26
May
2012
Coalition to Reduce Spending–Does It Include Me?
I know a guy involved with this project and he asked me to endorse it. What do y’all think? If you wish, you can distinguish between the very idea of someone with my gravitas giving an endorsement to this kind of dirty political thing, versus this particular dirty political thing.
Shouldn’t that be “Coalition to Reduce Government Spending” ?
How people spend their own money, if really not for me to say.
I don’t like the “congressional authorization of force” clause.
Peter Schiff is on the board.
“not vote for any budget that is not balanced nor for any appropriations bill that increases total spending”
At the risk of being pedantic because we are so far removed from this scenario right now anyway… What if the budget is balanced one year and then the next year tax revenues go up? Is it OK to appropriate an increase in total spending then? Or is the only correct answer to cut tax rates? (IOW, if you believe there is an ideal level of total federal spending that is greater than 0 for some year, and that level were somehow actually reached, it seems plausible that the ideal level of total federal spending in the next year might be higher.)
I think you are right: it’s just a dirty political thing that makes no economic sense.
You should endorse it.
This is nonsense…
I, ____________________, recognize that the national debt and unsustainable level of government spending pose a critical threat to the prosperity and security of the United States.
(a) Admittedly, GROWTH in debt as a share of GDP is ultimately unsustainable, but the real problem is the growth in spending — debt is merely a symptom of the problem.
Therefore, I pledge to the citizens of my state and to the American people that, except when related to a congressional authorization of force, I will:
ONE, not vote for any budget that is not balanced nor for any appropriations bill that increases total spending; and
(b) the budget is a nonbinding resolution (without force of law). There are a dozen appropriation bills, they account for about one-third of the total federal budget. There is no reason you shouldn’t be able to spend more money in one bill as long as you offset it in another bill.
TWO, consider all spending open for reduction, and not vote to authorize or fund new programs without offsetting cuts in other programs; and
(c) The problem is we can’t afford the programs we already have – Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, PPACA – they need to be reformed.
THREE, not vote to increase borrowing or the debt ceiling.
(d) Congress does not vote to borrow money, they vote to spend money we don’t have. Failure to raise the debt limit is like refusing to pay your credit card after you go shopping.
Wait, nothing about sectoral balances?
Of course not.
That’s why it makes no economic sense, and why Murphy should endorse it.