government spending

We Need to Move Beyond Earmarks

BOTTOM LINE UP FRONT: We need to win the battles over definitions, principles and policy when it comes to fiscal matters.

President Barack Obama has signed the $410 billion omnibus spending bill, and has broken yet another promise that he made during the campaign. Apparently, there was some debate in the Oval Office over what to do with the bill:

"White House aides said they debated whether the president should sign an omnibus spending bill that includes more than 8,500 pet projects worth $7.7 billion.

"White House counselor David Axelrod suggested a veto would send a strong signal that Mr. Obama's Washington really would represent change. But the president decided it wasn't worth adding a fight with his own party onto a plate that is already overly filled."

We can also surmise that Obama was too embarrassed to sign the bill in public. Check out these tweets from ABC News' Jake Tapper:

jaketapper: "Why are you not signing this bill in public?" the president was asked after he talked about earmark reforms he'd like to see. no answer.

jaketapper: president obama signed the omnibus spending bill...no photographs allowed.

I didn't think too much more about it until Patrick Ruffini, @thingsbreak and I had this short Twitter conversation:

PatrickRuffini: GOP should call for a total ban on earmarks in light of the economy and the deficit. Every day we don't do so we seal our irrelevance #tcot

alaskan: @PatrickRuffini Problem is that there's wasteful spending that aren't earmarks. Need to find a way to describe appropriate public goods.

thingsbreak: @PatrickRuffini But renouncing rather than reforming is political suicide. Earmarks are not intrinsically evil but abused. Agree/disagree?

PatrickRuffini: @alaskan @thingsbreak Earmarks are the most visible and easiest to fix symbol of how Republicans have lost their way

I agree with Patrick that earmarks are the most visible symbol. But that's exactly the problem. I don't agree that it's enough for Republicans to fix "symbols" of how we've lost our way. I don't agree that we need to focus on symbols. Yes, we need to fix the abuse of the earmark process by reforming it. But the fact is that not all earmarks can be construed as wasteful spending and not all wasteful spending are in earmarks.

At the Heritage Foundation's Conservative Bloggers Briefing, I mentioned this to Congressman Tom Price (R-GA), chairman of the House Republican Study Committee, and asked him how we can move away from discussing earmarks and move towards discussing wasteful spending. Price went on to talk about the growing deficit and debt, and said that we have to communicate these large numbers to the American people. I don't think this is quite enough.

It's easy to come up with rhetoric denouncing "the evils of earmarks," but what we should be focusing on substantively is wasteful spending. Republicans should take three concrete steps to revive conservatism in sound fiscal policy: (1) defining public goods and wasteful spending, (2) reformulate principles that voters can connect with, and (3) promoting new fiscal processes and policies that can achieve less spending, more transparency and better prioritization.

(For details on these steps, read below the fold.)

And the Political Buzzword of the Year is...

 Obviously back in the good old days of 2007, the political buzzword of the year was Surge.  Beginning with General Petraeus's implementation of the highly controversial "surge" tactics and overall strategy in the Iraqi war theater, beginning in January 2007, the word dominated news reports and political anaysis for the year to describe virtually anything - a "surge," of forces in Iraq, a "surge" of diplomacy that Democratic contenders for President promised, a "surge" in the polls for this or that politician in the primaries.

That was a pretty positive word - it has a positive connotation, that of a situation vastly improving, for the betterment of all parties involved.  The adoption of "surge," in daily political jargon just carried feelings of upward mobility with it.

Now, as we near the end of 2008, what is the Political Buzzword of the Year?

Do I even have to say it?

BAILOUT.  It all began with the "rescue plan," of Bear Stearns via J.P. Morgan, and has continued throughout the year, whether via the Federal Reserve, the Treasury Department, or the Congress.  Everyone has lined up to get their share of the bailout excuse me, rescue plans, and the economy hasn't miraculously been saved for any of these bailouts, which is surprising given all the hand-wringing and doomsday predictions the White House and their allies in Congress spewed about how "necessary," each and every one was (sarcasm off).  The government now plays economic kingmaker, determinig which companies are too "big to fail," and which failed management teams deserve their shot at the Taxpayer's Wheel of Fortune.  

Does anyone remember the long, drawn out, public debate about Fannie/Freddie, the Community Reinvestment Act, and monetary bubbles created by the Federal Reserve, all of which combined in a phantasmagoric trilemma from government hell to enable ridiculous loan practices and lead to the housing situation we are in now?

You know what?  I don't remember, either.  It's because we never had that public discussion.  Very few politicians had the stomach to bring it up, and our party's Presidential nominee only tepidly talked about how he had wanted to reform Fannie and Freddie but the mean Democrats wouldn't let him.  Sure, there was plenty of solid, historical analysis from the blogosphere - but hey, who pays attention to those troglodytes, anyway?!?

The latest in bailout news?  You are all familiar with it by now - car companies.  Apparently a great showdown is occuring this week, though I doubt Senator Shelby will be able to garner enough support to filibuster or defeat a bailout bill (excuse me again - a bridge loan) for the Big Three.  The UAW claims to be willing to be a part of the solution, but it turns out they don't really mean it, and will continue to be part of the problem.  Color me surprised.

We went from 2007, with the word surge, one evicting positive emotions of upward mobility, and improvement over a current situation, to the pathetic misnomer bailout in 2008.  I call it a misnomer, because "our economy," (that is what we're all fighting for, right?  Right?...) is not receiving these "bailouts."  People who don't deserve them due to fiscal mismanagement are receiving the goodies from Uncle Sam's Candy Store, of course all graciously granted by politicians that were every bit as complicit in most of these problems to begin with.  A "bailout," for taxpayers has hardly been suggested, because as we can all expect by now the federal spending will continue to skyrocket, and we will continue to borrow and print money.  Bring on the large FDR-style New New Deal jobs programs from President-Elect Obama, and when the economy has "improved," enough to hide all of the leaks in it, bring on higher taxes for the evil, filthy rich, at the very earliest in 2010 by not renewing the Bush tax cuts.

I like the 2007 word a lot more than the 2008 one, don't you?

Cross posted at Save the GOP.

 

Government Spending is a tax on the middle class

by Rep. Ron Paul, MD   June, 2004

All government spending represents a tax. The inflation tax, while largely ignored, hurts middle-class and low-income Americans the most.

The never-ending political squabble in Congress over taxing the rich, helping the poor, “Pay-Go,” deficits, and special interests, ignores the most insidious of all taxes – the inflation tax. Simply put, printing money to pay for federal spending dilutes the value of the dollar, which causes higher prices for goods and services. Inflation may be an indirect tax, but it is very real – the individuals who suffer most from cost of living increases certainly pay a “tax.”

Unfortunately no one in Washington, especially those who defend the poor and the middle class, cares about this subject. Instead, all we hear is that tax cuts for the rich are the source of every economic ill in the country. Anyone truly concerned about the middle class suffering from falling real wages, under-employment, a rising cost of living, and a decreasing standard of living should pay a lot more attention to monetary policy. Federal spending, deficits, and Federal Reserve mischief hurt the poor while transferring wealth to the already rich. This is the real problem, and raising taxes on those who produce wealth will only make conditions worse.

This neglect of monetary policy may be out of ignorance, but it may well be deliberate. Fully recognizing the harm caused by printing money to cover budget deficits might create public pressure to restrain spending – something the two parties don’t want.

Expanding entitlements is now an accepted prerogative of both parties. Foreign wars and nation building are accepted as foreign policy by both parties.

The Left hardly deserves credit when complaining about Republican deficits. Likewise, we’ve been told by Ronald Reagan that deficits don’t matter – a tenet of supply-side economics. With this the prevailing wisdom in Washington, no one should be surprised that spending and deficits are skyrocketing. The vocal concerns expressed about huge deficits coming from big spenders on both sides are nothing more than political grandstanding. If Members feel so strongly about spending, Congress simply could do what it ought to do – cut spending. That, however, is never seriously considered by either side.

If those who say they want to increase taxes to reduce the deficit got their way, who would benefit? No one! There’s no historic evidence to show that taxing productive Americans to support both the rich and poor welfare beneficiaries helps the middle class, produces jobs, or stimulates the economy.

Borrowing money to cut the deficit is only marginally better than raising taxes. It may delay the pain for a while, but the cost of government eventually must be paid. Federal borrowing means the cost of interest is added, shifting the burden to a different group than those who benefited and possibly even to another generation. Eventually borrowing is always paid for through taxation.

All spending ultimately must be a tax, even when direct taxes and direct borrowing are avoided. The third option is for the Federal Reserve to create credit to pay the bills Congress runs up. Nobody objects, and most Members hope that deficits don’t really matter if the Fed accommodates Congress by creating more money. Besides, interest payments to the Fed are lower than they would be if funds were borrowed from the public, and payments can be delayed indefinitely merely by creating more credit out of thin air to buy U.S. treasuries. No need to soak the rich. A good deal, it seems, for everyone. But is it?

Paying for government spending with Federal Reserve credit, instead of taxing or borrowing from the public, is anything but a good deal for everyone. In fact it is the most sinister seductive “tax” of them all. Initially it is unfair to some, but dangerous to everyone in the end. It is especially harmful to the middle class, including lower-income working people who are thought not to be paying taxes.

The “tax” is paid when prices rise as the result of a depreciating dollar. Savers and those living on fixed or low incomes are hardest hit as the cost of living rises. Low and middle incomes families suffer the most as they struggle to make ends meet while wealth is literally transferred from the middle class to the wealthy. Government officials stick to their claim that no significant inflation exists, even as certain necessary costs are skyrocketing and incomes are stagnating. The transfer of wealth comes as savers and fixed income families lose purchasing power, large banks benefit, and corporations receive plush contracts from the government – as is the case with military contractors. These companies use the newly printed money before it circulates, while the middle class is forced to accept it at face value later on. This becomes a huge hidden tax on the middle class, many of whom never object to government spending in hopes that the political promises will be fulfilled and they will receive some of the  goodies. But surprise – it doesn’t happen. The result instead is higher prices for prescription drugs, energy, and other necessities. The freebies never come.

The Fed is solely responsible for inflation by creating money out of thin air. It does so either to monetize federal debt, or in the process of economic planning through interest rate manipulation. This Fed intervention in our economy, though rarely even acknowledged by Congress, is more destructive than Members can imagine.

Not only is the Fed directly responsible for inflation and economic downturns, it causes artificially low interest rates that serve the interests of big borrowers, speculators, and banks. This unfairly steals income from frugal retirees who chose to save and place their funds in interest bearing instruments like CDs.

The Fed’s great power over the money supply, interest rates, the business cycle, unemployment, and inflation is wielded with essentially no Congressional oversight or understanding. The process of inflating our currency to pay for government debt indeed imposes a tax without legislative authority.

This is no small matter. In just the first 24 weeks of this year (2004) the M3* money supply increased 428 billion dollars, and 700 billion dollars in the past year. M3 currently is rising at a rate of 10.5%. In the last seven years the money supply has increased 80%, as M3 has soared 4.1 trillion dollars. This bizarre system of paper money worldwide has allowed serious international imbalances to develop. We owe just four Asian countries 1.5 trillion dollars as a consequence of a chronic and staggering current account deficit now exceeding 5% of our GDP. This current account deficit means Americans must borrow 1.6 billion dollars per day from overseas just to finance this deficit. This imbalance, which until now has permitted us to live beyond our means, eventually will give us higher consumer prices, a lower standard of living, higher interest rates, and renewed inflation.

Rest assured the middle class will suffer disproportionately from this process.

The moral of the story is that spending is always a tax. The inflation tax, though hidden, only makes things worse. Taxing, borrowing, and inflating to satisfy wealth transfers from the middle class to the rich in an effort to pay for profligate government spending, can never make a nation wealthier. But it certainly can make it poorer.

* Today,  the government no longer discloses the M3 value to the public, making it impossible for the public to actually know just how much increasingly worthless paper money the government  is printing and dumping into the economy -- just another example of the growing power of the fascist state over that of the democratic state.

ex animo

davidfarrar

Texas-Style Transparency

Last month I offered a couple examples of the good work being done online by state-based think tanks. There's another noteworthy project to highlight today from Texas.

As one of the leading states in the area of government transparency, Texas is already a step ahead of most states when it comes to giving citizens access to information. But what the state lacked was a single source to find what's publicly available. Enter the Texas Public Policy Foundation.

The Austin-based foundation today launched TexasBudgetSource.com, which was designed to be a one-stop shop for spending data from state and local governments. The project's goal was to put in the hands of citizens the information they need to hold their elected officials accountable.

There is only one way to ensure spending cuts...

...will ever balance the budget -- don't let Congress get their hands on our money in the first place.

While both candidates' economic plan offer tax cuts, in their own way, both will leave billions more in government spending, money we don't have, and money foreign money-lenders will be only too happy to provide. All we have to do is put our children's' future on the slave block. As a fiscal conservative, I am all for tax cuts, but tax cuts without significant cuts in government spending is more than just being irresponsible, it is dangerous. It is putting the economic future of our children and their children, and, thus, the Republic, at risk.

The only way we can expect government spending cuts to pay for tax cuts is to stop our money from ever getting to Congress in the first place. The only fair way to achieve this is to do away with the individual income tax on wages and institute a fair tax on corporate profits (at significantly reduced rates) and a sales tax of no more than 10 percent.

The aim here is to significantly reduce the revenue the federal government has to spend. Any reduction in federal government spending that must be addressed beyond these present levels can and should be made up at the State, county and local levels.

Until we see significant reduction in government spending, we are simply squandering the economic future of this Republic and the country.

ex animo

davidfarrar

 

Syndicate content