[662] in libertarians

home help back first fref pref prev next nref lref last post

Re: there is hope yet.

daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Kevin THEOBALD)
Mon Feb 13 11:38:10 1995

From: theobald@duke.cs.mcgill.ca (Kevin THEOBALD)
Date: Mon, 13 Feb 1995 11:36:29 -0500
In-Reply-To: Chris Obear's message [Re: there is hope yet.] as of Feb 13,  3:57
To: chris@shore.net (Chris Obear), libertarians@MIT.EDU

| >Vernon Imrich wrote:
| >
| >Of course, once you had a balanced budget, it would be
| >difficult to downsize government without also cutting
| >taxes (unless you wanted revenue surpluses).
| >
| 
| Interst on the national debt is now at over $1400.00 per person in this
| country, and amounts to the highest portion of the nation's budget, more
| even than defense spending.  We won't have a surplus for a
| looooooooooooooong time, even if the Cato Ins. got it's whole wish list.
| 
| Chris Obear

You could easily get surpluses, which would be used to reduce the debt.
That, of course, would take a long time.  You would need a surplus of
$100B every year for 50 years to do it.  (Surplus meaning taxes exceed
[spending + debt interest] by $100B.)  Of course, it would get easier
over time, because reducing the debt would reduce the interest payments.

I remember that something like 10-15 years ago, some committee made a
series of recommendations on ways to cut spending without reducing
services.  The name started with a B, I think, but it has slipped my mind.
They made a large list of efficiency improvements, mostly involving
elimination of redundant bureaucracies and costly rules.  They claimed
potential savings of over $100B.  Does anyone remember the details better?

I believe that a few of these ideas have been implemented piecemeal over
the years, but nothing on a large scale.  Everybody talked about this
report for a few months, but nothing ever happened.  Congress lacked the
political will to implement it, because it would be "politically impossible"
to do it.  There would be resistance from too many entrenched bureaucrats.
Of course, it was much easier for Congress just to raise taxes on everyone
else.

If this list could live up to its promise, half of the deficit could be
eliminated without any cuts in services.  If Congress could work up the
will to say to its bureaucrats: "you WILL implement these recommendations,
or we will find someone who CAN."  I am hoping that the new congressfreshmen
might be willing to try.

					Kevin Theobald

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
| Well, like they say: Live and learn -- die and teach the gene pool. |
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

home help back first fref pref prev next nref lref last post