The Myth of the Benevolent Government

When anyone believes that all things flow from a munificent and benevolent government, any reduction in scope or funding is seen as a tragedy.

The belief that all good things flow from a munificent and benevolent government is a comforting narrative for many. It paints the state as a generous provider, a wellspring of resources, security, and opportunity. Under this worldview, any reduction in government scope or funding is seen as a tragedy—a cruel theft of societal progress. But this perspective, while emotionally compelling, often ignores the inefficiencies, overreach, and unintended consequences of an ever-expanding state.

Scaling back government doesn’t inherently mean deprivation; time and time again, we have seen how smaller government, with its fewer regulations and lower taxes foster freedom, innovation, and resilience.

The idea of government as the ultimate benefactor assumes it possesses both the wisdom and efficiency to allocate resources better than individuals or communities. History, however, tells a different story. Bureaucracies are notoriously sluggish, prone to waste, and often prioritize self-preservation over public good. For example, in the U.S., federal spending has ballooned to over $6 trillion annually, yet programs like Medicare and Social Security face long-term insolvency, and infrastructure projects routinely run over budget. A 2023 report from the Government Accountability Office highlighted that improper payments in federal programs cost taxpayers $247 billion in a single year. This isn’t benevolence – it is inefficiency dressed up as generosity.

And we all saw, with our own eyes, what DOGE found with USAID.

When people view government cuts as killing Big Bird and Elmo, they often overlook what those resources could achieve elsewhere. Every dollar spent by the state is a dollar taken from individuals, businesses, or communities who would use it more effectively. Tax cuts or reduced spending can empower people to invest in their own priorities - whether that’s starting a business, funding local schools, or supporting charities that don’t waste funds on administrative bloat. In 2017, the Trump Tax Cuts and Jobs Act reduced corporate tax rates, leading to a surge in business investment and job creation, with unemployment hitting historic lows by 2019. The economy didn’t collapse; it thrived when the government stepped back.

An oversized government often stifles the very innovation it claims to foster. Regulations, while sometimes necessary, can become a labyrinth that only large corporations with armies of lawyers can navigate. Small businesses, the backbone of economic dynamism, are often crushed under compliance costs. In 2022, the National Federation of Independent Business reported that small firms spent an average of $10,000 per employee on regulatory compliance. Reducing government scope doesn’t mean abandoning oversight - it means creating space for creativity and entrepreneurship to flourish.

The emotional appeal of a “benevolent” government also ignores its coercive nature. Every program, every subsidy, every mandate is funded through taxation or debt, compelling citizens to surrender their earnings or future prosperity. This isn’t charity; it’s compulsion. A leaner government forces society to rediscover voluntary cooperation—neighbors helping neighbors, private organizations stepping up, and individuals taking responsibility for their own paths. The tragedy isn’t in cutting back; it’s in assuming people are too helpless to thrive without a paternalistic state.

Skepticism of government largesse isn’t cynicism - it’s clarity. A smaller, more focused government can prioritize what truly matters: protecting individual rights, maintaining rule of law, and providing a safety net that doesn’t trap people in dependency.

Reducing scope or funding isn’t a tragedy; it’s an opportunity to rediscover the power of human agency and community resilience.