creators.com opinion web
Liberal Opinion Conservative Opinion
John Stossel
John Stossel
15 May 2013
True Grit

Are you a real man (or woman)? Do you have "grit"? Compare yourself to the man on the $20 bill: … Read More.

8 May 2013
Live Free or Move

Forty-three million Americans moved from one state to another between 1995 and 2010 — about one-seventh … Read More.

1 May 2013
Train Wreck Ahead

Most Americans — even those who are legislators — know very little about the details of President Obama'… Read More.

It's the Spending, Stupid!

Comment

Listening to progressive media pundits, I'd think the most evil man in the universe is Grover Norquist, head of Americans for Tax Reform. His crime? He heads a movement that asks political candidates to pledge not to raise taxes.

I think Grover accomplished a lot. But I wish he'd convinced politicians to pledge not to increase spending.

President Obama says raising taxes to cut the deficit is a "balanced" approach.

Balanced ...

But what's "balanced" about raising taxes after vast increases in spending? Trillions for war, Medicare, "stimulus" and solar panels. Tax receipts rose — after tax- rate cuts — from $1.9 billion in 2003 to $2.3 billion in 2008, the year the recession started. That increase couldn't keep up with the spending. The deficit doubled — actually, more than doubled — as politicians increased spending to nearly $4 trillion! Our debt, at more than $16 trillion, now exceeds our gross domestic product.

Ludicrous, irresponsible spending is why we're in trouble. As columnist Ron Hart points out, Bill Clinton's balanced budget spent $1.7 trillion. "Adjusted for inflation," he writes, "our federal government would (have) a $200 billion surplus. But instead of increasing government spending in line with normal inflation, under Bush and Obama we are spending $3.8 trillion today. Democrats, who believe we have a 'revenue' problem instead of a 'spending' problem, must also think they have a bartender problem, not a drinking problem."

The media obsess about tax rates, but spending is more important. As Milton Friedman taught us, spending is a far more accurate gauge of the government burden. If government spends a dollar, that dollar is taxed away from someone. If it's borrowed, it's removed from productive use, setting the stage for higher taxes later. If the government prints more dollars to fund spending, our purchasing power falls. Transferring purchasing power from the people to the government via inflation is a form of taxation.

If Republicans and Democrats reach a deal, the tax increases will be real — but spending "cuts" probably illusions. If they actually happen, they will only be reductions in already planned increases.

The Wall Street Journal notes that when the two parties talk about cutting spending by $4 trillion over a decade, "those numbers have no real meaning because they are conjured in the wilderness of mirrors that is the federal budget process. Since 1974, Capitol Hill's 'baseline' has automatically increased spending every year according to Congressional Budget Office projections ... . Tax and spending changes are then measured off that inflated baseline."

Given our growing debt, can't they even slow the growth of government to the rate of inflation? Or inflation plus 1 percent? Or even inflation plus 2 percent? That might balance the budget within a decade.

But the spenders won't even give me that. They want more. Always more.

Jonathan Bydlak, founder of the Coalition to Reduce Spending, has a good idea. "It's 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."

Bydlak has no time for any politician who pledges not to raise taxes without pledging to cut spending. He praises Doug Collins, representative-elect from Georgia, and Ted Cruz, senator-elect from Texas, for signing the Reject the Debt pledge and thereby promising voters they would:

"ONE, not vote for any budget that is not balanced nor for any appropriations bill that increases total spending;

"and TWO, consider all spending open for reduction, and not vote to authorize or fund new programs without offsetting cuts in other programs."

Well, sure. Good luck to him.

But people are reluctant to give up their favorite programs. Or any programs.

Let's not fool ourselves about how dependent politicians have made people on government.

To succeed, the crusade to cut spending needs an ideological understanding of how unsustainable our current course is, not just a narrow appeal to short-term self-interest. People will have to see the wisdom of giving up government benefits now — in exchange for something more abstract: a future free society in which our children won't be burdened by debt and taxes.

John Stossel is host of "Stossel" on the Fox Business Network. He's the author of "No They Can't: Why Government Fails, but Individuals Succeed." To find out more about John Stossel, visit his site at <a href="http://www.johnstossel.com" <http://www.johnstossel.com>>johnstossel.com</a>. To read features by other Creators Syndicate writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators Syndicate Web page at www.creators.com.

COPYRIGHT 2012 BY JFS PRODUCTIONS INC.

DISTRIBUTED BY CREATORS.COM



Comments

2 Comments | Post Comment
John,

As usual, well put. The response to the common sense approach of cutting spending should be "well duh" however, somewhere along the way the phrase "I'm from the government and I am here to help" went from being a joke to being words to live by for upwards of 47% of the population. Personal responsibility and accountability both from ourselves and our elected representatives is the answer. It is not their money, it is our money. To paraphrase a recent quote: You (Mr. Obama, U.S. Senate, U.S. House) didn't earn that.
Comment: #1
Posted by: A. Kane
Wed Dec 19, 2012 10:24 AM
John,

I share most of your ideas, here is one more, why don't we implement a scoring method for congress something like what they do in hockey, +/- score while they are in office? During their public service if the national debt decrease then they have deserved their salaries and benefits, if debt increased at the end of their term then they lose eligibility for re-election, lose benefit and healthcare fore life..

Maybe that way they would feel responsible to actually achieve something during their public service.
Comment: #2
Posted by: Vicken Ishkhanian
Wed Jan 2, 2013 2:19 AM
Already have an account? Log in.
New Account  
Your Name:
Your E-mail:
Your Password:
Confirm Your Password:

Please allow a few minutes for your comment to be posted.

Enter the numbers to the right:  
Creators.com comments policy
More
John Stossel
May. `13
Su Mo Tu We Th Fr Sa
28 29 30 1 2 3 4
5 6 7 8 9 10 11
12 13 14 15 16 17 18
19 20 21 22 23 24 25
26 27 28 29 30 31 1
About the author About the author
Write the author Write the author
Printer friendly format Printer friendly format
Email to friend Email to friend
View by Month
Walter Williams
Walter E. WilliamsUpdated 22 May 2013
Dennis Prager
Dennis PragerUpdated 21 May 2013
Newspaper ContributorsUpdated 21 May 2013

14 Jan 2009 A False Sense of Security

30 May 2007 The Double "Thank-You" Moment

12 Aug 2009 Big Business Goes Big for Health-Care Reform