The Most Permanent Thing in Government

There is an old saying that nothing is more permanent than a temporary government program. Whether that saying is entirely fair is open to debate, but history provides enough examples to explain why it continues to endure.

The federal income tax offers one of the clearest illustrations.

When the Sixteenth Amendment was ratified in 1913, the income tax was not presented as a burden that would fall upon most Americans. It was largely described as a tax aimed at higher incomes, and for the overwhelming majority of citizens it was somebody else's problem. The promise was straightforward. Most people would never have to worry about it.

Then circumstances changed.

Wars required money. Expanding government responsibilities required money. New programs required money. Emergencies required money. Each new demand created pressure for additional revenue, and each expansion could be defended as a practical response to a practical problem.

Viewed individually, many of these decisions appeared reasonable. Viewed collectively, they produced a system that looked very different from the one originally presented to the public.

This pattern is hardly unique to taxation. It appears throughout history whenever governments confront extraordinary circumstances. A crisis emerges, the public accepts new powers, regulations, taxes, or restrictions because the situation appears exceptional, and the new measures are often justified as temporary responses to temporary problems.

The crisis eventually ends.

The institution remains.

Sometimes this is not only understandable but necessary. A nation that intends to remain a major power cannot function indefinitely with the budget, infrastructure, and responsibilities of a frontier republic. Roads must be maintained. Courts must operate. National defense must be funded. Social programs require resources. The realities of governing a modern nation are vastly different from those of governing a young one.

Yet there is another side to the equation.

Institutions possess incentives just as individuals do. A power that exists can be exercised. A tax that exists can be expanded. An agency that exists can seek additional responsibilities. The people involved may genuinely believe they are acting in the public interest, and many probably are. Good intentions, however, do not eliminate incentives. They merely coexist with them.

Growth is easier than reduction.

Creation is easier than elimination.

Expansion is easier than surrendering authority.

That reality raises questions that extend far beyond taxation. If an emergency measure proves useful, when should it end? If a temporary power produces benefits, does it remain temporary? If every crisis justifies additional authority, what mechanism ensures that authority ever contracts again?

These questions have no simple answers.

A modern nation cannot function exactly as it did in 1913. At the same time, a free society cannot simply assume that every expansion of power is both necessary and permanent. Responsible government requires balancing competing realities, not blindly embracing one side while ignoring the other.

The deeper lesson of the income tax is not really about taxes at all.

It is about incentives.

Governments, corporations, organizations, and individuals all share a common tendency. What begins as an exception often becomes routine. What is introduced as temporary frequently becomes permanent. What starts as an emergency response slowly transforms into the new normal.

The transformation rarely arrives with fanfare. It rarely announces itself. More often, it occurs through a series of small and seemingly reasonable decisions that accumulate over time.

Quietly.

Gradually.

Almost invisibly.

And by the time most people notice, the exception has already become the rule.