The inverse is also true, and more appropriate

Robert Samuelson outlines a ten-point plan to cut the deficit and balance the budget. His plan combines a mix of cuts and tax hikes, but he omits something important from the premise of his argument [emphasis mine]:

Decide to balance the budget over a decade. “Deficit reduction” isn’t good enough. The case for balance (albeit at “full employment”) is simple: discipline. If people want public services, they should be willing to pay for them.

True enough. But if the people do not want public services, the government should then be forced to cut them. The absence of that line of reasoning is part of the reason we’re in trouble. No one starves the beast. No one questions it. And that’s how taxpayers end up subsidizing empty planes to nowhere.

Related: Felonious Monk‘s “Balance the Budget” video. Language warning: not for little ears. Hilarity warning. I had tears streaming from my eyes as I choked on coffee.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: