• Syndicate content
  • Comment

Brawner: Shrink government by actually paying for it

Posted: June 21, 2014 - 4:53pm
Steve Brawner
Steve Brawner

Do you want to reduce the size of government? I mean, really reduce it, instead of just talking about it? There’s one surefire way. Pay for the government we’re buying. If that means raising taxes, so be it.

It’s simple economics. To reduce consumption of a product, raise the price.

I’ll explain. For decades, Americans have been buying big government at what has felt like a steep discount. Since 2001, we’ve fought wars, deposed dictators, and created huge government programs under Presidents Bush and Obama. Meanwhile, thanks to the Bush tax cuts, Americans have been paying historically low taxes.

In the meantime, the national debt has increased $11 trillion just since Sept. 30, 2000 — equal to more than $35,000 for every American currently living, or $140,000 for a family of four.

None of this is a coincidence. When something is cheap, people consume more of it, and that includes government. During the past 14 years, we’ve gotten $11 trillion of government for which we did not pay. Naturally, we’ve done what consumers always do when given free stuff: Accept it, and expect more. That will continue as long as we keep using this national credit card that never seems to come due. But come due it will.

The only way we’ll ever shrink government, and the only way we’ll stop increasing the debt, is if Americans finally understand the true costs of these national policies. That will only happen when they pay for them. Imagine if the average family of four had been required to pay $140,000 more in taxes these past 14 years. Don’t you think there would have been a much more vigorous debate about whether the United States could afford these military actions and big government programs?

In 2004, the late William Niskanen, chairman of the Cato Institute, made the same argument. The Cato Institute is not a left-wing outfit; instead, it supports greatly reducing government. Niskanen studied the growth of government from 1981 to 2000. He found that federal spending increased by half a percent of the nation’s gross domestic product for each one percentage point decrease in tax revenues. In other words, as taxes were reduced, government grew. We were running deficits almost every year then, too.

Unfortunately, while both Republicans and Democrats like increasing the size of government, they don’t like making Americans pay for it. The latter is especially true among Republicans. Years ago, the conservative movement adopted a theory known as “starve the beast.” The thinking was by reducing the tax revenues sent to Washington, government naturally would shrink.

Conservatives weren’t thinking like economists. Government did not shrink. Why would it? We weren’t paying for it.

Even though it hasn’t worked, “starve the best” remains the dominant strategy among conservatives. Many Republicans at the federal and state levels have signed the Americans for Tax Reform’s “Taxpayer Protection Pledge,” stating they will resist efforts to raise taxes. Every current Republican member of Arkansas’ congressional delegation has signed the pledge, as have the two Republicans challenging for seats in Congress: French Hill in the 2nd District and state Rep. Bruce Westerman in the Fourth.

The pledge been an effective tool for keeping Republicans in line on tax increases. Unfortunately, there hasn’t been an equally effective “No spend pledge” where elected officials promise not to spend money the government doesn’t have.

Don’t you see the problem with that? Members of Congress can cut taxes but spend all they want because those most affected, the upcoming generations, don’t vote yet.

I don’t want to pay higher taxes any more than you do. But taxes aren’t the real problem. Big government is. If it grows like it’s projected to grow, eventually taxes must be raised, regardless of who has signed what pledge.

Let’s close by proposing two principles. First, if taxes are cut, spending should be cut at least that same amount. And second, except in extraordinary circumstances, Americans must pay the full price for the government we are buying. It’s the only way we’ll make wise decisions about how much of it we want.

(Follow Steve Brawner on Twitter @stevebrawner)

  • Comment
Comments (10) Add comment
ADVISORY: Users are solely responsible for opinions they post here and for following agreed-upon rules of civility. Posts and comments do not reflect the views of this site. Posts and comments are automatically checked for inappropriate language, but readers might find some comments offensive or inaccurate. If you believe a comment violates our rules, click the "Flag as offensive" link below the comment.
reader
18404
Points
reader 06/22/14 - 10:10 am
3
4
Great points Richard

The Republicans and Democrats both have increased the size of government, but the Republicans pledge to an outside group (Norquist) not to pay for it. Republicans should be pledging to the flag and the people of the U.S., not a right wing organization promising them money.

mikeng1994
10152
Points
mikeng1994 06/23/14 - 09:21 am
3
2
It had never occurred to me

It had never occurred to me that the Democrats have never asked for or accepted money from a source outside their own. How refreshing.

conwaygerl
5082
Points
conwaygerl 06/22/14 - 07:43 pm
4
1
Bush tax cuts

Some have expired and more expire this year.

Will we see a deficit decrease with the elimination of these tax cuts?

Probably not...

Elmer Fudd
3005
Points
Elmer Fudd 06/22/14 - 10:18 pm
3
0
Conwagerl

death and tax's. Try to live with it. Pun intended.

mikeng1994
10152
Points
mikeng1994 06/23/14 - 09:25 am
3
2
The government needs to live

The government needs to live of what they get just like they expect us to, regardless of who's in charge. Democrat have a history of taxing and then spending more than they taxed, just to justify the next tax increase. No amount is ever enough for those dumbsh**s to finish funding their welfare programs. Obamacare is just the newest of their tax schemes.

lachowsj
4964
Points
lachowsj 06/23/14 - 07:19 pm
3
1
Plenty of blame

Mike, there is plenty of blame to go around. Obamacare will be expensive but at least it is going to help people. The Iraq War cost a Trillion dollars and benefited us none. The last balanced budget was achieved by a Democrat (Clinton) working with a Republican congress. So it can be done.

Your first sentence is ironic. The government is us. WE need to live within OUR means. A deficit means we are getting more services than we are paying for. We need to elect politicians who will cut services or raise revenues or both. We can't get something for nothing and we need to stop electing politicians who try to convince us we can.

Igor Rabinowitz
8386
Points
Igor Rabinowitz 06/23/14 - 09:34 am
3
1
Whenever I see....

"all you got to do is...." solutions, I know I'm dealing with a gross over-simplification.

In this case followed by various bits of sophistry.

Really, how is this guy doing this for a living and I'm stuck making my money hunting ninjas?

mikeng1994
10152
Points
mikeng1994 06/23/14 - 11:53 am
1
1
Have ever got one? I hear

Have ever got one? I hear they are all at Kobes now.

Igor Rabinowitz
8386
Points
Igor Rabinowitz 06/23/14 - 01:09 pm
0
1
I'm not allowed to talk about it

It's part of my contract to keep it on the hush hush.

But did you notice how well Conway's been sleeping? That's all me.

David
329
Points
David 06/23/14 - 01:15 pm
3
0
Simple fantasies

To paraphrase Mr. Gump: Simple is as simple does. Economics is not simple. Government is not a commodity. Being a U.S. citizen is not equivalent to being a consumer (at least, not yet). If you have a job, a mortgage, and/or a credit card, or negotiate for anything you purchase then you live in a credit based economy. Make a sincere effort to understand the nature of credit without demonizing debt. Government does not come in various sizes despite our fanciful attempts to pretend that it does nor can it shrink or grow. To maintain a civil society, it is necessary that we pay for the common good. It isn't necessary to fear complexity.

Back to Top