up our garbage, putting out fires, treating our drinking water, etc., etc. These folks are not takers. In addition many non-government “makers” contribute to the downfall of our society (make your own list). This is name-calling and does not serve to make his main point which I believe is (or at least should be) that many of these jobs should not be done by he government.
Report comment to moderator
SBGA #5, Agreed. There is however in my experience a general difference between Govt workers and private workers. There are many many exceptions in both sectors, but I sense more private sector workers working hard to serve and do an excellent job. There seems to be something about the security of government (and union) jobs that fosters poor work habits. People seldom joke about workers standing around leaning on their shovels at private/non union work sites. The difference in service received at private businesses versus the department of motor vehicles is legendary. In spite of the promises (i.e.: “the paper reduction act”) government seems to have complication and inefficiency as it’s unspoken goal.
Report comment to moderator
there are twice as many people earning a salary from government than those working in manufacturing.
We also have a dearth of people doing simple unskilled assembly. So what?
It may well be true that there are too many folks working for the government, but comparing govt. payroll to the manufacturing sector is somewhat arbitrary.
U.S. manufacturing has declined as government has taken money from the manufacturing sector and transferred it to a rapidly growing government labor force.
I’d say U.S. manufacturing has declined for other reasons altogether. To the extent taxation retards the growth of all sectors it may have played a part, but I’m not seeing how it explains the particularly steep decline of manufacturing.
Lew Uhler [...] has argued for years that the optimum size of combined federal, state, and local government spending is 20 percent of gross domestic product.
Combined spending hasn’t been at or below 20% GDP since 1941. For 2010 it’s around 40% GDP when you combine state, local and federal.
Since 1952 we haven’t dipped below 26.5% GDP.
Since 1975 we haven’t dipped below 31.5% GDP.
Here’s a chart if you want to play around with the data.
When government grows beyond its optimum limit, he explained, it chokes our freedom by taking too much of our private property, our money…
If taking money is reducing freedom, then it stands to reason giving money (or providing services that cost money) is increasing freedom for those who either receive that money or gain access to services they couldn’t otherwise afford.
Report comment to moderator
#2 – I would agree that many churches have ceased to reinforce healthy work habits by simply “handing out” assistance. But I also think churches have fed the overgrown government hounds by ceasing to be the hands and feet of Jesus to the suffering in the community as they were intended. Churches used to be the educators, healthcare givers, aid givers to the poor and outcast, etc while also providing accountability and service opportunities. “To whom much is given much is demanded…” That has now been gladly foisted upon the ever growing shoulders of the various government agencies. Which in the end, not only makes the citizens but likewise the churches, endentured servants.
Report comment to moderator
How about trickle up taxation: Everybody sends in 20% to their local government and they’re done. Any funds the local government doesn’t need will trickle up to the state. Any funds the state doesn’t need will trickle up to the Feds.
Report comment to moderator
A nation prospers when its individuals prosper.
An individual prospers by four mindsets:
1) Can-do attitude
2) Diligence
3) Continuous learning
4) Trustworthiness
You can’t give them to anyone, but they can be encouraged. Leaders should exemplify them. They apply to all, regardless of race, age, gender, etc.
Report comment to moderator
Does he make the case for TOO MUCH government or what? We have become a nation of administrators, not people who know how to actually DO anything.
Report comment to moderator
I think few firefighters choose that job to get on the gravy train, but they sure like it when they are there. They don’t start as “takers” but they become entitled. When government, which survives on taxes, spends more than the private sector that pays taxes the system will collapse. Like Sawgunner and Jerry Brown, I’m a big fan of the flat tax. Everyone pays 10%. Period. Corporations, idividuals, no write offs, 10%. Then the Government has to function with a real balanced budget (not a percieved one). This would lure some corporations who are being taxed 35% now, back from overseas.
Report comment to moderator
I think corporations should not be taxed at all. The people who own the corporations should get the profits and those profits should be taxed as income. Only money sent out of the country should pay income taxes.
A flat income tax on all people would treat everyone equally. Government needs to be put on a diet, it is not chubby, it is obese! Most jobs done by the government should be done by private firms.
When we built our house, the city Water Department dug into the street to connect to the city water main. Couldn’t this have been done by a private firm? I should have paid the private company not the Water Department. Could this have been done only by government?
I think if a thing can be done by private companies it should be, not by government.
Report comment to moderator
Continuing with the “trickle up” tax idea, imagine if a state’s surplus tax revenue were divided in half, then one half divided equally among the congressmen and the other half split between the senators. That would be their “allowance” to spend on Federal issues, each as he sees fit, with full accounting back to his constituents.
Report comment to moderator
In the abstract, a flat tax seems like a good idea; however, I would like one (or more) of you who advocate such a tax to explain exactly how we could get there from where we are now!!
I submit that it would be exceedingly complicated to accomplish such a drastic change. I’m assuming that your process would involve something less that absolute chaos.
Report comment to moderator
It’s worth noting that the most famous “flat tax” plan (Hall-Rabushka) involves a large standard deduction. The last I saw was $25,000 for a family of four. So, many people would still pay no tax. (Which, IMO, is just and right.) Income above the standard deduction would be taxed at 19%. Same for corporate income. They give suggested legislation here.
One negative (IMO) about Hall-Rabushka is that it doesn’t replace the payroll tax.
Report comment to moderator
It is true that we’ve become a nation of takers. Blaming the government is simplistic scapegoating, however.
Many manufacturing jobs have left America because corporations have found it cheaper to outsource. That’s not the fault of government spending.
America has 5 percent of the world’s population and uses 20 percent of the world’s oil. If we used as much oil per capita as they do in much of Europe, we’d be exporting oil, not importing it. That’s not the fault of government spending.
Unnecessary government spending is part of the picture, but only a part. The right-wing’s obsession with finding a scapegoat to blame rather than doing any introspection into the way Americans live is not helping — and to the extent that it leads to scorn for government overall (rather than a realistic approach to reform), it’s counterproductive.
Report comment to moderator
good point, conan, ultimately it’s a fault of the individuals that leads to shifting too much power to government
but
once started the process runs in a vicious cycle so it’s probably still worth trying to cut it at the level of DC?
Report comment to moderator
You are correct Conan, and so is Reader. There are far too many individuals who irresponsibly believe that “others” is the answer; and too many politicians willing to pretend to organize them.
Report comment to moderator
Many manufacturing jobs have left America because corporations have found it cheaper to outsource. That’s not the fault of government spending.
I’d say that’s the fault of three things:
1. Minimum wage,
2. Collective bargaining (which has been successful at increasing compensation domestically, but doesn’t exist in many places),
3. A lack of government spending on services that reduce the cost-of-living for low-income workers (thereby enabling employers to reduce compensation),
4. The simple fact that, by virtue of having so much wealth, the U.S. has a high cost of living compared to, say, China. This necessitates higher levels of compensation which create an impetus to outsource.
America has 5 percent of the world’s population and uses 20 percent of the world’s oil.
The U.S. also accounts for 30% of the world’s GDP. Economic output requires energy use. You might consider looking at “energy intensity”, which is GDP divided by total energy usage. One problem with that metric, though, is that it favors economic activities that are very “energy efficient” and certain countries’ economies are more skewed towards these activities. It also punishes countries with climates that necessitate excessive heating/cooling (e.g. Canada).
Here you can see that the U.S. has actually gotten more efficient over time. This table is using 2003 values, but it shows that Hong Kong, Ireland, Switzerland, Italy, Denmark, Austria, the United Kingdom, Japan, Germany, France, Norway, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Australia, Singapore and Sweden are more efficient than the U.S., while China, South Korea, Finland, Canada and Russia are less.
On the other hand, the DoE’s stats for 2006 have the U.S. ahead of the Netherlands, Belgium, Norway, Australia and New Zealand. Japan is the most efficient. The U.S. spends about twice the energy per unit GDP as Japan. Canada spends about twice the energy per unit GDP as the U.S. China spends about twice the energy per unit GDP as Canada.
Report comment to moderator
So we see a report today that government spending is roughly 8 times the collected revenue, but that’s not the cause of manufacturing jobs going somewhere else…
But of course collecting taxes from spending too much doesn’t have anything to do with it. Nor does miss-spending money on guaranteeing loans that never should have been made to begin with. Nor does rewarding big corporations and banks for failure. Nor does rewarding campaign contributors responsible for such failures… Nor does prohibitive regulations that don’t apply to countries those jobs are outsourced too….
And the list grows longer each time you look at it.
But all this mismanagement has NOTHING whatsoever to do with manufacturers hemorraging jobs overseas. NOPE. Not a thing.
Report comment to moderator
Referring to #17, I think there is plenty of introspection by Americans about the way they live and use energy. But that won’t get us to where you want to be. I’m afraid the next logical step in your mind is regulation.
Report comment to moderator
@MakeItMan: So we see a report today that government spending is roughly 8 times the collected revenue…
Show me the report, because spending is not 8X revenue. Total spending is approximately 41% GDP for all levels of government. Total revenue is approximately 30% GDP for all levels of government.
but that’s not the cause of manufacturing jobs going somewhere else…
Right. It’s not. Manufacturing went overseas because labor is cheaper overseas. Labor is cheaper overseas for a number of reasons, but the disparity is not primarily due to the size of the U.S. government.
Report comment to moderator
@Socialworker: …there is plenty of introspection by Americans about the way they live and use energy. But that won’t get us to where you want to be. I’m afraid the next logical step in your mind is regulation.
Or taxation. The rule of thumb is that you tax the things you want less of (e.g. consumption, in this case consumption of energy) and don’t tax the things you want more of (e.g. savings or investment). If you want people to behave in ways that are more energy efficient then you make energy more expensive, using the new revenue to replace other taxes.
Report comment to moderator
Regulation that conserves resources and protects the ecology is a good thing, and I’m really tired of freedom-fetishists childishly pretending otherwise. The housing market meltdown of recent years is a perfect example of what can happen when regulation is too lax.
However, I am becoming convinced that we’re past the point where regulation is going to help. We’re on the downside of the Hubbert curve for oil and rapidly approaching it for gas and coal. In the next few decades, people will use much less energy than they do now — because there will be no other choice.
And then you anti-regulation folks can dance your victory dance that we kept the freedom to consume ourselves back to the 18th century.
Report comment to moderator
Ok Buddy:
Here’s the Treasury Report For March
Here’s an excerpt from an editorial analysis of it:
Report comment to moderator
“The housing market meltdown of recent years is a perfect example of what can happen when regulation is too lax.”
The housing market meltdown of recent years didn’t happen because of lax regulation. It happened because the Fed backed up loans that shouldn’t have even been made. It took the risk out of it and let greed run rampant. You don’t need regulation, you need the foolish to pay the price…
Report comment to moderator
It happened because the regulations allowed mortgage companies to bundle bad loans into worthless securities and sell them off. The lenders had little incentive to vet the borrowers because they planned to sell the debt off before many would default.
A regulatory structure that disallowed such bundling and selling would have persuaded the lenders to lend more carefully and the market would have stayed soon — no boom, and no bust.
Report comment to moderator
sane, not soon
Report comment to moderator
And those who paid the price were more likely to be investors than the people who made the bad loans — by design.
Yes, you need to discourage the level of greed that encourages such tactics — which is exactly what good regulations do.
Report comment to moderator
No that’s exactly what risk does. When you pull something boneheaded, then you’ll fail.
Now if you’re “too big to fail”, you just get bailed out. If the government would quit guaranteeing those loans, no one would have taken the risk on them in the first place.
Report comment to moderator
“And then you anti-regulation folks can dance your victory dance that we kept the freedom to consume ourselves back to the 18th century.”
You know what? I don’t really care about protecting the consumption, except that we’ve consumed so much more than we’ve produced. If we were producing more than we consumed then we’d now be in good shape….
I’d be dancing the victory dance if I could get the knucklehead nancys and the rockhead reids to figure out how to encourage job growth and production- instead of digging the deficit deeper. I’d do the victory dance on the capital steps if I could get the barney blumphs and the doofus dodds out of governement, and convince taxpayer tom to save money and invest in something that produced a product to sell the Chinese.
Then I’d truly to a victory dance with a capital V.
Report comment to moderator
“It happened because the regulations allowed mortgage companies to bundle bad loans into worthless securities and sell them off.”
See here? You’re justifying the bad loan to start with. The fix needs to start there. Don’t say we need regulations. Don’t force the lender to make the bad loan in the first dang place.
That’s just good common sense.
Report comment to moderator
Nobody was forced to make bad loans. Lenders did it because they found a way to make money and protect themselves from risk by shuffling it off on unsuspecting buyers who were misled into thinking the securities were safer than they really were. The extent of the “forcing,” no matter how the right has tried to spin it, was that lenders couldn’t redline entire areas. No rule EVER said they had to disregard sound lending practices to make loans to people within those areas.
You’re trying to justify their deliberate deception with a slam at a policy, rather than call lying and cheating what it is. Doesn’t your Christian faith caution you against justifying sin? The lenders set out to lie and cheat, and directly caused the implosion of the housing market, and you want to put all the blame on some Democratic lawmakers who sought to forbid blanket discrimination.
Not buying it.
Report comment to moderator
Oh yes, and you blame the victim by saying people who bought the securities deserved to fail because they took a bad risk — when the truth of the matter is they were lied to about the level of risk they were buying.
Report comment to moderator
#26: Totally disingenuous article. The U.S. paid out $705 billion to its creditors, but also took in $780 billion from new creditors. When both are included you get deposits of $1,046 billion vs. disbursements of $1,118 billion.
Add the monthly loss + new debt and the U.S. is approximately $150 billion in the hole for the month.
It’s also worth noting March is not a strong month for federal tax revenue, those being December, January, April, June and September.
Report comment to moderator
Question, is the USA socialist?
Let’s apply Margaret Thacher’s criteria that socialism is fine until you run out of other people’s money. Soicialism (no matter how you spin technicalities in the official definition) is the road toward that fate of running out of other people’s money, and we are on that road in spades.
Report comment to moderator
“…and you want to put all the blame on some Democratic lawmakers who sought to forbid blanket discrimination.”
Oh brother. Is that what you call that arm twisting? You still haven’t addressed the fact that the government took all the risk out of it by backing up those loans. The lenders never would have made those loans if it hadn’t. And their “risk” paid off didn’t it? They got bailed out, and all those fat cats got to keep their money and then some…
I think you ought to consider that real risk will regulate the market better than regulations piled upon more regulations will.
And you can stop with the emotional blackmailing. I’m not buying that either.
Report comment to moderator
I think you ought to consider that if I can lend money to somebody I know isn’t likely to be able to repay it, but then sell that debt to you — so I get your money and you get ready to profit from the loan repayment — I have no reason to care if you get shafted. I’ve made my money by promising you more money over time in return for less money now, and you’re holding the bag.
Now if there were a law saying I could suffer greatly for knowing selling you bad loans, that would cause me to rethink that scheme. I’m able to look like I’m taking risk but actually shift the risk and get out from under it quickly enough that I’m not likely to suffer too many defaults before I get the loans sold off.
So where, in the absence of regulation, is the incentive to lend wisely?
Report comment to moderator
I think you ought to consider that the government has no business backing up those loans in the first place. Fix that one first, then we’ll talk about regulation.
Report comment to moderator
While we pass hate-crime laws that enforce unequal protection under the law and an institutionalized inequality of rights, we ignore the fact that it is greed-crimes that are destroying America.
Report comment to moderator
#17 – “Many manufacturing jobs have left America because corporations have found it cheaper to outsource. That’s not the fault of government spending.”
Actually, it is — and in spades. They often find it cheaper to outsource because of all the excessive and repressive gov’t fees, regulations, stipulations, hoops, benefit burdens, and taxation they face otherwise. I said, “excessive!” Government greed is at the heart of the problem. Spending stands at unprecedented, unsustainable and cancerous levels in the USA.
Report comment to moderator
What CONAN flipantly calls “freedom-fetishists” and “childish,” I call a priceless American heritage that has gone unprotected to the point where we are losing our legacy as a free country. That’s because many Americans have come to actually RESENT freedom rather than love it.
But since we have lost our Judeo-Christian moorings as a nation, I am coming to a point of realization that more or less political freedom will not save us. The American idea of liberty requires strong foundations of faith and morality in the people or it does not work–and the Founders knew that from the start.
Report comment to moderator
The housing market meltdown of recent years is a perfect example of what can happen when legislation and regulations are too oppressive and gov’t intrudes to enforce irresponsible and reckless loans that cannot be sustained.
Report comment to moderator
I say “freedom fetishists” very specifically. We all like having freedom in America, but there is a balance between freedom and restriction.
In business terms, that means that regulations which are intended to protect the environment, protect workers from unssafe conditions and otherwise ensure that businesses are safe and sustainable, are good things. People who appreciate freedom nevertheless see the wisdom in that.
Freedom fetishists, in contrast, insist that telling companies they can’t pollute the rivers, or that they have to install railings around their catwalks so workers don’t fall 30 feet to the concrete, infringes on their freedoms.
Moving it to the civil realm by way of analogy, having laws saying you can’t commit murder infringe on the freedom of murderers, but nobody would say we should repeal those laws in the name of liberty. Some rules are necessary for the good of society as a whole — and some of those come in the form of regulations on businesses.
So when you say “They often find it cheaper to outsource because of all the excessive and repressive gov’t fees, regulations, stipulations, hoops, benefit burdens, and taxation they face otherwise,” what you’re actually arguing for is a relaxing of standards so that America can join the third world among nations that keep the labor cheap by providing bad and dangerous working conditions, paying minuscule wages and despoiling the ecology at will.
I would prefer we give tax breaks to companies that hire American workers, or simply forbid American companies from outsourcing more than a small percentage of work, rather than arguing that in order to compete we have to degrade our standards to be on a par with Indonesia.
Report comment to moderator
The “nation of takers” trend is strong in Wisconsin where Democrats on the take fled to Illinois to avoid good faith participation in the democratic process (which is why I never acknowledge the Democrat Party as “democratic”).
The greedy crippling public sector union contracts in Wisconsin and elsewhere are all about taking and taking and taking more from tax-payers without allowing them or their elected representatives to have a meaningful part in the decision-making process. It is horrific corruption.
Report comment to moderator
Public union people are overly shielded from knowing that the rest of the nation is in a massive recession. And they don’t care. Democrats in power use tax-payer money to prevent them from knowing that the rest of us are in a recession and struggling. Democrats greedy for power are co-conspirators along with greedy public unions against the taxpayers. And yet the demagoging Democrats still go around demonizing tax-payers who want some relief.
Report comment to moderator
CONAN, my take is that you simply used the phrase “freedom fetishes” as a by-product of your disrespect for points of view that dissent from yours. Just my impression.
Report comment to moderator
Joel Mark: CONAN, my take is that you simply used the phrase “freedom fetishes” as a by-product of your disrespect for points of view that dissent from yours. Just my impression.
I explained in #45 what I meant and the narrowness of the definition. You’re free to ignore the real meaning in favor of your interpretation in your own mind but that does not make you correct.
Report comment to moderator
I saw your explanation, CONAN and was not convinced. Nice try though. Have a good day.
Report comment to moderator
back to topJoin The Conversation
You need to be a registered user of WORLDmag.com's Community section to "join the conversation."
If you are not a member yet, what are you waiting for? Register / Login Now!