Emailed to John Boozman on 12-17-13
I want to thank you for taking the time out of your busy day to respond to my earlier letter to you on this same subject. I have always TRIED TO CONTACT THE REPRESENTATIVES AND SENATORS ABOUT THEIR RESPONSIBILITY TO BALANCE OUR BUDGET AND CUT SPENDING WHENEVER POSSIBLE.
_____________________________
BUDGET DEAL OF 2013: Representative Raúl Labrador (R-ID) “We are making promises of future spending decreases again, for actual spending increases today.”
December 12, 2013 at 6:30 am
‘Tis the season for sales. But beware of this enticing line: “The more you buy, the more you save!”
Because, when the bill comes, the truth is: The more you buy, the more you spend.
Some Members of Congress are using this logic in their latest budget proposal. They’re promising savings—but they’re actually just spending more (of your money).
Yesterday, Representative Raúl Labrador (R-ID) expressed strong opposition to the budget plan, explaining, “We are making promises of future spending decreases again, for actual spending increases today.”
Promises of future spending cuts. That should sound familiar. As Heritage visiting fellow Patrick Louis Knudsen has explained, this is one of several tricks Congress uses to make its proposals sound appealing in the short term. He calls it “Spend Now, Save Later.”
“This time-honored practice does just what the name implies: It spends money up front with the promise of cutting spending and reducing deficits later.”
Sure enough, the latest budget plan promises it will reduce the deficit—later. But not without raising the deficit first!
The Ryan-Murray budget plan would increase the deficit by $45 billion over the next three years. But later on—maybe in about nine years?—it will start reducing…the deficit it just increased.
It spends long before it saves. The more you buy, the more you spend. Spending is the now—and the later may never come.
Speaking of faulty promises, you may have heard that the proposal includes increasing TSA “user fees” for travelers. Even this characterization is a bait-and-switch: The fee increase would not have anything to do with making your air travel safer or smoother. Instead, it would pump new money into the Treasury’s general fund for more government spending.
Congress will not make any progress toward balancing the budget—and avoiding future debt ceiling and government shutdown fights—until it gets serious about hitting the brakes on spending your hard-earned money. The more they spend, the more we pay.
Read the Morning Bell and more en español every day at Heritage Libertad.
Thank you for your time.
Sincerely,
Everette Hatcher, 13900 Cottontail Lane, Alexander, AR 72002, cell ph 501-920-5733, everettehatcher@gmail.com, lowcostsqueegees@yahoo.com, www.thedailyhatch.org
________
Related posts:
Balanced Budget Amendment the answer? Boozman says yes, Pryor no, Part 36 (Input from Dan Mitchell of the Cato Institute Part 8)
From a lecture given by Dr. Milton Friedman in Erie, Pennsylvania (1978). Steve Brawner in his article “Safer roads and balanced budgets,” Arkansas News Bureau, April 13, 2011, noted: The disagreement is over the solutions — on what spending to cut; what taxes to raise (basically none ever, according to Boozman); whether or not to […]
Posted in Cato Institute, Mark Pryor, Milton Friedman Edit Comments (0)
The Daily Hatch 