The Way Out of Our Inflation Mess
For all the excitement about the incoming administration and a return to the 2019 economy, market stability rests on the precarious assumption that the government will eventually put its fiscal house in order.

The Federal Reserve's premature victory lap over inflation reveals a worrisome misunderstanding of the predicament we still find ourselves in. Unprecedented government spending and debt, combined with mounting fears that the debt can't (or won't) be repaid, played a misunderstood role in inflation's rise several years ago. As such, fiscal policy must be part of the solution.
Otherwise, expect the recent acceleration of inflation to stick around or get worse, bringing trouble for the new administration.
The pressure on the Fed to declare the race over and continue lowering interest rates is real. It would be a mistake to cave any further. Some measures show inflation holding steady. Others show it trending back up since last July. Either way, it's above the Fed's 2 percent target, and now the 10-year rate is pointing up.
To understand what's going on, remember how we got here.
When COVID-19 and the overreaction of lockdowns arrived, Washington dramatically increased spending through stimulus checks, enhanced unemployment benefits, and other means. Spending rose by over $5 trillion, with the Fed accommodating much of that. Congress and President Joe Biden's administration later added another $4 trillion in various large legislation. Unlike previous crises—recall former President Barack Obama's promise to halve the deficit within five years of the end of the Great Recession—there was no plan to offset the spending hikes by raising revenue or cutting other spending.
In fact, it was the opposite. The Biden administration doubled down with more plans for student loan forgiveness and talk of handing additional billions to semiconductor manufacturers through a second CHIPS Act.
When bondholders don't see a credible fiscal path to be repaid for current and future government debt, they expect that eventually the central bank will create new money to buy those government bonds, leading to higher inflation. It didn't help that the Fed kept interest rates so low for so long, including for months after it was clear the inflation problem was anything but "transitory."
This is how focusing solely on monetary policy or interest rates misses the importance of fiscal policy. Recent inflation wasn't just about money supply; it reflected the market's adjustment to unsustainable fiscal policy.
Recent studies confirm this. Francesco Bianchi and co-authors, for instance, find that "unfunded fiscal shocks sustain the recovery but also cause a persistent increase in inflation." Meanwhile, Bianchi's new study with Robert Barro uses an informative measurement of spending (the growth of government spending during the COVID-19 years compared to the pre-COVID-19 debt burden, and how long that debt needed to be paid back), revealing a very clear relation between government spending and inflation.
Making matters trickier, not only can fiscal policy fuel inflation, but vice versa is true too. The Fed fought inflation with higher interest rates that, coupled with quickly maturing government debt, made the fiscal situation worse. Each percentage-point increase in interest rates adds hundreds of billions to the government's debt-financing costs very rapidly.
So we're left with a dangerous feedback loop: Higher inflation leads to higher interest rates, which lead to higher debt-service costs, which then require more government borrowing or money creation, potentially fueling further inflation.
The result? The Fed can hike interest rates, but without equivalent fiscal adjustments to make space for the larger debt payments, inflation goes down at the cost of making it more persistent. And right now, it's persistent.
For all the excitement about the incoming administration and a return to the 2019 economy, market stability rests on the precarious assumption that the government will eventually put its fiscal house in order. Continued high spending and the prospect of mostly unfunded tax cut extensions could shatter this confidence. If bond markets grow too pessimistic, the resulting interest rate spike will further increase borrowing costs and may trigger a fiscal crisis.
It's important for the new administration to understand that controlling inflation requires more than Federal Reserve action. It demands fiscal discipline. That means difficult choices that politicians typically avoid. Federal spending must be curtailed, particularly in entitlement programs. Tax revenues must be made stable and predictable. Most importantly, the administration must reject new spending, regardless of the apparent merits. Finally, more tax revenue through more growth—made possible by the improved tax system and deregulation—would help.
Continuing to ignore fiscal-monetary interactions and hoping inflation will mysteriously moderate risks a crisis that could dwarf any challenges we face today. Fiscal responsibility isn't just about balancing books; it's about maintaining the stability of the dollar and the prosperity of the American people. History tells us that the longer we wait, the more costly the eventual solution becomes.
COPYRIGHT 2025 CREATORS.COM
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
End all government actions not specifically permitted by the US Constitution.
Problem solved.
Wish upon a star. Problem solved.
If you want realistic responses, provide a realistic proposal.
FOR INSTANCE ... here is a long long proposal. I don't claim it's realistic or correct. But it at least is plausible in some sense better than "destroy 236 years of bureaucratic buildup".
========
How can the US government debts be paid off while transitioning away from "mandatory spending"?
Forget states. Their only real debt is infrastructure bonds. Pensions are paid from underfunded investment funds, but government workers have been shafting their taxpayers for so long with crony union collusion, fake disabilities, accumulated vacations and sick time, and overtime spiking, that my attitude is they won't suffer enough. Their total underfunded "debt" is only around $2 trillion anyway.
You can't just abandon 80 million pensioners by throwing out Social Security and Medicare. The public would not stand for it. You may as well wish to suffocate all politicians with unicorn farts. There may be no legal obligation to continue paying pensions, but there sure as hell is a moral obligation. Anyone who denies that is as serious about paying down the debt as the pro-wind pro-solar anti-nuclear crowd is about climate catastrophe.
This is a *general* outline. Anyone quibbling about exact figures is an idiot or a lawyer or a bureaucrat, but I repeat myself.
Payroll taxes are 15%. They pay all Social Security and Medicare benefits. There currently (2025) may be some excess tax collected which buys Treasurys which the government pretends are deposited into a trust fund but is in reality just more money for the government to spend. Once that surplus runs out, the payroll tax can only pay something like 70% or 80% of the promised benefits.
Market index funds which track the Dow Jones and S&P 500 averages had annual growth of 10% and 13% over 10 years recently. If workers had invested their payroll taxes in these index funds, they would have grown enough in a full working life of 50 years to provide 3 (DJIA) and 5 (S&P 500) times the Social Security retirement payout with 5% annual withdrawals, which leaves 5% (DJIA) and 8% (S&P 500) growth, beating the pre-Biden "normal" 2% inflation rate. In other words, people could match their Social Security pension by investing 1/4 as much as the payroll taxes; 4% vs 15%. Who wouldn't like an 11% raise, and an inheritable spendable nest egg to boot?
But employees can't do that because payroll taxes do not go into personal accounts which are drawn down once retired. Most, perhaps all, government pensions around the world are Ponzi schemes, where workers' payroll taxes pay retirees' benefits directly, right now. That payroll tax cannot be diverted to build up a personal retirement nest egg because that would leave retirees high and dry, and the public simply would not stand for that.
Another problem is that workers who have been paying those taxes for 10 or 20 years wouldn't stand for suddenly being told they have no pension rights. There are 170 million workers in the US; if they work 40-50 years before retirement, that's roughly 4 million workers in each year, 40 million who have 10 years "invested" in Social Security and 80 million who have 20 years. The public simply won't stand for dumping all that "investment".
Here is the only way out that I can see.
1. Add a mandatory new personal payroll "tax" of 4% which goes into those indexed mutual funds. Workers own it, but don't control it until they retire or die. They can increase it or cut it back to 4%. They can have their own private investments which they can mess up all on their own. But the new payroll "tax" nest egg cannot be touched until they retire or die.
2. Stop accruing any new Social Security "rights" for all existing workers, on the grounds that their personal 4% nest egg will make up the difference. They still pay the 15% payroll tax, which still pays current retirees.
3. As time goes by and retirees die off, the 15% payroll tax begins showing a surplus. Invest that surplus in DJIA and S&P 500 index funds.
4. Allow all retirees and workers to bid on being bought out using that new and growing surplus fund. Remember, those index funds pay 10-13%, so someone receiving a Social Security pension of $2000 a month, $24,000 a year, only needs a $240,000 nest egg to come out equal. Add in that the nest egg is inheritable and spendable, and people could easily bid a lot less.
5. Sort the bids by efficiency in paying down the obligations. At some point, the nest egg fund will be high enough and the current beneficiaries few enough that the payroll tax can begin dropping, and eventually disappear altogether and be replaced by drawing down the nest egg. There will be a lot of juggling, the payroll tax will need constant adjustments, but the trend will be clearly down.
6. At some point, the remaining 4% nest egg payroll tax can be eliminated so workers are entirely on their own, or it can be kept but giving workers more control over its investment policy, or it could be retained for the foreseeable future. The biggest argument for keeping it is that bleeding-heart do-gooders will moan and wring their hands and beseech government to bring back Social Security every time some pensioner blows his nest egg in Las Vegas instead of leaving him to charities to sleep in a bunkhouse with a lockable foot locker as his sole possessions.
7. There will almost certainly be some nest egg funds left when pensions are fully privatized, with bureaucrats and politicians salivating over it. Dumping it in the general fund would only encourage government to build it up as high as possible. It has to go back to the public. Distributing it to voters is simple. Augmenting all 4% nest eggs is more appropriate but just begging for squabbles about prorating. But it cannot go back to government coffers.
8. I don't know enough about the financials to make even an educated guess about how fast this would pay off all that mandatory spending and completely privatize Social Security and Medicare. But my absolutely unscientific uneducated guess is that, except for a few diehards who simply won't shift to buying out their nest egg, the payroll tax could be gone in 20-30 years.
Not a chance in hell.
More chance than "wish upon a star". More realistic than "we're doomed".
So, how many members of Congress have gotten back to you about how they're going to support your proposals?
I bet that wasn't your measure of success for your own proposal.
What proposal?
Maybe the best plan I've seen for ending SS. At a glance, it seems workable other than getting support to enact it.
Can you clarify what you mean by "Allow all retirees and workers to bid on being bought out"?
Use the excess payroll taxes to invest in DJIA and S&P indexed funds instead of "investing" them in Treasurys for the government to plunder. Then set up a website where SSA beneficiaries can publish bids for being bought out of future SSA benefits. Like that example, if someone gets $2000/month SSA benefits, they could bid $240,000 lump sum buyout and get the same $2000 monthly withdrawal, with all the usual allowances for still growing to match inflation, the principle being spendable and inheritable, etc.
So there'd be a list of how much people are bidding for this lump sum buyout. Someone with terminal cancer might bid $50,000 just so he could blow it all in Vegas or leave it to his heirs. They'd all be listed in order, and the cheapest bids accepted, so Mr. $50K/cancer would be bought out before Mr. $240K/practical, who would be bought out before Mr. $500/dreamer.
The point being to get as many people out of the system as possible so the old 15% FICA tax can disappear as soon as possible.
The "retirees and workers" covers people who have been paying FICA but are too young to retire yet. You could probably drop people with less than 5 years of paying in without much repercussion, but they'd also have so little pension payments coming when they do retire in 45 years that their bids would be small enough to head the list. And I think SSA benefits are only available with at least ten years of FICA payments, but that's another detail I'm not sure of.
Got it. Thanks. That makes it even better.
One thing which struck me after the first draft was whether switching pre-retirees over would balance out FICA pensions and nest egg withdrawals. I don't know how SSA handles payments now for retirees who only paid FICA for, say, 10 years. I'd hope they'd balance somewhat, but that's assuming a lot.
Yeah, beats me, but even with some details unknown the plan is 1000 X better than our current plan to do nothing.
For social security, every other year increase the age of collection by 1 year, until the minimum age of collection ID 5 years past expected life span (as was the original plan) once social security is solvent make it voulentary
If you have any figures for this, even simple ones, I'm curious.
W and Ryan floated this kind of stuff, and the Dems laughed their asses off while showing commercials of Ryan literally throwing old people off cliffs.
When I searched for this on Google, I had trouble finding it. Used a different search engine and there it was. Interesting.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hrdeyMNZW88
Would need to carve out wherever SSI comes from, as those folks on disability will never have enough to be able to put in 4% and pay for their retirements, let alone medical bills.
Also, does the 4% also cover medicaire?
I don't remember now if I included Medicare or not. But its premiums each month are about 10% of the SSA benefits, I think.
I see what I did now. Medicare's portion of the FICA tax is about 10%, and its premiums taken out of pensions are also about 10%. Thus I assumed that the FICA subsidy plus the monthly premiums must cover Medicare, and so must this transition plan, within 10%. Since I don't claim this plan to be exact or anything but a starting point for discussion, there's no need to explicitly include Medicare complications.
AARP says you are an ultra hard right fascist who wants to throw grandma and grandpa off a cliff after feeding them dogfood.
Yeah, I gave up on listening to AARP when they supported Bush Jr's prescription plan.
Since we know that politicians are largely made up of bottom feeding maggots who's primary job is to get reelected each cycle (credit to Jeff Ward), I have a couple questions...
You are suggesting we take a tax increase of 4%; however, you don't seem to address the very real, and probable almost to the point of being a certainty, that once the 15%-ers begin dying off and a nest egg begins to form, what exactly is going to stop them from just borrowing against that money? Sure, nice to say it cannot go to the general coffers, but who do you think makes THAT rule? As soon as they have a major budget shortfall and want to spend without the political messiness of having to raise taxes, guess what happens? Rules change. The original intent of SS was that it would be self funded through the SS tax, but we know how well that turned out. Wanna bet that history would repeat itself?
Also, "At some point, the remaining 4% nest egg payroll tax can be eliminated...", did you manage to type that with a straight face? That is like loaning a shady friend or relative money and expecting to get it back.
New generation of politicians... same bottom feeding magots.
My plan is that the 4% "nest egg" deduction go directly to individually owned DJIA and SP 500 index accounts, in the worker's name, with the only restriction being that they can't control or it withdraw from it until they retire.
Of course, the government can confiscate those at any time, just as they can confiscate 401(k) or anything else at any time. But considering how much flak that get every time they try to touch SSA "accounts", I think it's unlikely.
You're right about my "nest egg" confusion. I was using it for two different purposes. I've corrected my master copy.
* The 15.3% FICA tax surplus, which is now "invested" in Treasurys for Congress to plunder, is now called the "surplus fund".
* The individual 4% deductions and individually owned money market accounts are now called the "nest egg" funds.
The reference to eliminating the surplus fund is what I meant. That's 20-30-who-knows how many years down the road. But it would happen per plan, since the continuing FICA tax continues to be used only for paying out existing retirees. All future retirees rely on their 4% nest egg accounts. So as current retirees die off or are bought out with lump sums, the FICA tax can be gradually decreased from its 15.3%.
At some point, that surplus FICA fund will pay enough interest that it can take over paying pensions and the FICA tax can disappear. Of course, reality can make estimates go awry and caution says better to build up the surplus fund than abolish FICA too soon, and that's why the remnant has to be distributed to the public somehow.
Thanks, that does seem to clear up some things.
Why not just add the ~4% tax directly into IRA investment accounts while weening those below a certain age away from Social Security? As people die out of the Social Security program, you can then start migrating some of the surplus to subsidize those who are older in the new plan (and don't yet have enough to sustain a retirement), began adding long term funds matching to those who are in the middle, and to create a safety net to others.
The IRA system for this is already largely in place and would have the added benefit of allowing individuals to invest more into there own accounts if they want to have a retirement that is even more comfortable and secure.
That sounds fine to me, but I'm not enough of a financial expert to know the differences. The main reason for picking the DJIA and S&P index funds is to reduce the opportunities for humans to meddle, both government bureaucrats and retirees who think they can beat the market and end up being excuses for reinstating Social Security.
It's fine with me if people increase their 4% nest egg deductions. I just wouldn't let them decrease it below 4%, for that same reason -- to avoid providing excuses for restoring Social Security.
One of my biggest worries is that the lefties will hate anything like this that smacks of individual control instead of leaving it to the government experts. As much as I would prefer managing my own account, and I know others would too, and would be willing to accept the possibility of making a muddle of it, the do-gooders would use every sob story as front page fodder to bring back Social Security.
>1. Add a mandatory new personal payroll "tax" of 4% which goes into those indexed mutual funds.
If literally every working person in the country is, by government decree, putting 4% of their income into specific mutual funds, that is going to do very weird things to the stocks those funds buy.
People always overlook this.
Yes, if all *my* ss contributions had instead gone into VTI or something, *I* would have averaged those same 10% returns.
If *everyone's* payroll taxes went into the market, no one knows what the hell would happen.
I looked into that but forgot to update my copy. Google says mutual funds had $20T in investments in 2020. FICA taxes are around $2T a year. My nest egg 4% is 1/4 of that, $500B a year. So I don't think it would be very disruptive when first implemented. What the effect would be after 50 years, I do not, but it would not be a sudden disruption.
I checked just now, and Google says $56.2 trillion in 2022.
If the government got very specific about controlling those mutual funds, they could screw it up for sure. But I had in mind the index funds. For the Dow Jones, that's 30 stocks, and the list changes all the time. I assume the S&P 500 is 500 stocks, but maybe not.
At any rate, none of the details were meant as definitive. I personally would be happy just forgetting the 4% and letting my retire to a charity bunkhouse if I screwed up my investments. But the sob sisters and do gooders would use every sob story as an excuse to revive SSA, and that is why I wrote it up as a mandatory 4% individual account deduction which the account owners can't touch until they die or retire.
If there were some way to make it absolutely clear that no SSA could be revived for people who don't plan ahead, or who screw it up, or blow it all in Vegas, I would be fine without the mandatory 4%. But I'm trying to be realistic about the sob sisters and do gooders who would never go quietly into that good night.
Worth considering further when I have more time, but at first glance an excellent effort.
the nest egg is inheritable
This is a very important plus. Generational wealth transfer can break a cycle of poverty and allow for upward mobility of labour.
It's a huge gain. Gives people a different perspective on what private property really is, gives them a real stake in the economy instead of just waiting for Uncle Sugar to cough up like a frog on a log.
This proposal, or something close to it, was actually made decades ago, and at the time the disaster was far enough in the future for it to have time to solve the problem. The only thing that really came out of it was 401-K accounts, which will secure those who could put enough into them.
Unfortunately they actually went with a plan to increase SS taxes, with the excess over that needed to fund the system spent on buying government bonds. The idea was that by buying down the federal debt, the government would be better positioned to afford the SS expenses later. As you're doubtless aware, they just spent the extra money and borrowed extra, because the deal didn't include any provision to enforce the "buy down the debt" expectation.
At this point, there's not enough time and market return available to close the gap before the crisis hits. I expect SS will end up being at least partially converted to a need based program, with retirees screwed over to the extent they have private savings.
I personally 'retire' next year, but expect to keep working, and will devote the SS checks to paying off my mortgage early, and maximizing my savings, in the expectation that the checks will NOT keep coming, but instead will go away at some point.
I knew only that the bureaucrats had "tried" to save / reform SS several times, but since the last thing any bureaucrat wants to do is solve the problem that keeps him employed, I never paid much attention.
I checked Wikipedia. They don't say much about the 1982/82 reforms, but the little there doesn't sound much at all like my proposal. No mandatory "nest egg" accounts with a separate deduction, doesn't even mention 401(k)s. Mentions gradually raising the retirement age and removing some tax exemption, along with the surplus being intentional and not isolated from government plundering. Did you have something else in mind.
Did you go back to 1986? This was one of the ideas that the Reagan Administration had. The Democrats screamed bloody murder with Teddy Kennedy leading the way. They called it the Republicans gift to Corporations, millionaires and billionaires.
I find it convenient that Biden's plan when he was Vice President was to seize all funds in 401k's and give their holders IOU's based on Social Security. Somehow that was conveniently forgotten.
My apologies. I did not mean to commit the error of trotting out an old idea and pretending it was my own. I will now go commit seppuku, with your permission of course.
I retract my intent to commit seppuku. It was based on faulty information. The Reagan era reforms were in 1982/83, not 1986, according to Wikipedia.
Please try better next time, grasshopper.
What's so unrealistic about having an actual USA again (Constitutional)?
Not easy to trace who you're responding to, but if it's me saying that about "End all government actions not specifically permitted by the US Constitution", it's a great ideal, but absolutely no chance of ever happening. My idea is at least plausible in some fashion.
Yes it's for you...
Why "absolutely no chance of ever happening"?
It already "happened" once after the Revolutionary War and claim of Independence.
Is it really that impossible to ask the SCOTUS to actually do its job?
Considering how SCOTUS is responsible for almost all the deviations since, either directly like Qualified Immunity or indirectly like kowtowing to FDR's New Deal, I can't see any way for SCOTUS to undo any of it, let alone all of it.
It's not that I expect my plan will ever be implemented either. But I think mine is at least plausible in some forlorn realpolitik sense.
THANK YOU for including this.
It's really tiresome reading articles blaming everything on COVID itself and ignoring the lockdowns.
Fuck you. Cut spending.
This.
Spending in DC has been out of control for decades, and it needs to stop.
Otherwise, the USA will go the way of the old USSR in the early 1990's.
Weird.
No discussion on a deregulatory position. Energy expansion. Permitting reforms. Etc.
Given PPI was triple the norms under Biden, and this was driven by regulatory and energy primarily, one would think this would be in a libertarian article.
DeRugy is washed up.
Trump did not deregulate his first term. At best he slowed regulatory growth. That isn't going to balance the budget.
Only 10% of fossil fuel production is on federal land. So expanding production and permitting will at best increase production by a mere fraction of a mere 10%. That isn't going to balance the budget either.
Know what will balance the budget? Cutting spending. Know what Trump is not going to do? Cut spending.
Fuck you. Cut spending.
OK, I'm going to assume BANANAS here. You are wrong. Your math sucks.
Assuming your first sentence is correct, that is current production. It has nothing to do with future production. The two are utterly unrelated.
Or to put it in simple terms, if you buy 10% of your 40s at Jim Bob's Liquors because the other 100 alcohol outlets in your area have banned you, them unbanning you unleashes a whole lot more than "a mere fraction of a mere 10%".
It has nothing to do with future production. The two are utterly unrelated.
It is relevant in that even if production on federal land doubles, which it will not, that would only increase supply by a mere ten percent. That is not going to have a major impact on much of anything.
Another thing that an honest person would consider, is that the next Democratic administration will likely undo whatever Trump does. Do you think oil companies are going to take that risk? I don't.
No, you still fuck up the math. If current production were using 90% of federal land, then opening up the rest would only be 11% of 10%. You show no such thing. You need to show what percentage of federal land is currently available. That you do not even recognize the need for this shows you don't know what you are talking about and you have no math skills.
Wells produce for decades. Like 15-50 years. So that 10% represents total production from the sum total of active wells drilled on federal lands over the last thirty years or so. Think about that for a moment. Thirty years worth of wells are producing only 10% of the current supply. You think four years worth of drilling is going to substantially increase that? Use your head.
Edit: I just looked up the number of wells producing oil in federal land. Care to guess how many? 89,000. Yeah, almost ninety thousand. You're telling me that oil companies are going to be drilling sixty wells a day for the next four years? Come on.
Everything he learned on this topic he learned from watching shrike lie.
Energy expansion includes refinery production which currently get blocked with EPA reviews. Likewise transfer of energy has a large effect. Sarc is too dumb to understand extraction is not the only concern with energy expansion. On top of that Biden has added regulatory costs such as carbon capture making extraction more expensive. Again. Sarc is an ignorant moron.
And your reflexive "Fuck you. Cut spending." shows you didn't RTFA.
You're not even a good parrot.
Interesting that "Fuck you, cut spending" offends you. By the way, that wasn't directed at the author. She knows better than to read the comments. It's a general statement that should be made whenever there's talk about federal debt and deficits.
Interesting that you don't even recognize why it offends me, even though I pointed it out.
She can't address everything in one article. She's at least addressing problems that no one else at Reason addresses. And she does say
which we all know Trump won't do.
Finally, more tax revenue through more growth—made possible by the improved tax system and deregulation—would help.
And she did give a nod to deregulation being a piece of the solution. But as we all know DC has a spending problem above and beyond every other problem it's created.
which we all know Trump won't do.
Them's fightin words to Trump defenders.
You say that all the time, but people here criticize trump.
The reason people are combative towards you and jeff is your long record of shitposting and strawmen. Get your head out of your ass.
I don't think he can; they are one and the same by now.
Seeing as Congress sets appropriation levels and the impoundment act limits what he can do in isolation...
There was even a discussion just yesterday about it.
https://thefederalist.com/2025/01/16/russ-vought-spars-with-dems-over-presidents-authority-to-save-taxpayer-money/
Dems already threatening to sue if appropriation are not spent to 100%. Your complaint in the current framework is a Congressional complaint but you isolate it to the president, why?
Likewise, lest you forget...
He ordered a 10% cut last time and had The Resistance block any meaningful cuts. Again Congress has protected thst deep state group from firing.
You should be blaming the correct people.
Sure, Congress SHOULD step forward and do their job, but Presidents (including Trump) take credit for signing bills, they can damned well take blame for not vetoing them. One of my biggest problems with every President, but especially Trump, is just shrugging their shoulders and signing bills with the fatalistic "it would pass anyway". No! Veto the damned thing and make Congress critters stand up on their hind legs and be recorded rather than hide in a voice vote.
^This. Additionally the president has the bully pulpit; they can use it to threaten a primary against a congressman from Kentucky or tell their supporters to call their members of Congress to vote against a terrible bill that will cause harm to the nation.
You mean like. ...
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-defense-spending/trump-threatens-veto-of-house-defense-bill-over-spending-levels-wall-idUSKCN1U42OS/
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-fiscal-congress-trump/trump-threatens-to-veto-spending-bill-over-daca-border-wall-idUSKBN1GZ1V4/
https://apnews.com/article/immigration-business-donald-trump-e1e3550ba3fea3f8809547515eee9a50
At some point you need to correctly blame the primary cause of failure. Yet both of you refuse to.
$17 billion less than Trump's fiscal-year 2020 budget request.
...
The administration objected as well to provisions in the House bill seeking to stop Trump from spending billions of dollars to build a wall...
- From your 1st link
What a fiscal hawk.
It is amazing how you continue to blame the last in line for the actions of others, almost in isolation.
Even here you show more ire for signing the bill than creating the bill. This holds true even for veto proof bills from you.
Your complaints and actions are what Congress loves. Never blame them, point fingers elsewhere. You claim they should do their jobs but continue to primarily blame others. I've been blaming Congress for decades for their actions. It isn't difficult.
My guess is you didn't read the article explaining the difficulty of your demands.
Politics is all about fooling the voters. Trump could have done a lot better just by vetoing spending bills and making Congress go on record as having been last in line.
Stop pretending Trump was right to bend the knee to Congress when Congress was wrong.
What is amazing is the lengths you go to to defend Trump. First the CARES Act wasn’t his fault because Democrats wrote it. Then it wasn’t his fault because he faced a veto-proof majority. Then when I post his statements after signing it where he brags about spending and calls out Republicans who didn’t vote for it, instead of responding to what he said you go on the attack.
Still can’t figure out why SGT still thinks you argue in good faith. But if he keeps criticizing Trump I’m sure he’ll see the real you soon enough.
"woke" writer Neil Gaiman accused of sexual assault. Herpetologist's handshake strikes again.
If he converts to Islam he will get off
Phrasing!
It is too late to put our "house in order." We are headed for a horrendous financial collapse, and it's too late to change that. Make plans to survive the chaos, or be prepared to end your life. The way of life we have now is coming to an end soon.
No it isn't. Your hysterical overreaction is like everyone else who assumes the current trend continues unabated until forever.
Pro tip: the current trend replaced a previous trend which obviously did not continue until forever. Ipso dipso factoid, the current trend can also be replaced by some newer trend.
I remember people saying the same thing in the 1980s when they added a digit to the debt clock.
I find the argument here too convoluted to be convincing. Cause and effect are tricky to prove even in a pure science context. Teasing "expectation" that the government will implement fiscal restraint out from the dramatic artificial increase in the money supply as a contributor to inflation is geometrically more complex, especially with linear tools being applied to a non-linear, chaotic (economic) system! The lack of faith that the government will be able to pay off bonds with interest may discourage lenders from buying bonds, but it is difficult to see how that causes inflation in the sense of continually increasing prices across the board.
Want to whip inflation now (or soon)? Every family has to get $1000 in cash from their bank or ATM, and then set it on fire. And keep doing this until prices and wages drop.
This author joins many others in wrongly assuming monetary supply and government spending control inflation rates. Inflation is determined by prices, which are often disconnected to either. These prices include rental and owner occupied housing; energy; motor vehicles; health care; transportation of goods; raw materials; food; and labor. Raising interest rates actually increases inflation by making some of these prices higher, and in fact may raise it more than any Federal Reserve Board decision trying to lower it. I am all for balanced federal budgets, but the aggregate private sector companies which control prices could care less about them because they have plenty of their own money with no need to borrow: and if they do borrow at higher interest rates they pass costs on to their consumers. The only way prices which set inflation rates come down is through demand reduction, which carried to logical extremes could result in a depression. The sooner we realize this the sooner we can hit price increase causes head on, albeit in ways such as through a fairer tax system which Reason will likely find abhorrent because these measures will not allow markets to go unchecked.
No. Inflation is always too much money supply. It creates higher prices. It is not caused by higher prices.
Cut inflation with this one simple trick, MMT hates it!: Raise interest rates higher than the current inflation rate minus your desired inflation rate.
I guaran-fucking-tee you, like wings generate lift and boats float on water, inflation will drop and it will continue to drop as long as that remains true. To zero and beyond (if that's what you want).
There is no serious alternative. In order to tame inflation you must take money out of the money supply as fast as you put it in.
You could just take the government's ability to spend money it doesn't have away from it. You know by ending the Federal Reserve.
Sorry but that wouldn't do it. NOTHING can stop the government from spending money it doesn't have. The Federal Reserve doesn't spend money, it loans it to banks so they can loan it to borrowers. The Treasury can print notes so that borrowers can lend money to the government at interest. The printing presses can print unlimited amounts of paper money. How it gets into circulation is an interesting question. The government can create digital money by simply waving a magic wand and sending it electronically wherever they want it to go. On the other hand, if you mean taking their ability to spend money away LEGALLY, good luck widdat ...
Reduce Inflation 101. (Ref: Milei)
- Individual Liberty ... LET people work (cut regulation).
- Justice for all ... STOP Stealing from *EARNERS* for the 'lazy' or I mean 'poor' or actually 'the rich & lazy' mostly in D.C.
And YES; it will work if ever allowed to work.
To understand what's going on, remember how we got here.
That's not how we got here.
You need to go back a lot farther than COVID. Welfare, public health care, subsidized industry, minimum wages, grossly overpaid entry level government employees, handouts, bailouts, a blind-eye towards illegal immigration, forced reliance on premature/immature unreliable tech, DEI/ESG demands, meddling with insurance markets, and so on and so on. And that's not even getting into the cultural stuff, like the "necessity" of a college degree or all the cult of gaia nonsense that's terrorized people into food and lifestyle paranoia.
I've said it before and I'll say it again - give me a time machine, and I'll zip right back in history past Stalin, Mao, and Hitler, and I would cockblock the hell out of FDR's dad.
Hate to burst your bubble, but what is an “unfounded fiscal shock” but a euphemism for printing money, aka out of control monetary policy? Eternal truths don’t have a shelf life, no matter how out of fashion they become.