Harry Browne used to ask, “Would you give up yuor favorite federal program if it meant you never had to pay income taxes again?” It was one of the better arguments for small government.
Of course, he usually used the singular, “program,” when what he really meant was “programs.” If the government stopped funding PBS, you would never notice the difference in your paycheck. Same with foreign aid, FEMA, NTSB, and most of the other programs that are not writing checks to individual citizens.
That has to be the deal, spoken loudly and clearly: we will shut down ALL the programs outside of rudimentary defense, courts, and aprehending violent criminals who cross state lines and you will never have money taken from your paycheck again. Most federal lands will be auctioned off and used to pay annuities to taxpayers, which will help all, but especially those currently dependent on federal funds.
Pie in the sky? Yes, but it is the only argument I found to be persuasive to those who are not rabidly small government.
“Most federal lands will be auctioned off and used to pay annuities to taxpayers”
I like having access to public lands. They should be opened up to more different types of users and maybe some sold but divesting of them would be a mistake.
You bring up a good point about what would someone give up. We are in a budgetary hole and everyone should be willing to sacrifice a little. Demand is infinite and there are endless worthy causes. Quite often, there are little things that wouldn’t make much of a difference if they exist or don’t but all those things add up.
There are a lot of intelligent people who are NASA fans who know the dire straights we are in and don’t think their favorite area of government spending should be impacted but everything adds up. NASA is lucky that their wasteful spending can hide behind a much larger problem.
Personally, I think the greatest savings would be found going after fraud in the healthcare industry but we should also increase our standards for people who should know better, like NASA.
My wife and I took a road trip around the Western US – including to Mt. St. Helens. The drive into the observatory there passes mixed USFS and private forest lands – 1 section (square mile) each.
The USFS forest looked like it was ready to explode – lots of underbrush, unhealthy looking trees, poor access. The managed forest looked managed: Trees the same distance apart, etc. But, it wasn’t going to burn easily.
Perhaps we should make the people who benefit from the resources the stewards of maintaining them?
But path dependence is a real thing. Every retiree in America, for example, has planned his career (and paid FICA) on the expectation of getting Social Security and Medicare. (Yes, I know there was no lockbox and it was really a big Ponzi scheme. That doesn’t contradict what I said.) It’s a political non-starter — and maybe *should* be — to inflict the pain required in order to end entitlements, even if a generation hence it would be seen as the act of statesmen.
I’d love to see a plan for reverting to the Constitution that took seriously the problem of where we are starting and not just where we want to go. This article is not terrible on that score but there’s a long way from there to good.
I’m afraid the only sound solution is to invent a time machine and kill Wilson. But apparently nobody is ever going to do that, because they didn’t.
It’s hard to argue with the logic of Horatio Bunce.
Harry Browne used to ask, “Would you give up yuor favorite federal program if it meant you never had to pay income taxes again?” It was one of the better arguments for small government.
Of course, he usually used the singular, “program,” when what he really meant was “programs.” If the government stopped funding PBS, you would never notice the difference in your paycheck. Same with foreign aid, FEMA, NTSB, and most of the other programs that are not writing checks to individual citizens.
That has to be the deal, spoken loudly and clearly: we will shut down ALL the programs outside of rudimentary defense, courts, and aprehending violent criminals who cross state lines and you will never have money taken from your paycheck again. Most federal lands will be auctioned off and used to pay annuities to taxpayers, which will help all, but especially those currently dependent on federal funds.
Pie in the sky? Yes, but it is the only argument I found to be persuasive to those who are not rabidly small government.
“Most federal lands will be auctioned off and used to pay annuities to taxpayers”
I like having access to public lands. They should be opened up to more different types of users and maybe some sold but divesting of them would be a mistake.
You bring up a good point about what would someone give up. We are in a budgetary hole and everyone should be willing to sacrifice a little. Demand is infinite and there are endless worthy causes. Quite often, there are little things that wouldn’t make much of a difference if they exist or don’t but all those things add up.
There are a lot of intelligent people who are NASA fans who know the dire straights we are in and don’t think their favorite area of government spending should be impacted but everything adds up. NASA is lucky that their wasteful spending can hide behind a much larger problem.
Personally, I think the greatest savings would be found going after fraud in the healthcare industry but we should also increase our standards for people who should know better, like NASA.
My wife and I took a road trip around the Western US – including to Mt. St. Helens. The drive into the observatory there passes mixed USFS and private forest lands – 1 section (square mile) each.
The USFS forest looked like it was ready to explode – lots of underbrush, unhealthy looking trees, poor access. The managed forest looked managed: Trees the same distance apart, etc. But, it wasn’t going to burn easily.
Perhaps we should make the people who benefit from the resources the stewards of maintaining them?
I strongly agree, in principle.
But path dependence is a real thing. Every retiree in America, for example, has planned his career (and paid FICA) on the expectation of getting Social Security and Medicare. (Yes, I know there was no lockbox and it was really a big Ponzi scheme. That doesn’t contradict what I said.) It’s a political non-starter — and maybe *should* be — to inflict the pain required in order to end entitlements, even if a generation hence it would be seen as the act of statesmen.
I’d love to see a plan for reverting to the Constitution that took seriously the problem of where we are starting and not just where we want to go. This article is not terrible on that score but there’s a long way from there to good.
I’m afraid the only sound solution is to invent a time machine and kill Wilson. But apparently nobody is ever going to do that, because they didn’t.
I’m afraid the only sound solution is to invent a time machine and kill Wilson. But apparently nobody is ever going to do that, because they didn’t.
Well, not on our timeline anyway…
They didn’t SO FAR.
Nearly all time travelers appear to be lunatics to us…
It’s kind of a maxim.
At 68, I am not dependent on Social Security. I would give up my share if that was part of the price of eliminating the Ponzi scheme.