Nov 28, 2001

The Democratic Party rarely (until Bill Clinton) claimed to be interested in smaller government.  It's actually a relatively new claim for the Republicans as well, and they made it a centerpiece of their campaigns since Reagan.  It's fair, then, to ask if the Republican Party is serious about giving us smaller government. Their track record is spotty at best and they seem always to be snookered by those wily Democrats into voting for ever larger budgets.  So let's ask (and answer) the question: what does it take to get a smaller government?

If we measure the size of government by the Budget (it's certainly a measure of its power) then the question becomes, more simply, what does it take to get a smaller budget?  To answer that we have to know how the Budget 'happens'.

The President puts the Budget together and submits it to Congress.  Congress massages the Budget (perhaps), passes a Budget Resolution, and sends it back to The President to be signed; The President signs the Budget Resolution and orders the Treasury Department's underlings at IRS to collect the revenue specified in the authorizing Budget Resolution.  Balance of Power.  Works like a charm.

Now it could happen that the Congress 'massages' the Budget beyond recognition.  In such a case, The President might veto the Budget Resolution when it arrives back at the White House.  Congress would then have two options: come to an agreement with The President or override the veto.  To override a Presidential veto, 2/3rds of both Houses of Congress must vote to override.  At the moment, that's 67 Senators (out of 100) and 290 Representatives (out of 435). 

Knowing this, we can now frame the question in quantitative terms:  how many elected officials do we need to be able to force small government?

A party which has elected (either) 51 Senators or 218 Representatives or which has elected a President and (either) 34 Senators or 146 Representatives, can force small government.  It works like this:

• In the first case, those Senators or Representatives can simply refuse to pass a budget which is too large.  Absent a Budget Resolution, The President lacks authority to collect revenue.  Without revenue, the size of government shrinks to — whatever we can afford on the donations of citizens.  As a practical matter, this means that Congress doesn't get paid either and you have a near-total government shutdown.
• In the second case, having a sympathetic President in the White House means only requiring enough Legislative muscle to sustain a veto:  The President sends a small-government Budget to Congress; if they increase the Budget too much (or even at all) The President vetos the Budget Resolution and Congress has too few votes to override; the Budget Resolution is killed and there is no legislation authorizing revenue collection.  Without revenue, the size of government shrinks to — whatever we can afford on the donations of citizens, &c.