In a brief stint as a “special assistant” to a New England governor, I was bemused by my role as a public servant whose primary objective was the feeding and watering and speechwriting and legislative analyzing for only one member of the public.

While the Great Unwashed Masses were paying my salary, I was pursuing the interests and objectives of one taxpayer – the governor.

There is certainly an Adam Smith-like “Invisible Hand of the Market” argument to suggest that if the governor is blessed with an extraordinary, helpful special assistant, then the entire state benefits, even if that was not the direct intent.

I had much the same reaction to my tenure as a corporate staffer attached to various CEOs: My affection for and loyalty to the shareholders who owned the corporations were theoretical at best. My focus was on the CEOs and making them appear even more pretty and smart than they actually were.

Again, a competent CEO with bright staffers should be of benefit to the shareholders, but that was not my primary concern.

These circumstances help explain how difficult a task it is to launch a “Tea Party” revolution in support of smaller government, or less government, or more focused government – or some kind of government or another that seems disciplined and responsive.

The boys and girls in government, whether they be politicians or civil servants, are focused on the growth of the industry. To be sure, they can sing a good song about “serving the public” and the like, but the primary objective is to sustain the government revenue stream, extend the product line, and assure continuous employment for themselves.

Let It Ride

This is not inherently corrupt or evil; indeed, it is, at the least, understandable and occasionally constructive. That is why we have long had an intellectual tug-of-war in the United States between those who tilt toward the ever-larger, “tax-and-spend,” and those who offer up “smaller government” alternatives.

Again, much the same can be seen in the corporate world, where incumbent executives and board members are inclined to resist hostile takeovers and corporate governance reform – even if such moves might be in the “best interests” of the shareholders.

One of the best examples in government of being torn between feeding the enterprise and serving the public good may well be legalized gambling. Putting aside the comical advertising warnings to “gamble responsibly,” government owns, sponsors, or signs peace treaties with Indian tribes, to create all manner of lotteries, casinos and dog tracks – designed, as the research suggests, to pick the pockets of welfare mothers and giddy tourists alike.

You could see a bit of the government guilty conscience at work in Massachusetts, as it mulls the notion of legalizing casinos. What was one of the restrictions discussed, but to limit the potential for addicted gamblers to lose so much money that they wouldn’t have anything left with which to tip Banker & Tradesman columnists at Christmas time. Perhaps we should limit the casino ATMs to coughing up $100 per day per person.

Oh, yes, to be sure, we would appreciate it if you would dip into the kids’ college fund and blow a few thousand at our casinos, of which the state gets a nice cut, but… gamble responsibly. Don’t keep looking to that ATM as a source of endless funding, as if you’re some kind of state government or something.

To ease its image as an eager exploiter of hapless Massachusetts gamblers, both the private sector and state government are quick with the marketing studies to suggest that many of the gamblers would come from Connecticut, which is already sucking up millions of Massachusetts dollars from addicted victims who should ruin their lives closer to home.

Oh, sure, I’m being silly and overdramatic in a National Coalition Against Legalized Gambling sort of way. But even more silly are governments pretending that this gambling thing isn’t just about the money. No, we love you very much and if you find yourself buying 50 or 60 lottery tickets every week, well, that’s good for us, but maybe you should call the 1-800 number and get a little counseling.

But, not too much counseling. We still want the money.