Matt Welch in CNN Opinion: Cut Government Deeper

The first slash is the shallowest. |||In CNN Opinion today, Reason Editor in Chief Matt Welch argues that, if anything, taxpayers worried about either the economy or the nation's long-term fiscal outlook. should fear that the modest sequester trims don't cut government nearly far enough. Sample:

As any ex-jock can tell you, any time you try exercising a muscle that has gone unused for a decade or more, something predictable happens: It barks like hell.

This is what we're seeing in this last pathetic run-up to the forced spending cuts agreed to by Congress and the president in July 2011 [...]

No doubt there will be those who find such fear-mongering persuasive. But for the rest of us, it suggests a rather pressing and relevant question: Just what, precisely, did we get from doubling the cost of the federal government between 2000 and 2010?

If the bureaucrats can't produce an explanation for the price increase of government, then they should not expect their budgets to be rubber-stamped by an already suffering public.

Read the whole thing here.

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 or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • Pro Libertate||

    I'm disappointed that the first letters in the first twenty lines don't spell, "No, fuck you, cut spending." I mean, Schwarzenegger did it, why can't you?

  • Pro Libertate||

    In any case, more power to you guys. More people need to be saying that spending cuts--real ones, that is--are the key, not business as usual.

  • wareagle||

    so are voices like Welch changing the conversation or barking in the wilderness?


    He's out of touch

    Like Hall and Oates baby

  • ||

    Read the comments there. Woof woof baby


    Comments =

    tpf1979•an hour ago − That you Mr. Burns? completely out of touch. We all know who benefits and who gets hurt by these spending cuts. BUT I'll agree to spending cuts IF minimum wage is raised so anyone working a full time job is actually paid a living salary and won't have to use government services...

    YES~! erm.

    What. The. Fuck.

    So.... cutting spending....who benefits.... derp. Some reference to the Simpsons. Rich People Bad? Gurgle ach.

    WTF is more pretentious than calling someone/thing 'out of touch'?

    'out of harmony with the soothing choral refrains of the progtard bubble?'

  • The Late P Brooks||

    Just what, precisely, did we get from doubling the cost of the federal government between 2000 and 2010?

    More unfunded pension liabilities?

  • Contrarian P||

    Unicorns and bunnies!


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