This paper explores the reasoning underlying Milton Friedman's prefere
nce for a small, unbalanced budget over a large, balanced one. Because
the marginal return from government spending is less than the margina
l cost (measured in terms of the amount of income private individuals
remain free to spend), government expenditures have more of an adverse
impact on the economy in his view than does the method of financing t
hat spending. Using a panel data set comprising the 50 states plus the
District of Columbia, we report evidence from the years 1967 through
1992 that growth rates in income per capita tend to be higher in state
s with smaller public sectors. Moreover, we find that while both defic
its and taxes reduce the rate of income growth in a state, the negativ
e impact of government spending is considerably larger at the margin.