Without Borrowing, the Government Can Only Pay 60 Percent of Its Bills

Here’s a telling fact about our current budget situation: If Congress does not agree to raise the debt limit, thus making it possible for the federal government to borrow again once the current $16.4 trillion limit is hit, the federal government will only be able to pay about 60 percent of its bills. That’s according to the Bipartisan Policy Center, which has published an apocalyptic report in advance of the debt ceiling showdown warning of the consequences should Congress fail to raise the debt ceiling later this year.

Forget the coming showdown for a minute and focus on the first number: The BPC report wants readers to understand how bad it would be if Congress failed to raise the debt limit. But here’s another way to think about it: Without the option to borrow, the government can only finance 60 percent of its operations and obligations in the short term. More than a third of that spending goes right onto the national credit card.

That sort of reliance on borrowing is why annual deficits are so high. It’s why total federal debt levels keep growing. It's why the Congressional Budget Office describes our debt trajectory as "unsustainable." It’s why it is so important to focus on spending — not just on our long-term entitlement obligations, but now. This year. We’re already spending so much that in near-term, 40 percent of it has to go on the credit card. That’s how utterly dependent on borrowing, and how utterly unable to reduce spending, our federal government already is.

Lots of the attention in Washington right now is focused on what President Obama will do next — specifically whether he’ll negotiate over raising the debt limit. He says he won’t, but he’s said that before and never followed through. Republicans, meanwhile, say a no-conditions debt limit hike is a no-go.

It’s an impasse. And it makes for juicy political drama. But in some ways it’s a distraction from the real spending and borrowing problem that got us into this mess. Because the bigger, more important question isn’t just what Obama and Republicans in Congress will do this time. It’s what, if anything, they’ll do to better manage federal financing — and prevent us from getting into a debt-driven hole like this again. 

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    You read that figure as a staggering amount of spending on credit, Washington reads it as a staggering lack of sufficient tax revenue.

  • Suki||

    Maybe if they only paid the bills called for in the constitution they could stretch what they have a little farther. Too simple for them?

  • Pro Libertate||

    I used to joke that the U.S. should sell statehood to other countries. Now I think it's a likely strategy, as we need the dues.

  • Brutus||

    You think you're gonna get people lining up to board Titanic 2013?

  • martha||

    just as Donna replied I'm alarmed that a stay at home mom able to make $8157 in a few weeks on the internet. did you read this website. http://google.com.qr.net/j5GS

  • tarran||

    You're alarmed!

    Oh no! I'm alarmed too!

  • flye||

    martha is really Catherine Tate:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UCRBH_N0B-Q

  • Jordan||

    Fuck you, cut spending.

  • Paul.||

    Send this link to Obama!

  • robc||

    Logical solution: cut spending by 40%.

  • T o n y||

    I don't suppose you cut-spending zealots ever consider that it might affect your own life in a negative way? Or are you so community minded that you're willing to take one for the team for the sake of balancing the budget? Cutting spending by 40% would almost certainly cause a massive recession, and you might lose your job as a result. You prepared for that or are you under the delusion that only old and poor people need to suffer for your accounting OCD?

  • silent v||

    Cutting spending by 40% would almost certainly cause a massive recession, and you might lose your job as a result.

    So things will pretty much be like they have been for the last four years?

  • tarran||

    Cutting spending by 40% would almost certainly cause a massive recession, and you might lose your job as a result. You prepared for that or are you under the delusion that only old and poor people need to suffer for your accounting OCD?

    Oh noes, people might stop wasting resources on producing shit people don't want! And free them to be used to make shit people do want!

    A sustainable economy producing goods and services that people want to consume and can afford to consume? What a dystopian nightmare!

  • T o n y||

    People want Social Security and Medicare, and can afford them with taxes. It's just that the private sector doesn't provide these things.

  • Jordan||

    The private sector doesn't allow you to rob your neighbors? Have you told anyone this?

  • T o n y||

    There's always just one degree of separation from the "let's cut spending to balance the budget" argument to the entirely different "taxation = theft" argument. Yeah taxation is theft except for all the things you want government to do, like protect your property. Give it a rest and stick to the point.

  • Juice||

    The involuntary forceful nature of taxation is always at the heart of any discussion I have about the subject. Taxes are too high = you're using too much force. Hey, cut taxes = please use less force on people. You've run up too much debt = you're going to have to use more force on people in the future.

  • OldMexican||

    Re: Tony,

    Yeah taxation is theft except for all the things you want government to do, like protect your property.


    Right. Irony-impaired Tony wants the government to take our guns away so that he doesn't sound like an idiot when saying that government is there to "protect our property."

  • Hopfiend||

    This is a bullshit bait and switch. "Protect your property" is far different than "operate a Ponzi scheme that would land anyone not in government in the pokey." Social security was conceived nearly 80 years ago. Major changes are needed. People who are robbed to pay for others. I will never see a dime of what was taken from me. So yea, it is entirely the point. Any recession after a spending cut would be sharp and brief. You "progressives" think things never happen unless governemnt does them. It is ridiculous.

  • Homple||

    "Yeah taxation is theft except for all the things you want government to do, like protect your property."

    Not only does the government not protect my property, it seems that its main interest is depriving me of my property.

    Give that "protect" me stuff a rest, ok?

  • John C. Randolph||

    all the things you want government to do, like protect your property.

    When the government starts protecting property again, you might have a point, but since Kelo, you're full of shit.

    -jcr

  • DarrenM||

    Yeah taxation is theft except for all the things you want government to do, like protect your property.

    So you agree that taxation is theft for those things you *don't* want government to do.

  • tarran||

    The private sector doesn't produce hospitalization insurance? No life insurance, no disability insurance? No long term care insurance?

    You know, you might want ot pause just a second before hammering out your retorts.... it's kind of embarrassing to respond to you and then having to watch you shit all over yourself in your response.

  • Doctor Whom||

    It provides no way for us to save for our own retirement, either. Those heartless monsters!

  • tarran||

    Pathetically, the amount that people pay in taxes amounts, effectively to 12% of their income. A person who purposes 10% of their income toward their financial well-being can immediately secure adequate insurance and over a few decades save enough money to be financially independent.

    And, the money would go into the capital markets instead of buying crappy government bonds, meaning society would be wealthier in the aggregate.

  • Jordan||

    Tony's problem is that the private sector doesn't allow you to force others to purchase those products for you.

  • ||

    can afford them with taxes

    What the hell does that even mean?

  • OldMexican||

    Re: Tony,

    People want Social Security and Medicare,


    And I want a second hot wife.

    and can afford them with taxes.


    Whose taxes? Mine? They can go fuck themselves and you can go fuck yourself.

    It's just that the private sector doesn't provide these things.


    You're right - nobody provides those things for free, and stealing is still against the law. There's a reason for that, you know...

    People who bought into the notion of getting something big for almost nothing deserve to be on the street, starving, as testaments to human credulity and foolishness.

  • Brutus||

    People want free shit, so it's government's job to make sure that free shit gets delivered.

    Until people get sick of making the free shit for nothing, ot being fleeced to pay for it.

  • Paul.||

    People want Social Security and Medicare, and can afford them with taxes. It's just that the private sector doesn't provide these things.

    Yes it does.

  • c5c5||

    Tony said, "People want Social Security and Medicare, and can afford them with taxes. It's just that the private sector doesn't provide these things."

    Actually, the private sector does offer many options that have much better returns than SS. Despite markets going up and down, private retirement investment always kicks the government-forced SS.

    Why is it moral to force people to invest for their retirement? I could take all the funds I have been forced to pay into the SS system and do so much better. Leave me alone to manage my own life and future. And if I fail, then I will pay the consequences. It is not reason to point guns at me to force me to take care of myself in the future on the government's horrible plan that I probably will not even see.

    Tony, you are just plain ignorant.

  • Adam330||

    Well, no, they can't afford them with taxes, as evidenced by the current federal deficit and debt.

  • ||

    The private sector doesn't provide trips to the Moon yet either.

  • Jordan||

    Those dark, dark days of 2004.

  • Jeff||

    BOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOSH!

  • Juice||

    They were pretty dark in my eyes. The Iraq War was pretty hot, replete with beheadings and dead children, etc. Afghanistan was going into the crapper. All the talk was about torture, the surveillance state and the unitary executive.

  • Zombie Jimbo||

    Beheadings and dead children in the middle east, Afghanistan in the crapper, Guantanamo, torture, surveillance state and the unitary executive.

    Man, good thing we elected Obama twice, we get all that plus high unemployment and low growth.

    Whoo Hoo

  • Jordan||

    Iraq may have calmed down, but everything else on that list has gotten markedly worse.

  • Jordan||

    And my comment was only about spending levels, since that's what derpshit Tony was complaining about.

  • Zombie Jimbo||

    Oh I agree, 2004 spending levels would sure help. We could even adjust for population increase and inflation.

  • Juice||

    Remember when everyone went apeshit over THE $79 BILLION!!! Holy shit! $79 billion!! Are we just going to somehow pull that out of our asses to blow on a war?

    Now, no one even raises an eyebrow over $79 billion in spending (debt).

  • Suki||

    The big effect would be the streets rolling up in front of the Reason offices in DC and LA, forcing the staff to ride to work on horseback or in gilded carriages.

  • Doctor Whom||

    DC streets are pretty cratered as it is. One of the serfs carrying my sedan chair twisted his ankle. I blame the anti-tax, anti-spending attitude for which DC voters are famous.

  • EDG reppin' LBC||

    Oh Tony, did you poopy in your pants again? Better go upstairs and clean yourself up. And don't hide the towels under the sink again, put them in the washing machine with your pants!

  • Adamsmith1776||

    Any recession would be short-lived as money sucked into the government through debt would find a more productive use

  • OldMexican||

    Re: Tony,

    I don't suppose you cut-spending zealots ever consider that it might affect your own life in a negative way?


    No. That's preposterous.

    Next question? You, with the ugly bowtie?

    Cutting spending by 40% would almost certainly cause a massive recession,


    Sure, like the one that happened right after the cost-cutting of 1921 onwards and the one right after 1946 and...

  • Brutus||

    I have no doubt we'd go into a recession, but that's the fault of the GDP equation, not any actual economic malaise. I'd love to see the "G" number drop like a rock.

  • Paul.||

    I don't suppose you cut-spending zealots ever consider that it might affect your own life in a negative way?

    Every single day. And when the spending cuts directly affect me, I scream, "Cut harder-er!"

    And just FYI, T o n y, "spending cuts" have directly affected me. And I merely yelled, "Bring 'em on!"

  • Proprietist||

    You prepared for that or are you under the delusion that only old and poor people need to suffer for your accounting OCD?

    The reason I want to cut spending is because the cost of not cutting spending will fall disproportionately on the old and poor people. When Social Security and Medicare become completely insolvent, and currency devaluation causes crushing price inflation that disproportionately harms the poor, that's a lot more cruel and regressive than sharing pain today to have less total pain tomorrow.

    Regressives like you don't care about the poor or the elderly, Tony. They are just political pawns your preferred team manipulates to maintain state control. State leftists care about the poor like crack dealers care about their customers.

  • ||

    How much of that cutting could ostensibly come from Defense? The War on Drugs?

    But you don't think of that cause you're a good little demfag just like Shrike.

  • Brutus||

    You'll notice that the first thing these fascists want to cut is police, fire, teachers. They never, ever say that we need to keep spending to keep the UAW larded up, corporate welfare queens floating in pelf, fatass sugar growers wading in gravy, etc.

    Fuck them.

  • Mike M.||

    I don't suppose you cut-spending zealots ever consider that it might affect your own life in a negative way?

    That might be true, but some of us rubes have children, and even grandchildren in some cases.

    If you did too, who knows, there might be some small chance that maybe you wouldn't be such a selfish fucking asshole who cares only about yourself and doesn't give a rat's ass about how the future generations are going to live.

  • c5c5||

    Tony said, "I don't suppose you cut-spending zealots ever consider that it might affect your own life in a negative way?"

    And I suppose there were many complaints that the abolition of slavery was going to affect many plantation owners in a negative way.

    The point is Tony, when something is unethical (slavery, forced taxation), it does not matter the consequences does it? If we treated slavery as pure utilitarian or consequentionalist then we probably would still have it today in this country. But we didn't because we treated it as a moral matter.

    Most who argue the taxation = theft point are arguing from a moral standpoint. And of course there could be negative consequences, if one views more freedom and the increased opportunity of a system freed of coercive taxation as negative.

    I think most would realize how beneficial it is to take care of things in a voluntary way that most of the "negative" consequences or afffects upon ourselves would be easily remided and dealt with.

    But again, we don't make ethical decisions based upon utility, so your argument is moot, Tony.

  • califernian||

    I don't suppose you cut-spending zealots ever consider that it might affect your own life in a negative way?

    Cut spending by 90%.

  • lap83||

    I wonder if Tony trolls on family budget blogs, "do you cut-spending zealots ever consider that clipping coupons and home cooking might affect your life in a negative way?"

  • John C. Randolph||

    I don't suppose you cut-spending zealots ever consider that it might affect your own life in a negative way?

    No Tony, it won't. That's because I'm not a goddamned parasite like you are.

    -jcr

  • Mike M.||

    And guess what: all we have to do is go back to the budget from like five or six years ago!

    I know the lefties will tell us that life in America was a miserable, dystopian hell hole back in the dark days of 2007, but somehow I think we could manage to find a way to survive such a horrible ordeal.

  • Doctor Whom||

    In the next breath, they'll say that we should go back to the golden age of public-works projects under Eisenhower, Kennedy, and Johnson, when federal spending compared to today was, um, what now?

  • ||

    I don't suppose you cut-spending zealots ever consider that it might affect your own life in a negative way?

    Fucking principles. How do they work?

  • robc||

    Exactly. I would expect 40% spending cuts to affect me some, in the short term. But in the long term, I and everyone else, will be better for it.

    But even if it somehow killed me, Im okay with it.

    Spending as percent of GDP was about 24% in 2012. A 40% cut would reduce that to about 14.5%. OMG, death and destruction!!!!

  • califernian||

    I don't suppose you cut-spending zealots ever consider that it might affect your own life in a negative way

    Tony would sacrifice his own rights and liberties in exchange for the power to crush yours.

    Oh wait, that's every typical voters' mindset.

  • R C Dean||

    Logical solution: cut spending by 40%.

    No, no, no.

    Logical solution:

    Raise taxes by 66%.

    Yes, you read that right. Revenues would have to increase by 66% to close the gap. Do the math yourself if you don't believe me.

    Which, of course, would in no way set off a recession or cost anyone their job.

  • Paul.||

    Increased revenue = rising economy.

    A rising revenue stream lifts all boats.

    Every man, woman and child, their own Solyndra...

  • robc||

    It would be honest.

    However, raising taxes by 66% wouldnt raise revenue by 66%, due to possible laffer effects.

    Raising the 10% bracket to 17%? Yeah, that would probably raise a lot of money. Raising the 15% bracket to 25%? Breakeven, IMO, maybe a slight increase in revenue. 25% to 41%? Loss. 28% to 46%? Loss. 33% to 55%? Loss. 35% to 59%? Loss. 39.6% to 66%? Yeah, ditto.

    15.3% FICA to 25%? See above, but imagine the bitching and moaning. Actually, as it affects some that are in the 10% or lower brackets, that one probably raises revenue a good bit.

  • ||

    Does the IRS publish revenue broken down by bracket? It'd be interesting to see the correlation between tax changes and individual brackets rather than revenue as a whole.

  • Sevo||

    Google is your friend:
    Top 50% $32,396 97.75%
    http://www.ntu.org/tax-basics/.....taxes.html

  • robc||

    That isnt tax bracket.

  • VG Zaytsev||

    However, raising taxes by 66% wouldnt raise revenue by 66%, due to possible laffer effects.

    Actually, it's even worse than that.

    In 2012 revenue from personal income taxes was 1.12 Tn, the deficit was 1.13Tn.

    So you would have to double collections from individuals, which as you note is probably impossible.

    Or you could increase the corporate income tax which is foolhardy as it is already the highest in the world and increasing it further would hammer investment.

  • silent v||

    The golf-al truth.

    Has anyone ever had their alt-text privileges rescinded?

  • RPR2||

    cut everyone back to 28 hours.

  • ||

    Republicans, meanwhile, say a no-conditions debt limit hike is a no-go.

    The condition being that they decide how to spend it.

  • Adamsmith1776||

    Here is the game plan. Boehner gives a national press conference to state the following:
    (a) Refusing to raise the debt limit will not cause a default on our debt as the Treasury brings in enough tax revenue to make the interst payments;
    (b) Refusing to raise the debt limit will not require the Presdient to stop sending out your social security checks because the government brings in enough revenue for that too.
    (c) We raised taxes like the President asked, but he won't negotiate on cuts for an increase in the spending limit.
    (d) Harry Reid has not passed a budget in over three years.
    (e) We will not let Reid, Pelosi, and Obama steal any more from your children any until they pass a sensible budget.

  • Zombie Jimbo||

    Who in the media would cover the press conference?

    Tapper, and maybe someone from Fox?

  • Palin's Buttplug||

    You suggestion is worthless because you state you want to protect SS/Medicare - proof you don't understand where the spending problem is.

  • Sevo||

    Palin's Buttplug| 1.14.13 @ 6:14PM |#
    "You suggestion is worthless because you state you want to protect SS/Medicare - proof you don't understand where the spending problem is..."

    Uh, you need to hold off on the liquor until later in the evening.
    There isn't ONE WORD about 'protecting' either one in there.
    Well maybe it isn't liquor, dipshit. Maybe it's just plain stupidity.

  • Brutus||

    Thye voices in Shriek's head tell him to say these things.

  • NihilistZerO||

    That would be the game plan for a fiscally responsible GOP that held to it's principles. Would you like to share the game plan for the the GOP as it exists in reality?

  • ||

    Fuck you, that's why?

  • Sevo||

    NihilistZerO| 1.14.13 @ 6:27PM |#
    "That would be the game plan for a fiscally responsible GOP that held to it's principles."
    Repeal witholding.

    "Would you like to share the game plan for the the GOP as it exists in reality?"
    As it exists? Why those damn gays!!!!

  • John C. Randolph||

    The flaw in your plan is that Boehner has no intention of stopping the runaway train. Don't forget he's a Ruling Party minion too, just because he uses the "R" brand instead of the "D" brand.

    -jcr

  • R C Dean||

    Its just appalling, although not surprising, that the DemOp media doesn't call Obama on his threat to cut off Social Security if the debt limit isn't raised.

    What programs would be funded (or not) if we can't borrow enough to pay for everything is up to the President, so its not the Repubs who are threatening SocSec, its Obama and no one else.

  • Paul.||

    Its just appalling, although not surprising, that the DemOp media doesn't call Obama on his threat to cut off Social Security if the debt limit isn't raised.

    I know you're not new here, RC. The Republicans are going to force his hand.

  • Palin's Buttplug||

    And they will be outmanuevered by Obama again.

    I find it amazing that you "liberatrians" are shilling for SS/Medicare.

  • Jordan||

    It's just amazing that you haven't learned to read yet. We're "shilling" for honesty in reporting, since the average schmuck does care about SS/Medicare.

  • Marshall Gill||

    I find it amazing

    Considering your intellectual level you probably find stuff in your shit on a daily basis that amazes you. Hell, most things must surely amaze such a dim whit.

  • Sernylan||

    "you probably find stuff in your shit on a daily basis that amazes you"

    Mostly pennies, and paint chips, pencil tips...oh, and one time..a battery. Nothing really that amazing though, TBQH

  • Sevo||

    Palin's Buttplug| 1.14.13 @ 6:20PM |#
    "I find it amazing that you "liberatrians" are shilling for SS/Medicare."

    I find it amazing you're capable of breathing without assistance.
    Please, dipshit, show us where anyone here has 'shilled' for either one.
    Are you incapable of shame?

  • califernian||

    You are so confused

  • Tman||

    Does anyone else get completely fucking pissed by that picture?

    It's just a reminder that no matter how much each side talks shit about the other, it's all just one big elaborate game to them that they laugh about on the greens that few others will ever grace.

    That picture sums up everything that is wrong with Washington. Two of the most powerful politicians having a good ole chuckle on the golf course whilst the country goes up in flames.

  • Paul.||

    Does anyone else get completely fucking pissed by that picture?

    Only when Bush played Golf. When Obama does it, no.

  • Pro Libertate||

    A decent Speaker would've wrapped his club around Obama's head.

  • c5c5||

    One good thing about politicians golfing....it is a few hours less time they are finding ways to ruin our freedoms and lives.

    Maybe Obama and all other politicians should just be encouraged to golf their days away...they might leave us alone then.

  • Palin's Buttplug||

    Where is Boehner's proposed legislation to cut SS/Medicare by 40% now?

    It doesn't exist, of course.

  • OldMexican||

    Re: Palin's Buttwipe,

    Where is Boehner's proposed legislation to cut SS/Medicare by 40% now?


    Where's Obama's?

  • Palin's Buttplug||

    Proof that there is no Small Government party. Precisely my point.

  • Sevo||

    Palin's Buttplug| 1.14.13 @ 6:41PM |#
    "Proof that there is no Small Government party. Precisely my point."

    Yeah, except for the constant TEAM READ cheerleading, idiot.

  • ||

    Whaddaya mean I don't pay my bills?
    Why do you think I'm broke?

  • Rich||

    It's why the Congressional Budget Office describes our debt trajectory as "unsustainable."

    Since historically the CBO seems to be off by a factor of ten, now I *am* worried.

  • Sevo||

    "Without Borrowing, the Government Can Only Pay 60 Percent of Its Bills"
    So a simple bit of sums means the revenues have to increase 66% to, not cut the debt, but just stay even
    Current revenues are ~$2.5Tn, and most of those aren't going to change much. http://www.usgovernmentrevenue.....nue_2012US
    If we don't have a "spending problem', it looks like income taxes are going to have to more than double, from $1.4Tn to &1.666Tn
    Sell that to the public, you sleazy lefty assholes

  • The Last American Hero||

    I'd like to see them raise the tax rates to a level that would balance the budget. When people are forced to pay the true cost of government they will finally start demanding their elected officials be held accountable.

  • John C. Randolph||

    I'd like to see them raise the tax rates to a level that would balance the budget.

    While that would make me quite rich from my long position in tar & feathers futures on the Chicago merc, I would still prefer to avoid the consequences of such an ill-advised act by the Ruling Party.

    -jcr

  • Sevo||

    The Last American Hero| 1.14.13 @ 7:06PM |#
    "I'd like to see them raise the tax rates to a level that would balance the budget."

    See one post above; if you are now paying, say $25K in income taxes, it would cost $55K in income taxes to *balance* the budget; *NOT* to begin lowering the debt.
    I'd also prefer the deduction be repealed as a method of collecting taxes; write a damn check for $55K and send it with your best wishes to your fave statist federal politico.
    I would say that alone would change the way people thought about the debt.

  • Brutus||

    They call this the "deliver the bill" strategy for defeating Big Government. I like it. Start talking about raising taxes enough to balance the budget and watch people get religion

  • waaminn||

    Sounds like a pretty solid plan to me dude. Wow.

    www.AnonGettin.tk

  • ant1sthenes||

    Boehner should go ahead and pass an increase in the debt ceiling, as part of the House budget. Since the Senate will continue to fail to produce a budget, nothing will happen, but they can blame Democrats and say they did their part.

  • califernian||

    Why? he's a big spending, big government, tyrannical a-hole who supports every single thing the Obama administration is doing, and in most cases wants to double down.

  • califernian||

    I could slash spending by half in five minutes and that is weak sauce, I'm just a bleeding heart for actual 80 year olds stuck on medicare and SS. I could cut spending by 90% in 20 years and sleep well at night.

  • lap83||

    I would announce that SS, Medicare, and Medicaid would all end in one year and then I would give instant, across the board, tax cuts to make incentives for private charities as substitutes (which I would strongly endorse) for when the year is up. I'm pretty confident the conservative base would step up to the challenge. Even progressives might after they got the bitching out of their system.

    Eventually maybe people would get the picture that they need to take preparation for retirement seriously, either by saving money or by being good parents so their kids want to help them when they need it.

  • T o n y||

    Private charities are not a guarantee, which is the whole point of MC and SS. The private market can't guarantee anything. But some things in life need to be guaranteed, at least to a greater extent than they are in the market. There's nothing wrong with that morally, and if you think government should use tax dollars to deploy force to protect your claim to life and private property, then you agree with me. You just want it all for yourself.

  • James Anderson Merritt||

    Remember that Gary Johnson kept saying that he needed to cut Federal Spending by 43%? That was his way of speaking the truth discussed in this article. Why is it that the guys who are actually on top of the issues can't get media coverage, and have cause to celebrate when they receive only 1% of the vote, while the "serious" candidates in the race -- the ones that people actually vote to elect! -- have no clue how to solve, and worse, no INTENTION of actually solving, our most important problems? America, you got some 'splainin' to do!

  • billstanley||

    Great ... start passing bills that reduce spending. newsandopinions dot net

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online

  • Progressive Puritans: From e-cigs to sex classifieds, the once transgressive left wants to criminalize fun.
  • Port Authoritarians: Chris Christie’s Bridgegate scandal
  • The Menace of Secret Government: Obama’s proposed intelligence reforms don’t safeguard civil liberties

SUBSCRIBE

advertisement