[justshutupandtakeit]

"It happened in 1980 and again in 1884 with Reagan, and the country prospered under his deregulation of industry and significant tax cuts, and it happened yet again in 1994 with the contract with America resulting in more tax cuts, welfare reform (and reduction) and federal spending caps." None of the above reduced the size of government. In fact, the irony is that reducing tax RATES can (and has) increased tax REVENUES hence giving the government MORE funds to use. It is also a fact that since about 1920 or so the share of the GNP devoted to government hovers around 20%. The variance is about 2% one way or the other.

Translating Rhetoric into Fact is much more difficult than one would think.

[spinestein]

I always think of the "size of government" as the sum of two separate components. 1) The amount of money it takes out of the economy 2) The amount of intrusive regulations and laws that affect private citizens and private business

You are absolutely correct that historically the federal take of GNP is always around 20% +/- 2% and I'm glad that someone else recognizes its significance; the actual dollar amount can increase from year to year, and that's fine as long as the percentage taken out of the economy doesn't go up. Federal spending caps in the 90's moved the figure down to the low end of the range, but since they've expired, federal spending as a percentage of GNP is going back up, and if it gets into the 21-22% territory it will stifle the economy, as it always does.

As far as intrusive laws and regulations, there was an improvement during the Reagan years but, since then, it's been all downhill. The two areas that the government has been most intrusive are free speech (CFR) and eminent domain (eg. Kelo v. New London).