As the nation grew objectively richer, it felt subjectively poorer. Why? If government is “poor,” if it is unable to “afford” things, that is because of its inability to unlock resources from entrenched claimants and reallocate them for new needs. It is not poor; it is paralyzed. It is not malnourished; it is maladaptive. It is trapped in its own past, held there like Gulliver in Lilliput by a thousand ancient commitments and ten thousand committed clients … Not only are programs virtually impossible to kill, but once put in place they are also hard to change. Every wrinkle in the law, every grant formula and tax loophole, produces a winner who resists subsequent reform, unless “reform” happens to mean more money or benefits for the lobbies concerned.

Today, there are three Frances. First, there are those whose jobs are guaranteed for life and who don't do much of anything … let alone create any wealth for the nation. These are the functionaries, who have replaced the aristocracy of years gone by. Naturally, they are as frightened as the nobles must have been on the eve … of August 4 [1789, when the nobility's privileges were abolished]. Then, there are those who have a job, who work, who create wealth. Finally, there are all those who are “excluded” from everything, the unemployed, the illiterate, foreigners, those on welfare, those forgotten and despised.