While it’s true that proponents of limited government simply don’t want to pay more taxes, there’s more to the story. When taxes increase, the government has more money to spend, intruding in people’s lives. The government has a workaround for this: Borrowing money. Last Friday, Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner sent a letter to Congress asking to move “as soon as possible” to increase the nation’s statutory debt limit. According to Geithner, the $12.1 trillion current limit could be reached by mid-October, after which Treasury would begin defaulting on debt. This would be the second time this year the debt ceiling has been raised. But what is the point of a debt ceiling when it can be so easily moved?
It’s of special significance, then, that Cost of Government Day came yesterday, a full month later than last year. Americans had to work until yesterday in order to pay for the costs of government spending plus government regulations, the things you pay for in every product and service you buy. Last year, that day was July 16, but that was before the gargantuan $700 billion stimulus, Troubled Asset Relief Program funds, and bank bailouts helped bring our federal deficit to $1.5 trillion. Federal spending this year will consume 30.36 percent of the nation’s income.
At a time of fiscal crisis, is it really such a good idea to force hardworking Americans to work 111 days simply to fund excessive government spending? The picture is, in fact, far more bleak: While the stimulus was passed on the promise of creating three million jobs, 2.2 million have been lost in the five months since the bill was signed. Charging the public for such failure is a rough deal. Some economists like Alan Blinder agree with the Obama administration that the stimulus needs more time to work, but paying for it will require a tax increase. That means an even less robust environment for businesses to grow.
If the goal is allowing the economy to take flight, the government shouldn’t suck the American work force dry. The solution is to cut government spending, starting with earmarks, luxury jets for flying congressmen around the world on their tax-paid junkets, and making it illegal for senators and representatives to accept campaign donations from recipients of federal contracts and grants.
Admittedly that’s only a start, but is it too much to ask our congressmen to start making some tough decisions that require them to give up something instead of always passing the buck of sacrifice to taxpayers?
