The federal government is today spending roughly 280 times more per citizen than it did in 1797

From A Federal Budget of Just $10 Million, but Something’s Familiar by James Barron.

The bottom line? In 1797-98, the total federal budget was $10,161,097.48. For 2012, $3.7 trillion was the amount proposed by President Obama.

The United States — “the U. States” on the cover — listed $2.8 million for domestic debt and “reimbursement of 6 pct. stock bearing a present interest.” Another line item, for $238,637.30, covered “interest on domestic loans.”

So in 1797, outstanding federal debt represented 27% of the federal budget. In 2011 our outstanding debt of $15.2 trillion is some 400% of the $3.7 trillion federal budget.

Let's look at adjusted measures to reflect both inflation and population growth. $10.2 million dollars in 1797 is worth $180 million today (using Historical Currency Conversions). The population in 1797 was roughly 4 million, 1.3% of today's population. Using this ratio to adjust for population increase, the 1797 budget would have been $13.5 billion in constant dollars for the current size of the population. That sounds like a pretty good bargain. And who would you trust more to spend that money wisely? Washington, Jefferson, Madison, Adams and Hamilton or the current crew? The upshot is that the federal government is today spending roughly 280 times more per citizen than it did in 1797. Which is the better value for money I wonder? We get a lot of value for what is spent but 280 times the value?

An alternative way to look at it would be to say that we would have to cut the current budget by 96.5% to bring it into alignment with 1797. I don't think there is a politician alive who would sign up for that goal. And certainly not an electorate.