Getting some hot responses to my call for a Balanced Budget Amendment in exchange for tax increases.
Mind you all, I’m not a huge fan of BBAs, especially as proposed last summer. A proposed BBA with an exemption in times of warfare would essentially exempt the US from ever having to follow the rule.
Additionally, I would prefer to see governments forced to leave space below the cap. A responsible government would save a few percentage points in the good years in order to have breathing room in bad years.
But to get to nitty gritty things, I’m not an economist and do not pretend to be. This is a rhetorical proposal that seeks to bridge a major gap between our nation’s two parties. We need more revenue. We also need to control long term spending. I believe my proposal is a start in the right direction.
1. The state is not “we.”
2. Unless it is truly voluntary (or “euvoluntary,” to use Munger’s term), “revenue” for the state is theft.
3. The state does not need more “revenue.” Not only because it would be aggressively coercive, but because it would be a prompt to spend more - which is itself the underlying problem.
4. I appreciate your eagerness to forge solutions, but compromise between Republicrats and Demoblicans are not typically beneficial to the individuals over which they presume to rule.
5. “Balanced budget amendments” represent, at best, false hope. If lawmakers seldom adhere to the restrictions codified in the Constitution itself, what real change must we expect?
There’s only one solution to dampen the inevitable economic calamity that awaits: the state must spend less (see: “zero”). That’s it. As I’ve said previously: “we need to slash budgets on our way to smashing the state.”
- getmesomedopamine reblogged this from laliberty
- tlynnette likes this
- biognosis likes this
- statewilleatitself reblogged this from laliberty and added:
- statewilleatitself likes this
- jgreendc likes this
- laliberty reblogged this from jgreendc and added:
- jakke said:With all due respect, the proposal is unambiguously a terrible idea. Any such move to irreversibly bind the government’s spending ability is a huge threat to basic human security. (I reblogged your previous post with a longer explanation.)
- jgreendc posted this