Freedom Watch
Government Spends Too Much Because It Does Too Much
Just about everyone says spending should be reduced — but how can we tell if they’re serious?
Before we can truly bring an end to unsustainable federal deficits and debt, we must first have a very frank national discussion about what government does. In the current political and economic environment, it is difficult to find anyone — liberal, conservative, or whomever — who doesn’t insist that we must get the federal budget under control. When asked, almost everyone in Washington is singing the tune that spending needs to be reduced.
So… how do we know who is serious and who is just singing? We can start by looking past the numbers to press the more important questions: not of what government should spend, but what government should do — and not do.
We are in the mess we are in today because Democrats and Republicans alike have, for decades, failed to grasp the simple and bedrock American concept of limited government. And you cannot limit government spending with an unlimited government.
Don’t get me wrong. At this point, balancing the budget is our greatest imperative, and virtually anything — spending caps, hiring freezes, across-the-board cuts, earmark bans — that would move us in that direction in the near term is good. But absent fundamental, structural, and major surgery to eliminate activities government shouldn’t be doing, we are simply putting the beast on a temporary diet-with an inevitable binge to follow.
Anyone who has ever worked in government knows that, if you simply cut an agency’s budget without cutting what that agency does, the net effect is that spending is merely deferred until a brighter day. Positions aren’t filled, purchases are postponed, and maintenance is put off until another year. The poor government employee who is trying to work on an outdated computer just has to wait a year or two to get it replaced-perpetuating inefficiency in an already inefficient environment. Unless we eliminate the need for that computer, it will eventually be replaced-and the money spent. The dollars are only pushed into another election cycle.
If you cut the budget for a federal power plant, the reconstruction of a generator gets “deferred.” Either that expense is simply postponed, or, even worse, the old generator breaks and it costs far more to fix. That is not a reduction in spending-it’s just bad business. Real spending cuts will only happen when we ask the question: Why does the government need to own a power plant in the first place? Turn it over to the private sector where it belongs, and then we are not just changing the numbers on the spreadsheet. We are doing away with the spreadsheet and its expenditure column entirely. And it is highly likely that we end up with better electricity generation.
The list goes on ad infinitum, but the point is clear: If your business or household is spending $1 for every 60 cents it brings in, to avert the immediate crisis, you may have to cut every line in your budget by 40 cents. But that won’t solve the real problem. True prosperity only comes when you take a hard look at everything you do, identify that which you don’t need to be doing, shouldn’t be doing, or simply cannot afford to do… and stop.
Cut HUD’s budget? Absolutely. Better yet, check the Constitution, confirm the absence of a Housing Article, and get the government out of the housing business altogether. Cut the Department of Education’s budget? Yes, but realize that it may just do bad things more badly. Disband the Department of Education entirely, and then we are saving real money, not to mention removing federal obstruction of education innovation and improvement.
Truly controlling spending demands much more than juggling numbers on spreadsheets: it demands a long overdue return to the proper role of government. From that perspective, reducing the budget by 40 percent isn’t all that difficult.
Gary Johnson is a Republican candidate for the U.S. presidency and a two-term Governor of New Mexico (1994-2002). During his time as governor he vetoed 750 bills and cut the rate of state government growth in half.
Letter to the Editor View all comments (50) | Leave a comment
More Articles From Freedom Watch
http://spectator.org/archives/2011/06/23/government-spends-too-much-bec
Follow us:
ADVERTISEMENT
SPONSORED LINKS
FLASHBACK TO: 1995
-
Pope Culture
A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
-
Why the GOP Does Not, Like, Totally Suck
Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
-
Dames at Sea
-
In the Absence of Guns
In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
-
The Metaphysical Martini
-
Counting the Costs of Clintonism
The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
-
Chuck McHagel
It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
-
The Legacy of Old John and Mother Fresh-Roasted
-
It’s the Best Time of the Year
The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
-
The Bush Crack-Up
Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?
Clip of the Day
H/T to National Review Online
ADVERTISEMENT
rudolf van balen| 6.23.11 @ 6:17AM
When are the mainstream media going to pick up on this? Great article.
lydia | 6.23.11 @ 10:24AM
This should bethe leading war cry for those conserative politicians that we are placing our hopes on to turn this countryaround
I am a 28 years old doctor, mature and beautiful.and now I am seeking a good man who can give me real love , so i got a username Andromeda2002 on--s'e'ek'c'ou'ga'r.c óm--.it is the first and best club for y'ounger women and old'er men, or older women and y'ounger men,to int'eract with each other. Maybe you wanna ch'eck 'it out or tell your friends!
Timothy L. Pennell| 6.24.11 @ 5:57AM
I could have sworn, that the 10th Amendment was quite clear, that the Powers of the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT were enumerated in the first 9 Amendments. All powers NOT found there, belong to the STATES, and to the PEOPLE.
I believe that James Madison said that: "The powers of the Federal Government are FEW and WELL DEFINED."
The next President should promise to VETO anything that crosses his desk, that does not pass the James Madison Test.
For all you Public School Grads.
Dangfitz| 6.24.11 @ 2:55PM
Actually, the enumerated powers are in Article 1, not the Bill of Rights. Otherwise, totally agree.
old white guy| 6.24.11 @ 2:48PM
most government agencies do nothing except get in peoples way and suck the wealth from those who work.
Bill Hussein O'Stalin| 6.23.11 @ 6:43AM
A perfect example of what this article refers to can be found in the controversy surrounding the Election Assistance Commission. A bill in Congress, HR 672, would eliminate the agency.
The agency was scheduled to be sunset in 2005 and believe it or not the agency has doubled in size since then and has requested a budget that grows ever higher.
The agency has an average salary of $110,093 and spends about $5.6 million to manage 3.6 million in grants. The main beneficiary of this agency, The National Association of Secretaries of State, has twice called for the agency to be dissolved.
The Republicans in the House need 40 Democrats to pass the bill. Many Democrats defend the agency and it may be tough. The agency budget is $14 million but it's a fight to the death.
Here's a release from House Administration after the vote:
Today, Subcommittee on Elections Chairman Rep. Gregg Harper, R-Miss., issued the following statement after House Democrats blocked legislation (H.R. 672) eliminating the Election Assistance Commission (EAC) – a federal agency that has outlived its purpose and wastes millions each year:
“Today’s failure to pass a simple bill eliminating the EAC, an agency that has long outlived its purpose and recklessly mismanages its resources, is frankly an insult to struggling taxpayers across the country.
“Instead of cutting wasteful spending here in Washington, House Democrats have voted to sustain an obsolete agency that pays its employees an average of over $100,000 a year yet serves no purpose. This is exactly what’s wrong with Washington and exactly what we need to fix. Congress must do its job and eliminate wasteful spending – starting with this glaring example. If we cannot do that, we shouldn’t be here.”
http://cha.house.gov/
Impeach Don't Wait| 6.23.11 @ 6:34PM
This is why I can only say that Democrats (or Democratic policies) are "inappropriate" to govern the United States. (Or any country that desires to keep within budget.) Voters who think they can always get more by voting for it will always keep these people in power. And this will continue. Government should never have been let out of its cage going way back. It's almost impossible to undo what has been set in motion. How do you tell voters "YOU CAN'T HAVE THE GOVERNMENT DO EVERYTHING!!!"
Beer f.m.h.| 6.23.11 @ 7:37AM
Exactly right! Government activity implies government spending and vice versa.
So if we can find a path to get the government out of the health care business and out of the retirement security business, neither of which are pure public goods, we will have largely solved the budget problem, reaffirmed our commitment to the virtue of free markets, and have a lot more personal freedom to show for it.
(But knowing the political class as we do, good luck with that!)
mames| 6.23.11 @ 4:49PM
Of course all of this activity is prohibited by the enumerations clause and yet they continue to do it. By any fair definition they are traitors to our constitution and therefore, we the people. Off with their heads needs to be our cry. And we are fast approaching a point where that is literal. This includes "nice" folks like Dole, McCain, Bushes who have actively endorsed unconstitutional bills.
Old Soldier| 6.23.11 @ 7:52AM
Yes! Wipe out as many agencies as possible.
Pull the Patent Office out of the Commerce Department and kill the rest.
Hand over the ATF's legal duties to the U.S. Marshals and kill the Bureau.
MikeBee| 6.23.11 @ 8:21AM
Simply wiping out one department, the Department of Education, would save $71 billion annually. Has anyone seen any of that $71 billion in his local school district? DOE's money is a lot like the lottery. They say that the money goes to the schools, but you never see it.
Old Soldier| 6.23.11 @ 2:34PM
It goes to pay professional busy-bodies who tell the Principals how to save money and educate kids - because all knowledge flows from DC. The Principals role their eyes and thank them for the great advice.
buckeyeman| 6.23.11 @ 8:23AM
This was a decent article, and I guess Gary's heart is in the right place, but I can't figure out how a purportedly serious candidate for US president could have committed the following thought to writing:
"In the current political and economic environment, it is difficult to find anyone -- liberal, conservative, or whomever -- who doesn't insist that we must get the federal budget under control."
This statement isn't even remotely true. The truth is that "it is difficult to find anyone" in EITHER party who thinks that we must get the federal budget under control. The easiest starting point would be to refuse to increase the debt limit and swear on a stack of Korans to NEVER increase it again. The dems want it increased and the repubs pretend that they don't, but will probably raise it before my next haircut.
Gary, you're not fit to be the next president if you really believe the sentence that I just reprinted.
mames| 6.23.11 @ 4:51PM
ditto - he would be a MORON on a level with that big guy in the green mile.
Dangfitz| 6.24.11 @ 4:06PM
Well, he said they all insist on getting the budget under control, and you're accusing him of saying that they all THINK we should get it under control. Two different things. Politicians often insist on things they don't believe, when the poll numbers get lopsided enough.
LindaF | 6.23.11 @ 8:39AM
First time I've heard such common sense from a politician in years.
LindaF | 6.23.11 @ 8:39AM
First time I've heard such common sense from a politician in years.
LindaF | 6.23.11 @ 8:39AM
First time I've heard such common sense from a politician in years.
JimK| 6.23.11 @ 8:43AM
The title of this article alone is the best description of the many problems we are facing in this country.
This should bethe leading war cry for those conserative politicians that we are placing our hopes on to turn this countryaround
Pecos Pete| 6.23.11 @ 8:54AM
Mr. Johnson, good luck with your candidacy. Your comments are dead on target.
Oldefarte| 6.23.11 @ 10:41AM
Gary Johnson just nailed it and hit the bullseye. As they say in the legal community, he told the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. And to think that the morons within the Democratic Party are spreading propaganda about the lack of substance within the Republican field of presidential candidates!!!!!!!
DRed| 6.23.11 @ 11:07AM
Oldefarte, what you should be asking yourself is why someone like Gary Johnson gets no support from so-called conservatives, when alone among the current GOP candidates he actually has the best track record in terms of delivering conservative change.
Pecos Pete| 6.23.11 @ 11:58AM
Damn good point!
mames| 6.23.11 @ 4:52PM
even a stopped clock.
Al Adab| 6.23.11 @ 11:04AM
How do we know who will deliver? What do we do if they don't? The citizen/voters must become more diligent, more active and involved. Write, call, e-mail, tweet or whatever. Go to meetings, know your Senator, your Rep and Hold their feet to the fire. Fire them, vote them out, if they fail to perform. There can be no substitute for Victory. This IS the battle for the future of America and for our childrens', childrens', children.
Naturalborn Texican| 6.23.11 @ 11:39AM
We have too many entities who supervise/oversee/manage/monitor/etc./etc./etc.......how , and on what to spend the money I do ALL the work of earning.
Too many hands out for a slice of my money, and I for one am fed up with supporting these entities.
Our government is an over-blow monstrosity whose key job is to "create" ways to spend my money for me, to benefit (mainly themselves) and others, who end up being their good ole buddies!
It's time for down-sizing, eliminating, and just plain old closing down these "created" ways for the government to take our money. Let's get back to basics.
Great article!!!
PattyMor| 6.23.11 @ 12:34PM
I think its too late. Everyone says they want the budget cut, but noboday actually cuts much of anything. Why? Because every spending line has a constituency. I don't hold out much hope. The Rats seem to just want to manage the chaos a little bit better than the Demons.
Of course the Federalies have no business in education, agriculture, energy, HUD,
pension schemes, healthcare, but here we are: Drowning in welfare, entitlements, regulations, bureaucracy, and four wars.
mames| 6.23.11 @ 4:54PM
this is what Jefferson warned about when he said beware of extending govt beyond the enumerations clause. folks have gotten used to the smell of shi$
Oldefarte| 6.26.11 @ 2:21PM
A I DON'T GIVE A DARN/THERE ARE NO CHOICES attitude will result in MORE OF THE SAME results. Additionally, Jefferson etc is HISTORY and as such, is irrelevent. There will two avenues at the crossroad in November of next year, Democrat or Republican [and anyone unaware of the difference between the two will not understand Forrest Gump's words, sadly]!!!!
Oldefarte| 6.23.11 @ 1:15PM
Update, folks: Cantor has now backed out of/resigned from the Biden budget/debt discussions BECAUSE OF DEMOCRATS REFUSAL TO ACKNOWLEDGE TAX INCREASES AS A SOLUTION NON-STARTER. Additionally, the moron Democrats are talking MORE GOVERNMENTAL SPENDING/'''''STIMULUS''''' when this country is on the verge of bankruptcy. I'm telling all of you here, if you have any hope of this country's survival, you had better VOTE FOR REPUBLICANS ONLY in next years elections!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Oldefarte| 6.23.11 @ 1:38PM
Update 2: Kyl has resigned also, resulting in NO REPUBLICANS in the Biden group. Democrat Baucas also declares the necessity for tax increases to be part of defecit solution. If that does not tell all of you who to vote for next year, then you're what Forrest Gump complained about concerning STUPIDITY!!!!!!!!!
mames| 6.23.11 @ 4:56PM
Is this the same Cantor who supported TARP and auto bail outs?
Oldefarte| 6.26.11 @ 2:11PM
TARP as originally established prevented a financial run upon the banking system by consumers, which would have economically destroyed this country. The AUTO BAILOUT as finalized was Democrats' governmental welfare dispensation to the UAW, the AFL-CIO, SEIU etc [all at taxpayers' expense]. The former was critical, whereas the latter was a frivilous waste of taxpayers' money. Oh, and I'll take Cantor over Pilosi/Reid/Obama/Durbin/Schumer/Boxer etc anyday, anytime, anywhere. There will be ONLY TWO CHOICES in November of next year, and I hope you understand the difference between the two, and make the right choice!!!!!!!!
youfamissim | 6.23.11 @ 5:39PM
The brick and mortar assets must be sold off. Employees laid off.
A new president when filling his cabinet hires people specialized in liquidating companies. They arrive and begin the process. The President refuses to sign any budget that funds the agencies getting axed. He is the executive power broker. He can refuse to prosecute the laws - Obama has made the precedence - Black Panthers, and others. Once sold, growing them back is difficult/impossible. No budget deal means Washington cannot spend. How able is Congress to over ride the veto? Not very IMHO. Business will see the regulations fall and ramp up their operations and begin hiring again. After year one - celebrate the savings with a large tax cut. Like spoiled children, many Americans must be pried off the government tit. They may not like it, but they, like the terminated employees, all the other Americans who are out of work due to government overspending, will find another path to follow.
Academia... Act 2.
Randy in Tulsa | 6.23.11 @ 5:54PM
All I knew prior to reading this article was that the author reportedly did poorly in a debate. He is worthy of a second look. I have been very annoyed by most of the candidates, and rumored candidates, for only "singing," as he says in the article. This guy uncovers the root of the problem. From here on out, I'll be listening to what he has to say.
Old Soldier| 6.23.11 @ 9:20PM
He didn't do poorly in the debate - he wasn't invited. CNN decided a popular two-term governor of New Mexico wasn't a legitimate candidate.
t shirts | 6.23.11 @ 10:26PM
Off with their heads needs to be our cry. And we are fast approaching a point where that is literal.
Pelligrino| 6.24.11 @ 1:33AM
Mr. Johnson, to earn my support, get my vote (yes, you want both) and to obtain the office of the Presidency of the United States, you must:
1. Specify more "government" that will be eliminated. This must be in writing -- ALL on the record NLT October 1, 2011.
2. Specifics. Name agencies by name and location. Name them, check the role of the agency with what our U.S. Constitution says, and then say, "Eliminate! Now!"
3. This list needs to have a minimum of 475 lines on it -- naming specific agencies in D.C. and in ALL of our states (small offices of 45 employees don't count).
4. No flinching as government employees are handed notices of unemployment within 14 days. NO COMPENSATION PACKAGES.
I'll give you just two hand claps for your article (above). Meekly. Cherry picking HUD and DOE for elimination on an American Specator Online page is E-Z.
**You must state in writing as a granite-immovable campaign pledge: "I will be axing these 475+ federal government agencies, sub-agencies, government facilities, and these government employee positions within 2 hours after taking the oath of office in Washington, D.C. January 2013."
Got it? Anything less than this is playing paddy-cakes.
Let's roll.
weddingdresses | 6.24.11 @ 2:05AM
this is what Jefferson warned about when he said beware of extending govt beyond the enumerations clause. folks have gotten used to the smell of shi$
weddingdresses | 6.24.11 @ 2:05AM
this is what Jefferson warned about when he said beware of extending govt beyond the enumerations clause. folks have gotten used to the smell of shi$
Johnny| 6.24.11 @ 7:13AM
Wow, I don't know anything about this guy but I will be listening for more. I couldn't have said it better than Pelligrino above except I'm not sure about the 475 figure. I do know there are a great number of federal entities that should bite the dust but have never sat down to figure just what number. Shew, really, 475+.
ManassasGrandma| 6.25.11 @ 1:09PM
I hate libertarians. They think money is the only thing that is important, they think people are meat to be bought and sold and they are hypocrites.
Clive | 6.25.11 @ 4:54PM
Make a start by eliminating the billions paid to corn farmers by the Federal Government.
lisseursGHD | 6.26.11 @ 11:59PM
Bienvenue chez notre ghd france,ghd lisseurs professionnels fourlisseur en ligne où vous offre des stylers ghd variés, fers à lisser de bonne qualité et à prix fous-économisez jusqu'à 54%! Commandez maintenant.
UPS SURABAYA | 6.27.11 @ 12:45AM
always happen
weddingdresses | 6.27.11 @ 4:54AM
I could have sworn, that the 10th Amendment was quite clear, that the Powers of the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT were enumerated in the first 9 Amendments. All powers NOT found there, belong to the STATES, and to the PEOPLE.
I believe that James Madison said that: "The powers of the Federal Government are FEW and WELL DEFINED."
The next President should promise to VETO anything that crosses his desk, that does not pass the James Madison Test.
For all you Public School Grads.