Mike Pence's Sensible (and Probably Doomed) Plan To Fix the National Debt
Lawmakers must be willing to reform so-called "mandatory spending," Pence's nonprofit argues in a new document.

Former Vice President Mike Pence is leading a new effort to convince federal lawmakers to address the spiraling national debt.
The debt surpassed the $35 trillion threshold in late July, less than eight months after hitting the $34 trillion mark. The upward trend won't stop anytime soon: the Congressional Budget Office expects the debt to hit $56 trillion by 2034, at which point the debt will be 122 percent the size of the U.S. economy.
With the country veering into uncharted and dangerous territory, Pence's newly launched nonprofit, Advancing American Freedom (AAF), is asking lawmakers to steer back towards calmer fiscal waters.
"After decades of ignoring the significance of profligate federal spending, the consequences are finally starting to catch up to us," argues the nonprofit in an eight-page document that outlines some basic strategies for getting the debt under control. "America faces a bleak future as interest payments crowd out spending on basic government functions, our economy stagnates under the drag of an unsustainable burden, and we're put at a strategic disadvantage internationally."
To get the debt under control, AAF points out that lawmakers cannot simply focus on the discretionary part of the federal budget—which accounts for less than 30 percent of all federal spending. Meanwhile, so-called "mandatory spending" accounts for more than 60 percent (the rest is interest payments on the debt).
Most of the mandatory spending category is made up of Social Security and Medicare, but several other programs also run on autopilot, including food stamps, federal worker retirement benefits, Obamacare's health insurance subsidies, and veterans' benefits.
"Mandatory spending is the biggest driver of the national debt because there is no restriction on the unchecked growth of these programs," argues AAF's debt report.
Among the proposals to bring mandatory spending under control, the group argues for means-testing future Social Security cost-of-living adjustments (COLAs) for individuals making more than $1 million annually, stopping President Joe Biden's student loan cancellation plans, ending Obamacare's insurance subsidies for wealthy Americans, and the formation of a congressional commission to propose spending cuts.
The group also calls for ending so-called "tax expenditures," which are forms of spending hidden in the tax code—for example, corporate green energy subsidies delivered in the form of renewable tax credits.
The new document picks up where Pence left off in his failed Republican primary campaign last year. On the campaign trail, Pence talked up the importance of sane fiscal policy and condemned his former boss—Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump—for ignoring the threat posed by runaway borrowing and unsustainable entitlement programs.
Of course, Pence's campaign never got off the ground in any meaningful sense. Former South Carolina Gov. Nikki Haley had a little more success, but there's clearly not much of a constituency for serious talk about the debt.
Still, it's important to try. In an essay published by Reason last year, Pence urged conservatives to "resist the temptation to put what is popular over what is wise." In that case, he was criticizing the ongoing trend of prominent Republicans abandoning free market principles and embracing will-to-power politics as a solution to America's problems. But he might as well have been talking about debt, too. Much of that $35 trillion borrowing has occurred because leaders prioritized what is popular (government spending) over what is wise (spending only as much as you're willing to raise in taxes).
Pence is not totally blameless in this, of course. He seems to have had little influence in the Trump administration. Nonetheless, he was a major figure in a presidential administration that added more than $8 trillion to the debt in just four years—a record that Biden is now working hard to equal. As a member of the House of Representatives for a dozen years starting in 2001, Pence arrived in Washington when the federal budget was nearly balanced. He supported two costly foreign wars (though he opposed an expensive expansion of Medicare during the George W. Bush administration).
It's tempting to dismiss all this as meaningless—after all, Pence is a pariah within his own party and likely has even less influence with Democrats. He holds no elected office, and there's no reason to believe that will change anytime soon.
But none of the people who have political power seem willing to engage with the question of what to do about the national debt—at least not in public or on the record. Pence has nothing to lose, and that means he's free to say the things that others won't. I hope he keeps talking.
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
Reducing the deficit no longer matters to the Trump cultists. It's all about keeping icky brown people out.
Poor sarc. No ideas.
Just a FYI: "sarcasmic" is actually Mingo-Mango-Mongo, the hyphenated, blue-haired lipstick lesbian freak who runs Reason.
Please tell us about how great increasing taxes is again buddy.
JesseBahnFarter-Fuhrer just LOVES increasing taxes whenever they are TrumpShit tariffs!!!!! TrumpShit Uber Alles, All Hail TrumpShit, Cumrades!!!
Ain't me, retard.
It was you saying we need higher taxes retard.
JesseBahnFarter-Fuhrer, did you know that the tariffs that you SOOOO much love, are TAXES? And that USA consumers of foreign goods pay those taxes?
Thanks a LOT, taxes-loving, anti-freedom power-pig!!!!
Yep, you a retard.
This is truly the most amazing of all sarc socks. It sounds just like the real one!
Shit sure seems to me, that Pence is the ONLY truth-talking grown-up among "Team R" bigwigs these days... Which is why sore-in-the-cunt CuntSorevaTurds say... "Hang Mike Pence!"
(I would vote for him in a heartbeat, had he beat that asshole, Trump, in the primaries. Vote for Pence... He won't whine like a cry-baby, if his erections are "stolen"! AND he won't sell himself to Spermy Daniels!)
It does to conservatives but both parties have been on a high-speed spending spree for the last 15-20 years.
The DEBT is not the DEFICIT. And the DEFICIT is not the DEBT. They are separate problems.
Government BORROWING drives up the debt, not government SPENDING.
The solution to our debt problem is simple: STOP ISSUING DEBT-BASED MONEY! Begin issuing pure “unbacked” fiat money to fund the deficit, rather than going further into debt. The inflationary impact of unbacked dollars is no worse than the inflationary impact of the same amount of debt-backed dollars. Issuing unbacked dollars will halt the increase in the national debt and its crushing $1,000,000,000,000 in annual interest. Paying off part of the maturing debt each year and rolling over the rest will eventually bring the national debt (and its taxpayer-financed interest payments) down to zero. See http://www.fixourmoney.com .
^^^^ Cuckoo Cuckoo ^^^^
^ Slimy pile of lefty shit.
If Mr. Ed thinks you’re crazy, you’re probably on to something.
Pure “unbacked” fiat money has the virtues as listed in the linked essay. However, it would unleash yet further, spend-thrift politicians to spend like drunken sailors yet MORE! Saving money and letting the government borrow it (T-bills, bonds) is a sober-minded way for money-earners to be rewarded for their money-saving, frugal ways. It also serves as SOME sort of "anchor" to restrain the politicians. Pure fiat money destroys the anchor, and will permit run-away inflation, thanks to unwise politicians.
Saving money and letting the government borrow it may appear to be frugal, but the (taxable) interest you earn will not keep up with inflation, so the money you save will steadily lose purchasing power over time.
As for government spending, it is already out of control. As the article states: “A huge and growing national debt is not a meaningful deterrent to an ever-increasing deficit. For the past several decades, Congress has authorized excessive spending despite the explosive growth of the national debt. Today, much of this spending growth is institutionalized and automatic, such as spending linked to Social Security, Medicare and yes, interest on the national debt. It would be political suicide for Congress to seriously cut “entitlements” or fund current spending with massive tax increases. A guaranteed, built-in deficit is with us for the foreseeable future. Our economic fate depends on how we choose to deal with it.”
The consequences of inflation coupled with an exponentially-increasing national debt will be much worse than the consequences of inflation alone.
Yes, embrace modern monetary theory and ctrl+p thinking!
... no no no no no...
What are you talking about? The article at http://www.fixourmoney.com does not endorse Modern Monetary Theory (MMT) at all, it simply shows that debt-free fiat money is less damaging to the economy and to individual liberty than debt-based fiat money.
Many advocates of MMT favor large-scale money printing, active government intervention in the economy, and the use of tax policy to control inflation. The article cited above does not. Instead, it advocates reducing federal taxes and implementing “a federal budget that fully funds essential services, along with the minimum amount of ‘entitlements’ that the voting public is willing to accept.” Big difference.
No one wants their own checks reduced, and votes like it.
I think the best that can realistically be done is to freeze spending for a few years, offsetting mandatory spending increases with government worker layoffs, hiring freezes, and pay cuts.
If spending had been frozen 5 years ago, the budget would be balanced already.
But freezing spending would reduce checks. New people continue to go onto social security every day. Are you just to tell New Retiree Bill that he gets nothing because Old Retiree Bob can't have his check reduced? There's no getting around it: Somehow, some way, you have to cut spending, and someone is going to get hurt. It's just a matter who it is and how much it hurts.
I would freeze total spending and force government programs to fight over the available money. For example if the total budget were $6 trillion and more money was needed for social security than the previous year then that money would come at the expense of some other program ( say some from NPR, HUD or the FBI). The total spending could not exceed $6 trillion and every program would compete against every other program.
A better solution would be to move Social Security (SS) and Medicare into a separate budget category and make them self-sufficient. One of the largest drains on the general budget is the welfare programs Medicaid and Supplemental Security Income (SSI), although people like the author either like to conflate them with the payroll tax supported SS and Medicare or just don't understand the difference. If welfare is okay, keep on paying for SSI and Medicaid. But stop lumping them in with the programs that are paid for through payroll taxes.
^ Steaming pile of lefty shit.
People go on SS every day, but the baby boomer s are starting to die off in droves.
I'd be happy to have my SS and Medicare "benefits" cut if it meant that everyone at my income level and above were also cut.
But too many people are addicted to living beyond their means.
How about cutting the Supplemental Security Income and Medicaid unpaid for welfare programs instead of SS and Medicare, which are paid for through payroll taxes on employers and employees?
^ Assholic pile of lefty shit.
Nothing is going to be done about the debt. We are heading over the cliff. It's too late to hit the brakes.
I more and more believe that. But I think we have learned just enough from the Weimar Republic, Zimbabwe, and Venezuela to not hit the brick wall quite as hard, and are too big a player in the world economy for it to end in total disaster.
I think the world will stop buying T-bills, and the government will have to resort to pure printing, MMT on steroids.
The inflation will make all financial planning worthless, and because governments react so slowly, welfare, subsidies, government pay, and all spending which relies on government will give up trying to keep up with inflation and learn they have to rely on themselves, family, friends, and neighbors.
The lefties will have to give up all that woke shit. No one will have time for any of that any more.
And beyond that, I have no predictions.
100% of the things that would work - will never work.
We should have enshrined ritual suicide as the punishment for criminal budgetary malpractice.
Let's break these down:
ONE: Only over $1 million won't reduce spending enough to matter, unless inflation has pushed average incomes really really high.
TWO: By all means stop those student loan transfers to taxpayers. But the total of all his plans so far is less than $1T, and that's only 3% of the debt.
THREE: Same as ONE. Ending payments / subsidies to millionaires is a drop in the bucket.
FOUR: is a joke. Kick the can down the road joke. It tells me this is not at all a serious plan.
FIVE: That same joke, but even weaker. At least FOUR involved forming a commission. This doesn't even do that.
SIX: You gotta be joking. The existential crisis of the last
102030kajillion years, and he wants to cut the subsidies?SEVEN: This is my addition, and it's more useful than unicorn farts. CUT SPENDING.
"Trump administration. Nonetheless, he was a major figure in a presidential administration that added more than $8 trillion to the debt in just four years—a record that Biden is now working hard to equal."
KEEP LYING!!!!
The F'En US Debt ledger doesn't even amount to more than $6.7 trillion for all years of the Trump Administration. Biden has already passed $8 trillion.
Pence is right that Trump should've never signed the BS Democrat written Cares Act ... that's hardly an excuse to keep dish-out complete BS lies.
In a September 8 interview with WXYZ, Pence said, "We'll continue to call on Congress to work with us to provide additional relief and direct payments to families and direct support for businesses in programs like the paycheck protection program."
https://www.newsweek.com/what-mike-pence-has-said-about-second-stimulus-americans-1537272
I'm sure that once Kamala has time to settle down and put pencil to paper we'll have a very fiscally responsible plan to vote for. Until then, make sure to keep sending in your donations. Shit, I've heard she's so popular people are sending her hundreds of thousands of dollars without recalling doing so.
Now that he is put of government he can go back to yelling at the cloud instead of trying to reduce the cloud when he had some actual power.
Feckless.
you mischaracterize T as the proximate cause of the spending during his administration
Trump is helpless! He didn't sign any spending bills! It's all the Democrats' fault!
How is this different from the sock account by the same name you created?
No. He is not helpless. He made a massive mistake by signing a DEMOCRATS BILL. Something Democrats do constantly and consistently.
The very reason people peg you with TDS is your focal point goes nowhere beyond Trump. You're entirely obsessed with Trump and your only counter-measure is self-projection.
I am amazed at the power of Trump to be the sole person responsible for the debt.
It is an impressive power truly.
OMG!!! Everybody knows Trump’s veto pen was BROKEN and he was HELPLESS to stop Congress from destroying his LEGACY as a fiscally RESPONSIBLE businessman who would never run a DEFICIT!!!!!!
^ Steaming pile of TDS-addled lefty shit.
Considering his normal deficit, exempting the Cares Act, was 1/3rd that of Obama’s [D]-trifecta & Biden’s [D]-trifecta in the scale of things that is mostly true.
And you’re right that his ‘veto pen’ was Broken. It wouldn’t have stopped the bill from going forward because too many [D]’s voted for it (unanimously) and RINO’S. The opposition (Thomas Massie[R], Rand Paul[R]) just wasn’t big enough.
…and when I say, ” The opposition just wasn’t big enough.”
I mean politicians who HONOR their OATH of OFFICE and the people’s Supreme Law over them.
Our government hasn’t recognized a Supreme Law over them in years because people keep electing Al’Capone (a criminal) to break-the-law for them and steal/enslave XYZ-persons earnings for them. It has become [WE] gangland politics in D.C.. “May the biggest [WE] gang – dictate, steal, conquer, destroy, consume and commit any/all inhumane acts they so desire against the minority.” (i.e. The [WE] gang RULES! ‘democracy’)
Part of the lefts plan to destroy the USA (defined by the Supreme Law) is to pretend the USA isn’t anything but a ‘democracy’ where the biggest [WE] gang (cheated or not) rules all-individuals totally without exception (i.e. totalitarianism).
Funny how when democrats spend in 100% lockstep and a few republicans go along with it (unwittingly in Trump’s case) you exclusively blame all republicans and somehow use this as a justification for supporting democrats.
Criticizing Pence/Trump specifically, and Republicans generally, is certainly fair. But it's worth remembering that the response to 9/11 was always going to involve a defense build-up and renewed foreign policy charges; arguably, a meaningful chunk of the budget improvement in the Clinton years was a direct result of the post-Cold War defense drawdown and base closures, so some of that 9/11 response was basically the Cold War status quo ante.
(Also worth remembering that some of the reasons behind the GOP's losses in 2006 were "Porkbuster" fans who lamented the increase in spending under W and sat on their hands in the midterms.)
Secondly, while Trump and Pence get all the blame for deficit spending during the first three years, a once-in-a-century global pandemic that shut down a chunk of the planet was always going to have Black Swan costs around it, and the fiscal error is more about those costs lasting too long than their existence themselves. A century pandemic is exactly the kind of thing you DO save your national credit card for, so it was reasonable to expect costs to be incurred here.
I suppose that George W Bush’s doubling of the national debt and Obama’s redoubling of it played no part in the problem. Trump was “just a girl who can’t say no” when it came to spending and Biden was the senile old man who just signed everything in front of him including his civil commitment papers.
Pence is obviously right about the debt, so that assures his status as America’s Cassandra whose predictions will always be correct and ignored.
But it’s worth remembering that the response to 9/11 was always going to involve a defense build-up and renewed foreign policy charges
I disagree. We could have just picked out an even dozen Al Qaeda bases in Afghanistan, called everyone who matters while on our way, dropped nukes on the sites on 9/18, and called it a day. Maybe done a nice slow flyover of Mecca with every B-52 we could get into the area in that time frame as a nightcap for the operation.
Total cost: Not Very Much, relatively speaking.
When the Twin Towers went down, the sheer relief among the Denizens of the Deep State was due to their recognition that the resulting death and destruction meant not merely a defense buildup, but the establishment of a surveillance state.
It may seem insane to think that big government advocates would almost be happy with 9-11 but the response to COVID definitely reinforced the view that liberty was never a value to these people.
The chains of slavery are forged with every "crisis".
I'm convinced that there are stacks and stacks of totalitarian laws out there that all of the politicians know about, and they just wait for events that give them an excuse to take advantage of emotion and get enough public approval to get them passed.
Sarc, this is one of the instances where I agree with you.
Yeah, it definitely wasn't very likely that an option which didn't open the spigots from the Fed to the MIC would be chosen, I'm just saying that there was one.
How's it being done in other countries?
It's not being done there either.
To cut Social Security:
1. Raise the retirement age to 70 for everyone under the age of 50.
2. Cut the payment by 2-5% of the net worth of anyone collecting it. If you have other means to pay for your retirement you have to use it. Reverse mortgages, and interest income should be able to more than pay for the loss of Social Security.
And if you're wondering, yes, I am 75, retired and collecting Social Security while working part time because I need the money. Everyone my age must be willing to take a hit to prevent economic collapse, after all, most of us have children and grandchildren.
How would you deal with the unfunded welfare programs Supplemental Security Income (SSI) and Medicaid? They're costing $950 billion per year, and unlike SS and Medicare, there's no corresponding tax (payroll tax) to support them.
^ A pile of ignorant steaming pile of lefty shit.
Eliminate them then.
You democrats will never allow that.better get rid of the illegals then.
Read what I wrote. It dealt exclusively with Social Security, not every bit of government spending.
Most of our politicians are just not smart enough to realize how important it is to put our finances in order for Americans to continue to live successful productive lives. Both parties should have gotten together and fixed these problems at least 10-15 years ago.
It's not a matter of smarts, it's political calculation that they hope to be out of office or just plain dead before the fertilizer comes in contact with the air-conditioning system.
Uh, both parties got together nearly 30 years ago to fix these problems. President Clinton & Republican Congress (Newt Gingrich). Unfortunately, then along came Dubya with wars that cost us more than $7 trillion to date and expensive tax cuts, followed by Obama with Obamacare, followed by Trump's expensive tax cuts, followed by....
^ It is possible that there is a larger pile of steaming lefty shit, but we've yet to find it.
FOAD, asshole.
Tax cuts didn’t “cost” anything because a) that’s not the governments money, and b) a simple google search shows that Federal Revenue continued to grow after both cuts.
https://www.thebalancemoney.com/current-u-s-federal-government-tax-revenue-3305762
Thank you. I get really tired of that bullshit line. You saved me the trouble of correcting him myself.
I went to that site and the final paragraph showed why Trump will lose the election. In every year from 2017 to 2022 revenue rose except during Covid. The person who wrote that article stated that the drop in revenue in 2023 was due to "Trump's tax cuts". The "Ghost of Trump Past" haunted the economy 5 years after the tax cuts. It was as if Biden had never been elected, the regulatory agencies made no changes and Congress passed no productivity killing laws.
Thanks for the link. I'd suggest that everyone invest in an electrical generator, emergency food and ammo.
We could desist starting/supporting foreign wars like our war against Russia. Spence is all on board with that one. So for him that expenditure doesn't count.
That would have saved us $50 billion per year, leaving a Federal budget of only $6 trillion per year. Wow, you sure know how to budget!!
Wow, you sure know how to sling BS! FOAD, asshole.
This exact thing is said anytime anybody mentions cutting anything.
It’s a start.
What's missing from Pence's proposal? No cuts to military (not defense, mind you, military) spending. It makes up nearly 30% of the budget, endangers the US by causing other governments and people to be afraid of US government incursions, and wastes valuable resources that could be used in a productive manner.
The US has nothing to fear from other nations. Our well-armed citizenry and our relative isolation both make the potential gain of an invasion far too expensive to undertake. Further, if the US government were to cease trying to coerce other governments and peoples to behave in certain ways, the motivation to attack the US to get that coercion to cease would be eliminated.
It's a win-win-win solution.
BS. The military budget is ~10%.
"...No cuts to military (not defense, mind you, military) spending. It makes up nearly 30% of the budget,..."
You.
Are.
Full.
Of.
Shit.
Mike Pence? Wasn't that pesky scold hung on January 6?
EdG? Isn't that the steaming pile of TDS-addled ignorant lefty shit? Why, yes, that is the same.
FOAD, asshole.
BTW, you might just as well post the debt-reduction plan offered by the L party POTUS 'candidate'; both share the fact that neither will be elected to anything at all, and you might just as well feature my "plan" for a pony.
FFS, GET SERIOUS! Or be forever relegated to the asswipe of the DC cocktail party circuit.
I’ve been saying it for decades.
Kill Medicare and kill all the welfare programs. It’s not the job of the government to provide for you if you can’t/won’t do it yourself.
As for SS – end it immediately, and lump sum it out to everyone who’s paid in. It’s not like they don’t have the tax records.
The actual cost of legitimate government – and yes, for you mouthbreathers, that includes the DOD/OCO’s – versus welfare spending is approximately 40%/60%. Taxes bring in roughly 60% and the other 40% (including interest) is borrowed.
You lop off the welfare spending and keep taxes where they are. Rip the leeches off our belly, pay down the debt, and within a decade we can all take a huge tax cut.
Assuming, of course, we have a body politic made of conservatives. As opposed to 2024 Democrats (aka psychotic marxists) or 1996 Democrats (aka Republicans).
^THIS +10000000000. A *real* USA as defined.
Not all the [Na]tional So[zi]alist policies that defy what the USA is.
Reason is correct that this will go nowhere if adopted by a party during the campaign - roughly half the US are people who like their taxpayer funded "free" stuff. So, if the Republicans are smart, they will adopt some or all of this right after the election, assuming they get the Presidency and both houses, with the excuse that "now in office, we have studied the books in detail, and the situation is much worse than we thought, so...."
They've used the "worst than we thought" argument in the past and promptly increased spending.
By the way, the economy under Carter grew faster than Bush 1, Bush 2, Obama or Biden and Carter's economy was not even mediocre. In fact, it stunk. Reagan and Clinton were the economic champions of the last 50 years.
I'll believe that Republicans will cut spending when they admit that both Bushes were economic catastrophes.
Mike Pence has the right idea, but I am not sure he can sell it alone. He needs to find a moderate likely retired Democrat to work with. I believe there is support for real spending reform if it is sold correctly, that means representatives of both major parties making the case.
All the ‘moderate’ democrats are retired or dead. AOC, Talib, Raskin, etc. are the future of your party. And they would love to collapse the US economy.
You will note that I did suggest a retired Democrat. Active politicians often have too much to lose. Retired politicians like Mike Pence and others can make the case to the public better. Without public support this will not move an inch.
These "conservatives" are great at calling for less government and less government spending when they aren't in any position to do anything about it.
Yeah; The De-Regulation committee and Tax-Cuts was soooooo BIG GOV.... /s
If you don't have the funds for a tax cut it is spending. As for deregulation that is mostly talk and little real action. Right now, whoever is in charge is for big government.
"tax cut it is spending"
...is that like if you don't STEAL money you're actually spending it?
Gosh you leftards have the most corrupted mindsets. Bloody amazingly stupid.
I don't follow you at all. Try again.
Also note that I said if you don't have the funds. So, government has a surplus then cutting taxes to return the surplus is okay. If you borrow money for a tax cut it is spending pure and simple.
It's pretty basic.
Only a criminal would say not STEALING = more spending.
Because if they're not STEALING; their spending has to come from themselves. (i.e. accept responsibility)
I realize for leftards the not-criminal approach is a foreign concept.
Precisely why you're all just criminals in camouflage.
Tax cuts and increased spending doesn't shrink the government. It grows it along with the deficit.
The De-Regulation Committee was more about twisting regulations to favour big corporate donors, not reducing federal regulations.
We need to remove the term "non-discretionary" spending.
ALL spending is discretionary. You can just decide to not do it.
Have Congress stop spending?
That's like asking an alcoholic to stop drinking.
Read the proposal and it is entirely reasonable. It focuses on cutting spending, which is the right place to start. If these cuts are made, it would significantly reduce inflation practically overnight.
You can't stop inflation over night, it doesn't work that way. It takes time for excess money to leave the economy. That is why inflation is slowly going down at the moment.
How much time does it need?
1954 Worn-out Tractors cost more today than they did new right off the factory floor.
Point being; You can't wear out a tractor faster than the government wears out your fiat-earnings.
Too bad there isn't a third party committed to reducing government spending. But I guess championing psychedelics and trans everything is at least as important.
Now that you're done parroting Mises talking points, actually listen to Chase Oliver's proposals to reduce government spending. You might learn something.
Actually, dear, I'm parroting the editorial choices of Reason, which claims to speak for the Libertarian movement. According to their choice of content, the only fights that exist for the LP are drugs, police reform, drugs, sexual repression in red states, ending all wars, and drugs.
A serious party might focus on the biggest issues first. Say the crushing debt that is going to lead to the nation's ruin in short order. But that would require serious people practicing serious journalism. The current LP has neither.
There is a 3rd branch of government that is suppose to do exactly that; SCOTUS. But FDR ruined it and Democrats keep wishing it didn’t exist. Consider where the nation would be today had the original UN-Constitutional ruling on FDR's "New Deal" [Na]tional So[zi]alist Empire would've held.
There is one error in the article. The "national debt" is already at 122% of Gross Domestic Product.
https://www.usdebtclock.org/
🎵
“means-testing future Social Security cost-of-living adjustments (COLAs) for individuals making more than $1 million annually”
Yeah, THAT’LL fix everything! I don’t know who that one person is, but he or she sure deserves the pain of a decreased COLA!
Pence is no Jeremiah. He’s not even a bullfrog. He’s just an ignominious toad.