Buried In Debt: Report Finds Government Spending Per Person Soared 10,000 Percent Over Last Century

'While American families and businesses find a way to do more with less, the government does less with more,' said OpenTheBooks' John Hart.

Why the laws of government physics remain undefeated



In an age when government grows with the regularity of the sunrise and the humility of a bonfire, Dan Mitchell’s “20 Theorems of Government” land not as abstractions but as reminders of truths America’s founders understood almost instinctively. The theorems, devised by the co-founder of the Center for Freedom and Prosperity, capture the recurring failures of centralized authority and the virtues of free people operating in free markets.

These theorems are not predictions. They are explanations of what government always does when left unchecked and how society always suffers when the state’s reach exceeds the citizen’s grasp.

The problem is not the quality of the people in government. The problem is the nature of government itself.

Mitchell’s First Theorem, which describes how Washington actually functions, could be carved above every federal agency door. Politics rewards the spending of other people’s money for other people’s benefit. The entire system is designed to avoid accountability and to maximize political reward. Once you accept that incentives drive outcomes, the rest of the theorems follow naturally.

The Second and Third Theorems make this point bluntly. Any new program will grow, metastasize, and waste money. Centralization magnifies inefficiency because bureaucracies face no competition, no profit-and-loss constraint, and no personal consequences for failure. When the private sector gets something wrong, it pays for its mistake. When government gets something wrong, it demands a larger budget.

Theorems Four through Seven widen the gap between political rhetoric and economic reality. Good policy can be good politics, but incentives push politicians toward superficial fixes and short-term gratification. Even strong ideas rot inside bureaucratic execution. And the larger the government becomes, the more incompetent and unresponsive it grows. Bureaucrats answer to political pressure, not consumer choice, and the results are inevitable: waste, rigidity, and indifference.

The Eighth through 10th Theorems confront the moral dimension of government overreach. Politicians who obsess over inequality rarely seek to lift up the poor; they seek justification for more control. Crises — real or imaginary — become tools for expanding that control. And politics almost always overwhelms principle. This is not cynicism. It is observation backed by centuries of evidence.

Theorems 11 through 15 dismantle common misconceptions. Big business is not the same thing as free enterprise. In many cases, it is free enterprise’s most persistent enemy. Corporations often work hand in hand with government to protect themselves from competition. Meanwhile, anyone who opposes entitlement reform is endorsing massive, broad-based tax hikes, because arithmetic leaves no other option. You cannot fund European-style welfare states without European-style taxation. And history shows voters resist paying for the bloated government they claim to want.

RELATED: Free markets don’t need federal babysitters

Afry Harvy via iStock/Getty Images

This leads naturally to the 16th and 17th Theorems. Economic progress becomes a race between private innovation and public consumption. When government grows faster than the private sector can produce, stagnation follows. Worse, when dependency becomes a norm, the cultural foundations of liberty erode. A nation that forgets how to rely on itself cannot long remain free.

The final three theorems complete the picture. Climate policy becomes hypocrisy when elites demand sacrifice from others while refusing it themselves. Politicians operate under incentives that reward short-term benefit at long-term cost. And the fiscal results — from rising deficits to ever-multiplying promises — are exactly what those incentives predict.

Taken together, Mitchell’s 20 Theorems point to a conclusion Milton Friedman drew decades ago: The problem is not the quality of the people in government; the problem is the nature of government itself. A government that grows without limit will, eventually and inevitably, burden the citizens it claims to serve.

If Americans wish to preserve both prosperity and freedom, they will have to internalize these theorems as practical truths, not relics of libertarian theory. The path forward is not mysterious. Limit government. Unleash markets. These principles are old — and their urgency has never been greater.

What Does The Republican Party Even Stand For?

Unlike Democrats, Republicans have no unified vision of what they view as success for the country.

Democrats reject ‘current policy’ — unless it pays their base



Washington’s latest fights make one thing unmistakable: Democrats shift their arguments as needed, but always in service of higher taxes, higher spending, and a bigger federal footprint. When the question earlier this year was whether to keep current tax policy and avoid a massive tax hike, Democrats fought against keeping current policy.

Now, after forcing a government shutdown, they claim they must preserve current — but temporary — Obamacare subsidies. Two opposite stances, one consistent goal: bigger government.

On taxes, ‘current policy’ doesn’t count. On spending, ‘current policy’ functions like holy writ.

Earlier this year, Congress faced a hard deadline. Lawmakers had to choose between extending the 2017 American Job Creation Act tax rates or letting them snap back to pre-2017 levels — a $4 trillion tax increase across income brackets. Republicans pushed to retain the lower rates. Democrats pushed for the tax hike.

Democrats insisted the looming deadline was Republicans’ fault and said the surge in revenue would help slow growth in deficits and debt. Republicans ultimately prevailed and passed the One Big Beautiful Bill Act. Democrats erupted.

We all know what happened next. Less than three months later, Congress approached the September 30 deadline for annual appropriations. With negotiations still incomplete, Republicans advanced a clean, short-term extension to keep the government open. The House passed it. President Trump signaled he would sign it. Senate Democrats filibustered it.

Republicans tried over a dozen times to reopen the government. Senate Democrats blocked them every time — until this week. Their central demand: extend the temporary “emergency” premium subsidies that Democrats expanded during the pandemic. Those subsidies, scheduled to expire, broadened eligibility beyond 400% of the federal poverty line and boosted benefits for those below it. Democrats already extended them once through 2025.

Now, with the pandemic long over — President Biden signed the resolution ending it on April 10, 2023 — Senate Democrats want the emergency expansions made permanent.

The inconsistency could not be clearer.

When expiring tax law meant taxes would rise, Democrats described preventing that increase as a tax cut — even though extending the law simply kept existing policy in place. The fact that the policy had been the law for eight years meant nothing.

But when expiring pandemic-era subsidies would return Obamacare to its original structure, Democrats suddenly insist that current policy must prevail. They now treat temporary emergency expansions — linked explicitly to COVID, extended once already, disproportionately benefiting upper-income households — as untouchable programs that must become permanent.

On taxes, “current policy” doesn’t count. On spending, “current policy” functions like holy writ.

RELATED: Trump officially ends ‘pathetic’ Democrats’ record-breaking shutdown

Photo by Bonnie Cash/UPI/Bloomberg via Getty Images

The reasoning shifts, but the outcome never does: Democrats always land on whatever argument leads to more government. Their broader shutdown demands confirm it — ending Medicaid reforms and restoring spending levels President Trump and Republicans reduced. Every item points in the same direction: more federal dollars out the door.

Democrats note that Republicans, too, support keeping some expiring policies. True. Which makes the underlying purpose even more important to identify.

Republicans fought to maintain 2017 tax levels so Americans could keep more of what they earn — and keep that income out of Washington’s hands. Democrats want permanent expansion of Obamacare subsidies to preserve and grow benefits for people who were never intended to receive them, locking in a larger federal role.

Future fights will come; today’s climate guarantees them. One more thing is just as guaranteed: Democrats’ arguments will continue to change as needed, and their demands for higher taxes, higher spending, and a larger federal government will not.

Exclusive: New Report Tracks $200 Million Spent On Illegal Immigrant Health Care

'When elected officials argue that taxpayer dollars aren't going to illegal immigrants that just isn't true,' Open The Books CEO John Hart said.

Dems Ignore Bureaucrats’ Pleas To End Shutdown After Pretending To Care About Govt Workers

The most electorally vulnerable House Democrats turn their backs on the largest federal employee union and its call for a clean CR.

Big Government Locks Young People Out of the American Dream

Socialism, regulation, and other government policies are what have caused the affordability crisis that has arisen across the United States.

Colorado’s Zoning Tyrants Go To War Against A Christian-Owned French Bakery

Is it truly in the county’s best interest to destroy a thriving business and a cherished community hub simply to enforce its zoning ordinance?

Bed Bath & Beyond Joins Countless Other Companies Ditching Bad-For-Business California

Despite these troubling economic conditions and many businesses leaving, it seems unlikely that Gov. Newsom and the Democrat majority in the legislature will change their ineffective policies.

The same people who took your shoes now want your face



The Trump administration recently ended the Transportation Security Administration’s outdated shoe-removal rule — a long-overdue rollback of post-9/11 security theater. But at the same time, it’s resisting a bipartisan push to rein in something far more intrusive: the agency’s unregulated use of facial recognition technology at airports.

The Traveler Privacy Protection Act — co-sponsored by Sens. Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.), John Kennedy (R-La.), Ed Markey (D-Mass.), and Roger Marshall (R-Kan.) — would set limits on the TSA’s biometric surveillance program at airports.

Facial recognition checkpoints are already being piloted at major airports. TSA officials have made clear that their goal is to replace traditional IDs altogether.

Here’s what the bill does:

  • Restores consent: Manual ID checks would become the default again. Passengers would have to opt in to facial recognition. The TSA would be required to notify travelers clearly that they can opt out.
  • Limits retention: Most biometric data would have to be deleted within 24 hours.
  • Restricts sharing: The TSA could no longer hand over biometric data to other federal agencies or private entities, except in very narrow circumstances.

The legislation follows a bipartisan letter sent in November 2023 to the Department of Homeland Security inspector general, requesting a full audit of the TSA’s biometric collection, retention, deletion, and cybersecurity protocols. The letter was co-authored by Senate Commerce Committee Chairman Ted Cruz (R-Texas).

“TSA has not provided Congress with evidence that facial recognition technology is necessary to catch fraudulent documents, decrease wait times, or stop terrorists from boarding planes,” the senators wrote.

Despite that, the TSA appears to be quietly lobbying against the bill.

When asked directly whether the TSA was fighting the legislation, Kennedy said: “The short answer is yes; the long answer is hell yes.”

Behind-the-scenes pressure

The Senate Commerce Committee had planned to mark up the bill just before the August recess. But at the last minute, the legislation was pulled from the docket.

Officially, the travel industry raised concerns. But Politico reported that behind the scenes, TSA leadership — backed by political appointees — played a central role in derailing the bill. Republican staffers familiar with the process said the agency helped coordinate opposition that ultimately killed the markup.

It’s not hard to see why TSA brass would resist oversight.

Acting TSA Administrator Ha Nguyen McNeill previously served as TSA chief of staff during part of Trump’s first term. After leaving government, she joined BigBear.ai, a company specializing in facial recognition and identity verification powered by artificial intelligence. She eventually became the firm’s president.

Now she’s back — nominated to lead the TSA for the duration of Trump’s administration.

AI, contracts, and civil liberties

Under McNeill’s leadership, the TSA has pushed to expand its use of AI-powered surveillance tools. In 2023, officials openly discussed plans to eliminate boarding passes and photo IDs altogether in favor of biometric scans.

“Imagine embarking on a journey where the seamless orchestration of technology transforms traditional security checkpoints,” said Kristin Ruiz, the TSA’s deputy chief information officer, at an AI summit last year. “AI-powered advancements signify an evolution driven by data science, analytics, and intelligent automation.”

That vision may sound efficient. But it’s also a red flag for anyone who doesn’t want American airports to become nodes in a Chinese-style surveillance state.

The TSA isn’t alone. The Department of Homeland Security has been inking massive contracts with tech companies specializing in surveillance.

Palantir Technologies, co-founded by Trump ally Peter Thiel, has landed a $1 billion contract with the DHS. The company also has similar contracts with the Department of Health and Human Services and the Pentagon, now worth a combined $10 billion.

RELATED: The One Big Beautiful Bill Act hides a big, ugly AI betrayal

Photo by DAVID MCNEW/AFP via Getty Images

Palantir’s market cap now exceeds $400 billion — bigger than Home Depot or Coca-Cola. Since its first DHS deal was announced in April, the company’s stock price has jumped 131%.

It doesn’t need a marketing team. The federal government is its customer.

Palantir has also benefited from the revolving door.

  • Gregory Barbaccia, Palantir’s former head of intelligence, now serves as the chief information officer of the federal government.
  • Clark Minor, a longtime Palantir employee, now holds the same role at HHS.
  • Jacob Helberg, a senior adviser to Palantir CEO Alex Karp, was appointed to lead the State Department’s economic and trade policy.

This is the ecosystem driving the TSA’s resistance to reform: private contractors, political insiders, and intelligence bureaucrats profiting from biometric surveillance — at your expense.

The stakes

Facial recognition checkpoints are already being piloted at major airports. TSA officials have made clear that their goal is to replace traditional IDs altogether. And if this bill fails, there may be no legal limit to how far the agency can go.

Congress has a choice: Protect passengers or protect the Big Tech-Big Government industrial complex.

At the very least, senators should not confirm McNeill without hard, enforceable commitments: clear opt-outs, data deletion requirements, and strict limits on sharing and retention. The federal government should not be harvesting and storing your face just so a contractor can hit its quarterly earnings target.

You don’t build a free society by handing over the keys to Big Tech and hoping the companies don’t abuse them.