"We've got a huge spending problem"
Over at PJTV, Glenn Instapundit Reynolds interviews Sen. Bob Corker (R-Tenn.) about debts, deficit, and spending. Corker's basic plan is to cap spending at between 18 percent and 20 percent of GDP as a rule, as opposed to the 25 percent of the current moment and the 20.3 percent average over the past 50 years.
Click above to watch. About 16 minutes and well worth watching.
This is a basic framework that I think is useful to discuss the problem, though it's also worth pointing out that the difference in spending 18 percent of GDP versus 20 percent is huge in terms of running up debt over the years. But good luck raising revenue over 18 percent for any lengthy period of time. The overall target should be below 18 percent on a moving basis, but it also needs to systematically work through what we spend money on and restructure priorities in a fundamentally different based around what things government should provide. There's no reason that the feds should spend 18 percent of the economy because they can on average squeeze that from taxpayers. Indeed, pegging spending to set percentages rather than fixed dollar amounts can lead to massive overspending.
Two-second reality check: Yes, Corker voted for TARP. And when asked by the Wash Post if he would join a "Tea Party" caucus in the Senate devoted to reducing spending, he replied, "I don't know about that…. I'm not sure I should be participating in this story."
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments 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 and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
At least it's not just the commenters who post twice. 😉
it was so good, it was worth repeating.
In b4 "Glenn Reynolds is a pro-torture neocon"
It's d?j? vu all over again.
the difference in spending 18 percent of GDP versus 20 percent is huge in terms of running up debt over the years
Reminds me of the Micawber Principle on a grand scale:
"Annual income twenty pounds, annual expenditure nineteen pounds nineteen and six, result happiness. Annual income twenty pounds, annual expenditure twenty pounds ought and six, result misery."
There's no reason that the feds should spend 18 percent of the economy because they can on average squeeze that from taxpayers.
"It's time to be patriotic ... time to jump in, time to be part of the deal, time to help get America out of the rut."
"I'm not sure I should be participating in this story."
Profiles in courage there Bob.
spending limits...haha! Just like Gramm Rudman Hollings?!
18 to 20?
Shouldnt 18 be the top end? If we capped at 16-18 we would start paying down the debt.
Plus: Corker spoke convincingly against bailing out GM
Minus: Very much against auditing the Fed. Pro-Tarp. General Sleaziness.
between 18 an 20 percent?
That means 23 percent in Washington-speak anyways right? So Mission already accomplished!
Man, that was easy.