GovernmentExecutive.com

Return to Article: No Starving the Beast

• 32712
  

  Call me cynical but I think everyone is missing the point. The politicians act the way they do because it gets them elected and re-elected. The Republicans want to cut taxes for the rich because those people make healthy campaign contributions and have a lot of influence over who even can be a candidate in that party. They also outspend the Democrats, but in the form of corporate welfare and big military spending so that once again their constituency and power brokers are satisfied. While the Democrats pander to the liberal interests and fund huge social welfare programs which used to be the responsibility of families and charitable organizations who can actually perform those functions at a fraction of the cost that state and federal beuacracies can. This makes their supporters, the unions, the wealthy liberals who think they can salve their conscious (a.k.a. white liberal guilt) by tossing a few crumbs under the table, and the masses who think somehow they will benefit, satisifed and gets them re-elected. Until the vast majority wake up and realize they better take a real interest in what's going on instead of spending their entire time in the rat race trying to get a little nicer car or a little larger house, then they will continue to pay for both parties' profilgate spending in order to keep getting their fat cats re-elected. I think a balanced budget admendment and public financing of political campaigns is the only way you will ever get control over this process.

  BD Posted September 11, 2007 9:22 AM
• 31890
  

  The writer of this article makes a number of errors and I can't believe his claim to be a fiscal conservative. As Dan K. stated, tax cuts historically have resulted in an INCREASE in revenue to the US Treasury, so the whole premise behind the article is invalid. The issue is much more complex than simply correlating spending with tax cuts. Unfortunately, this author simply exemplifies how ignorant much of the public is about economics. If only Reagan was given line-item veto authority, the free spending by the tax-and-spend crowd in Congress would have been curtailed. Clinton's terms benefited from the end of the cold war and his cuts in national defense, not necessarily from his tax increases. Sorry, the analysis here is badly flawed.

  Michael Posted August 30, 2007 7:59 AM
• 31848
  

  First, as noted, starve the beast will only work where there is discipline and in many states that comes from a balanced budget requirement in the constitution, something long advocated by Reagan and those who want to shrink government by cutting taxes. This limits flexibility in times of crisis, so it should never happen.

  As a people and a nation, we have a right to decide who we are, what kind of people and nation we are, what we believe we need to do to create a strong or stronger nation. We have a right to decide what is in our aggregate best interest and pursue that. We need to step back, review and redefine our values and principals, decide what kind of political and economic environment will enhance those values and principals and what needs to be done to bring about that environment. Then we need to take some direct action and encourage individuals, states and the private sector to take the others, working in concert for the common good. Once this is done, we must define the expenditures we need to accomplish this and then develop a means for fairly producing the revenues to support those expenditures.

  Finally, we need to be proper stewards of the country we inherited so our children can inherit it. Deficits might be necessary at times, just as in your personal life you have a huge deficit in the year your first buy a house and agree on a mortgage, but over the long term we should eliminate the national debt as much as possible. The interest we pay on it is the sweat and hard-work output resources that we need to live and to enjoy life; it is wrong for us to leave that burden to our future citizens. Just as a human body begins to destroy itself if there is not enough food over the long term, our nation will suffer from lack of education, lack of infrastructure and lack of investment resources if we continue down this path.

  Doug McCone Posted August 29, 2007 12:45 PM
• 31792
  

  Look at "Starve the Beast" in logical terms and I think you can equate it too a big overweight beast...starving will make it loose weight, but what we really want is a long balanced lifestyle change that fueled by a sensible diet and an adequate routine of exercise. Easier said than done yes, but the reliance of our economy on the Military Industrial Complex as it's backbone and increased deficit and debt will result in both Don and Carl's predictions to come true. It is time for this rag tag steering group to get smart about it's policies...Marx did have a point about the proletariat.

  Matt Posted August 29, 2007 3:36 AM
• 31762
  

  The fundamental problems are: (1) citizeens now look to te federal government for services that are clearly outside its legitimate constitutional sphere;(2)the deficit is so big it is not comprehended by the average citizen (or solon); and (3) citizens and most politicians are ignorant of economic and the historical constitutional limits on federal power. The deficit is only a huge number devoid of apparent consequences

  Latter Day Whig Posted August 28, 2007 3:05 PM
• 31760
  

  A point most readers today do not remember was President Lyndon Johnson's 'Guns AND Butter', war spending for Vietnam and the Great Society. We suffered through about 18 years (1972-1990) of at various times; low productivity, high interest rates, 'stagflation'. We will see the same thing again starting in about 2010, only this time it will have a much more profound impact on our country, because of greater economic integration, competition between states and regions, high energy and water costs and of course, the 'global economy'.

  Carl Posted August 28, 2007 2:39 PM
• 31757
  

  The article headline quotes "starving the beast". Let's not forget that "the beast" here drives quality of life in American for most Americans. Just try cutting even further back on benefits for veterans, defense, infrastructure maintenance (including bridges), ICE, FEMA, FAA, on and on... The GOP wants to starve the beast, what that really means is lowering the quality of life for all but the richest Americans. The America/Constitution I serve is NOT focused on lowering the quality of American life to lower taxes for the wealthy.

  Don Posted August 28, 2007 2:12 PM
• 31735
  

  I fail to see the pint of the article. Every time in modern history that taxes have been cut total revenue to the treasury has gone up dramatically. The liberal arguement is always is if we had the left rates where they were look how much more we would have had to spend. The issue is SPENDING restraint once the money comes in.

  dan ketter Posted August 28, 2007 10:06 AM
• 31734
  

  Deficit spending creates inflation which is paid by everyone but affects the poor disproportionately since the weathy save more and spend less. Inflation usually results in increases in the interest rates which is a tax on those who have debt. As inflation reduces the value of money it is only those who have investments in tangible items that can keep up with inflation In the end we all pay for deficits but the poor pay more proportionatly to their income. We all loose in this situation (deficit spending) since government provides fewer services for the same amount of money.

  Earl Monroe Posted August 28, 2007 10:01 AM