Let’s Limit Spending

Guest Post by Walter E. Williams

Let's Limit Spending

Click to visit the TBP Store for Great TBP Merchandise

Some people have called for a balanced budget amendment to our Constitution as a means of reining in a big-spending Congress. That’s a misguided vision, for the simple reason that in any real economic sense, as opposed to an accounting sense, the federal budget is always balanced. The value of what we produced in 2017 — our gross domestic product — totaled about $19 trillion. If the Congress spent $4 trillion of the $19 trillion that we produced, unless you believe in Santa Claus, you know that Congress must force us to spend $4 trillion less privately.

Taxing us is one way that Congress can do that. But federal revenue estimates for 2017 are about $3.5 trillion, leaving an accounting deficit of about $500 billion. So taxes are not enough to cover Congress’ spending. Another way Congress can get us to spend less privately is to enter the bond market. It can borrow. Borrowing forces us to spend less privately, and it drives up interest rates and crowds out private investment. Finally, the most dishonest way to get us to spend less is to inflate our currency. Higher prices for goods and services reduce our real spending.

-----------------------------------------------------
It is my sincere desire to provide readers of this site with the best unbiased information available, and a forum where it can be discussed openly, as our Founders intended. But it is not easy nor inexpensive to do so, especially when those who wish to prevent us from making the truth known, attack us without mercy on all fronts on a daily basis. So each time you visit the site, I would ask that you consider the value that you receive and have received from The Burning Platform and the community of which you are a vital part. I can't do it all alone, and I need your help and support to keep it alive. Please consider contributing an amount commensurate to the value that you receive from this site and community, or even by becoming a sustaining supporter through periodic contributions. [Burning Platform LLC - PO Box 1520 Kulpsville, PA 19443] or Paypal

-----------------------------------------------------
To donate via Stripe, click here.
-----------------------------------------------------
Use promo code ILMF2, and save up to 66% on all MyPillow purchases. (The Burning Platform benefits when you use this promo code.)

The bottom line is the federal budget is always balanced in any real economic sense. For those enamored of a balanced budget amendment, think about the following. Would we have greater personal liberty under a balanced federal budget with Congress spending $4 trillion and taxing us $4 trillion, or would we be freer under an unbalanced federal budget with Congress spending $2 trillion and taxing us $1 trillion? I’d prefer the unbalanced budget. The true measure of government’s impact on our lives is government spending, not government taxing.

Tax revenue is not our problem. The federal government has collected nearly 20 percent of the nation’s gross domestic product almost every year since 1960. Federal spending has exceeded 20 percent of the GDP for most of that period. Because federal spending is the problem, that’s where our focus should be. Cutting spending is politically challenging. Every spending constituency sees what it gets from government as vital, whether it be Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid recipients or farmers, poor people, educators or the military. It’s easy for members of Congress to say yes to these spending constituencies, because whether it’s Democrats or Republicans in control, they don’t face a hard and fast bottom line.

The nation needs a constitutional amendment that limits congressional spending to a fixed fraction, say 20 percent, of the GDP. It might stipulate that the limit could be exceeded only if the president declared a state of emergency and two-thirds of both houses of Congress voted to approve the spending. By the way, the Founding Fathers would be horrified by today’s congressional spending. From 1787 to the 1920s, except in wartime, federal government spending never exceeded 4 percent of our GDP.

During the early ’80s, I was a member of the National Tax Limitation Committee. Our distinguished blue-ribbon drafting committee included its founder, Lew Uhler, plus notables such as Milton Friedman, James Buchanan, Paul McCracken, Bill Niskanen, Craig Stubblebine, Robert Bork, Aaron Wildavsky, Robert Nisbet and Robert Carleson. The U.S. Senate passed our proposed balanced budget/spending limitation amendment to the U.S. Constitution on Aug. 4, 1982, by a bipartisan vote of 69-31, surpassing the two-thirds requirement by two votes. In the House of Representatives, the amendment was approved by a bipartisan majority (236-187), but it did not meet the two-thirds vote required by Article 5 of the Constitution. The amendment can be found in Milton and Rose Friedman’s “Tyranny of the Status Quo” or the appendix of their “Free to Choose.”

During an interview about the proposed amendment, a reporter asked why I disagreed with the committee and called for a limit of 10 percent of GDP on federal spending. I told him that if 10 percent is good enough for the Baptist Church, it ought to be good enough for the U.S. Congress.

Subscribe
Notify of
guest
12 Comments
james the deplorable wanderer
james the deplorable wanderer
February 7, 2018 11:20 am

The sound of a reasonable man talking in a world full of idiots. Amazing how sane he sounds.

Hollywood Rob
Hollywood Rob
  james the deplorable wanderer
February 7, 2018 11:45 am

Only to the idiots that the world is full of.

Trapped in Portlandia
Trapped in Portlandia
February 7, 2018 11:27 am

This guy wants to destroy our entire system of government in the USA. If you take away Congress’s ability to give money to their cronies, then you take away the incentive for the cronies to give brides, I mean campaign contributions, to Congressman. If we eliminate this money exchange, what the hell will Congress do–represent the people?

That will never happen.

Wip
Wip
February 7, 2018 11:39 am

This is one big circle jerk with spooge everywhere. I want out.

TJF
TJF
February 7, 2018 12:08 pm

If there were to be an amendment limiting government spending to some percentage of GDP, then I sure hope the number is something less than 20%. Maybe more like 10% or less and then I may be interested.

The other glaring issue, is that the government gets to decide what GDP is, so they in effect can spend whatever they want by making the GDP number whatever they need it to be. None of the numbers the government reports are trustworthy, so why do we think the GDP number would not simply be manipulated in order to set the spending limit to what they wanted?

james the deplorable wanderer
james the deplorable wanderer
  TJF
February 7, 2018 12:18 pm

Got that right – worms love wormholes, and delight in finding / making them. If the reward was personal and the chances of punishment negligible, wouldn’t you do the same?

MrLiberty
MrLiberty
February 7, 2018 2:34 pm

And according to latest reports, the new budget deal that is on the table massively increases spending on both warfare and welfare expenditures. Who honestly thinks the republicans actually care about limited government? I mean we KNOW the democrats don’t, but they don’t campaign on a platform of lies (about this anyway).

TC
TC
February 7, 2018 4:05 pm

I’d prefer a simpler approach. Congress has to run a zero deficit budget, and if they fail to pass a balanced budget and stick to it, they don’t get paid a salary.

Anonymous
Anonymous
February 7, 2018 4:27 pm

Kasich? Ha ha, that’s a good one.

miforest
miforest
  Anonymous
February 8, 2018 10:58 am

yeah , I thought that pic was funny too. kasich is a rino’s rino. He is the worst of the GOP establishment. a complete talk right legislate left tool of the left.

Scott halloween
Scott halloween
February 7, 2018 10:00 pm

are you on welfare? Then you don’t contribute to society, therefor, you don’t get a say in its direction. Welfare equals NO VOTE. More women on welfare than anyone else. This is a step in the correct direction.

Nurse Ratched
Nurse Ratched
February 7, 2018 11:47 pm

On the local level, I think it should be obvious that no spending levy can be voted upon if you don’t actually own property. The votes of the FSA dilute the homeowners’ votes, making them worth less. Of course you will vote for SOMEONE ELSE to pay more for “services”…