Skip to comments.Groverís Missing Piece: Politicians canít keep taxes from rising unless they also curb spending
Posted on 12/08/2012 10:02:28 AM PST by SeekAndFind
For years, Grover Norquist and Republicans have tried starving the beast of the federal government by capping taxes. While theyve been highly successful at preventing tax increases, they have been less effective at addressing one problematic aspect of fiscal policy: the ability of the Federal Reserve and Treasury to borrow more and more to finance massive spending, as they have done under the Bush and Obama administrations. Its simple: Borrowing today means a higher tax burden tomorrow when the debt comes due. True fiscal responsibility, then, requires us to curb spending in addition to limiting tax rates.
Imagine if instead of pledging not to raise taxes, all those politicians had pledged not to raise spending. Its unlikely the United States would be facing massive tax increases as part of the so-called fiscal cliff. Thats why its important to do for spending what Norquist has done for taxes: create a means for voters to hold elected officials accountable when they break campaign promises of fiscal responsibility.
Its hard to imagine a better time to secure such a pledge from elected officials. Given our ever-mounting debt, it is incumbent on all of us who care about the future prosperity of this country to reexamine the completeness of Norquists approach. We have to look at more than the tax side of the equation.
The American people are finally realizing that federal spending is way beyond the point of sustainability, and the moment is ripe to change the direction of the political discourse. A Rasmussen poll from Monday found that nearly half (48%) of likely U.S. voters now believe it is necessary to significantly reduce the cost of entitlement programs and military spending to reduce the long-term federal deficit. Now is the time to shift the focus from which taxes we can lower (or not raise) to what spending we can cut.
My claim is a simple one: Spending more than you take in is dangerous because that money ultimately has to come from somewhere. When a government operates on an unbalanced budget, the tax burden is passed not only on to future generations but also onto our own, diminishing our opportunities through indirect taxation, such as higher interest rates and inflation.
Both parties have failed in this regard. Weve seen Medicare Part D under Bush, the Affordable Care Act under Obama, and bank and auto bailouts combined with wars in Iraq and Afghanistan under both presidents.
Its time for all of us to take our hands out of the cookie jar. Having the Pentagon spending billions running grocery stores doesnt make the U.S. strong on defense. And keeping the retirement age indefinitely at 65, even as Americans are leading longer and healthier lives, doesnt make us compassionate. Both mean that were fattening up at the expense of our grandkids standard of living.
Fortunately, some in Washington are taking aim at our political sacred cows. Doug Collins, representative-elect from Georgia, and Ted Cruz, senator-elect from Texas, both pledged to voters this cycle that they consider all items in the budget eligible for reduction. By signing the Reject the Debt pledge in addition to the taxpayers-protection pledge, they have promised to vote against not only tax increases now but also spending increases that would amount to future tax burdens.
As one columnist recently wrote, From now on, any politician who signs the anti-tax pledge without also signing the anti-debt pledge can be dismissed as a complete hypocrite. The companion to Norquists no-tax pledge is the Reject the Debt pledge. Elected officials need to sign both.
Jonathan Bydlak is the president and founder of the Coalition to Reduce Spending.
Nearly every American senior is now on the dole. Very few reject their entitlements. Their numbers grow daily.
Republicans must always promote lower taxes.
You know this will never happen.
Hell, Obama even cut some taxes, the FICA SS taxes, to get re-elected.
Tax cut and spend now is what gets the congress members and POTUS re-elected.
Candy now, bad tasting medicine later, much much later, 10 15 years from when-ever now is.
The Bozo has proved that you cannot “starve the beast” without an iron-clad balanced budget law. And these days 2/3 majority in both houses is quite possible, so what else?
This is absolutely correct on one hand: spending is the real problem.
On the other hand, it’s a complete lie: is does not state that the first place to start cutting is the over $1 trillion in welfare-related programs.
Which do not involve social security, medicare or the military at all.
Does everyone see how the elitist globalist cabal - comprised of thousands of intellectuals writing papers to influence thought leaders, politicians and the public at large - puts out propaganda messages to the whole political spectrum, left to right ?
It is completely anti-American to the point of treason to cut military spending while leaving welfare untouched.
It is a complete lie to present the %#$#^#$^ unified budget, lumping social security and medicare in with all the bureaucratic, welfare and foreign aid budget items, when they have a SEPARATE TRUST FUND and are SEPARATE taxes DEDUCTED SEPARATELY from paychecks, EXPRESSLY to fund the TRUST FUND that funds those EARNED BENEFITS programs. As long as the funds had surplus cash which was turned over to Congress in exchange for unmarketable Treasury bonds the budget was NEVER presented as unified.
Present welfare, bureaucratic and foreign aid spending represents looting of the public treasury for personal political gain.
The unified budget is a heinous lie, an NO ONE that I’ve heard in the mainstream has the courage to allow that LIE to be revealed to the general public.
Most government do exactly that, just over a long period of time. Right now, the Treasury issues bonds and the Fed buys those bonds with Federal Reserve Notes (American currency). However if they tried to buy all outstanding bonds at once with printed (drastically depreciated money), no one would ever again buy US bonds.
. Very few reject their entitlements.”
Because you singled out seniors in your response, I would hope that you are not one who is calling Social Security an entitlement. I have worked continuously since 1955, either as an employee or someone self-employed - which I still am - paying into SS the entire time because I was forced to. For the government to dole out a small pittance of my own money every month to me is not an entitlement for me! The problem as I see it is that the Federal government thinks they are entitled to spend the money I unwilling gave them all these years on anything they wanted.
When you hear politicians and other people talking about the need to reduce entitlements (entitlement reform), you do understand, don't you, that they are talking in part about Social Security and Medicare?
Of course, those programs are entitlement programs.
Everybody here should take a course on how our government functions and how our current Monetary Policy functions.
Dirty little secret::
ALL revenues that flow into the Federal Government at ALL levels are used to Pay Off previously issued Treasury Bills.NOT A SINGLE PENNY IS SPENT OTHERWISE. All EXPENDITURES are Created with Brand New Treasury bills with Interest. At No time is the interest created to pay these off. What this means it takes an ever increasing STEALING of your money to pay off the EVER increasing Interest. It is virtually IMPOSSIBLE to have a Balanced Budget under our current Monetary Policy, unless of course Every Budget is smaller than the previous by an amount that EXCEEDS the Interest Payable. this is simple math folks.
under our system an ever increasing DEBT and TAX BURDEN is Absolute and can NEVER BE CHANGED.
Milton Friedman has pointed out that every dollar spent by the government is a tax, present, future, or hidden.
“Milton Friedman has pointed out that every dollar spent by the government is a tax, present, future, or hidden.”