Thursday, November 16, 2006
Run Deficits
I actually think the Reagan Administration initiated, and the Bush Administration picked up the same thread, that running deficits is a reasonable way to limit earmark largesse in the long (though not the short) run. Over long stretches of time, it has been proven that tax cuts are electorally popular and economically beneficial while tax increases are economically contractionary and politically suicide. That is the best way over long periods of time to limit the handout smorgasbord.
Another important reform would include properly accounting for our nation's economic liabilities. Politicians are quick to attack executives for "cooking the books," but nobody does it better than the DC thieves. If we ever had to put Social Security and Medicare on balance sheet and fund the liabilities, that would set off sufficient alarms as to put a brake on the piggishness.
8 Comments:
By 
Lanky_Bastard, at
Thu Nov 16, 05:35:00 PM:
That's how I manage spending in my personal life. I max out my credit cards until I'm crippled with debt...then I have less money to spend.
By Cardinalpark, at
Thu Nov 16, 05:52:00 PM:
Well, I have to say that I think it's less effective to run your personal finances that way. But when you are dealing with third party moral hazard, as we are with congressional thieves, I'm afraid it probably is the only way.
By Dawnfire82, at
Thu Nov 16, 07:26:00 PM:
After all, it's not like Congress is spending their own money. *They* personally aren't affected by their actions, except as it might affect their next election campaign.
By 
, at
Thu Nov 16, 08:00:00 PM:
I think Glenn and the Porkbusters are going at this from the wrong end.
Everyone pays Federal taxes. The job of your Senator and Congressperson is to bring that money back to your State, your District. If the Feds are going to spend money on bridges then they better spend money on our bridges.
Of course the fact that he/she gets 'campaign donations' from the deal and maybe the bridge connects to some land they or their family happen to have a stake in is neither here nor there.
No, the way to limit pork is to limit federal taxation - and the way to limit federal taxation is to bring power, and responsibility, back to the States.
Let the Senators and reps fight over who makes the uniforms or builds the warships and warplanes and let the States spend local taxes on the rest.
By , at
Thu Nov 16, 10:01:00 PM:
How hard is it realy to put these politicians on a diet and get these porkers to slim down?
By honestpartisan, at
Thu Nov 16, 11:34:00 PM:
Bring back term limits? Bring power back to the states?
Umm, who's controlled Congress for the past twelve years? How many times have they proposed to amend the Constitution to provide for congressional term limits?
If you want to amend the Constitution, it should be for a better reason than the partisan situation of the moment.
And as far as bringing power back to the states ... sigh. I hope that you're directing that sentiment at the political party that wants to make federal issues out of marriage, abortion, tort damages, and removing people from life support.
By Dawnfire82, at
Fri Nov 17, 10:59:00 AM:
Concur with Honest... You can't talk about states rights on one hand and then try to strip them in the name of hot-button emotional partisan issues on the other.
Abortion, gay marriage, right to die... leave it all to the states. If Kansas doesn't want abortions, fine. If Massachussetts wants gay marriage, fine. We're broken up into states for a reason...
By , at
Sun Nov 19, 09:42:00 PM:
Running deficits DOES work in your private life:
I have an income, that my wife would like to see invested wisely in shoes, handbags and expensive restaurant parties. The only way I can avoid this is to blow all my money on frivolous things like realestate purchases. Then, once our credit cards are full up, I have a perfect reply to any request for a new hat "Sorry, my credit card is maxed out, how is your's?"
The only real problem is that the credit card companies don't give me the margin of safety that I would like, ie. the ability to pay for car repairs but not a new dishwasher.
I think this is a very close model to government spending.
