Many of the politicians in Washington, including President Obama during his State-of-the-Union address, piously tell us that there is no way to balance the budget without tax increases. Trying to get rid of red ink without higher taxes, they tell us, would require “savage” and “draconian” budget cuts.
I would like to slash the budget and free up resources for private-sector growth, so that sounds good to me. But what’s the truth?
The Congressional Budget Office has just released its 10-year projections for the budget, so I crunched the numbers to determine what it would take to balance the budget without tax hikes. Much to nobody’s surprise, the politicians are not telling the truth.
The chart below shows that revenues are expected to grow (because of factors such as inflation, more population, and economic expansion) by more than 7 percent each year. Balancing the budget is simple so long as politicians increase spending at a slower rate. If they freeze the budget, we almost balance the budget by 2017. If federal spending is capped so it grows 1 percent each year, the budget is balanced in 2019. And if the crowd in Washington can limit spending growth to about 2 percent each year, red ink almost disappears in just 10 years.
These numbers, incidentally, assume that the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts are made permanent (they are now scheduled to expire in two years). They also assume that the AMT is adjusted for inflation, so the chart shows that we can balance the budget without any increase in the tax burden.
I did these calculations last year, and found the same results. And I also examined how we balanced the budget in the 1990s and found that spending restraint was the key. The combination of a GOP Congress and Bill Clinton in the White House led to a four-year period of government spending growing by an average of just 2.9 percent each year.
We also have international evidence showing that spending restraint – not higher taxes – is the key to balancing the budget. New Zealand got rid of a big budget deficit in the 1990s with a five-year spending freeze. Canada also got rid of red ink that decade with a five-year period where spending grew by an average of only 1 percent per year. And Ireland slashed its deficit in the late 1980s by 10 percentage points of GDP with a four-year spending freeze.
No wonder international bureaucracies such as the International Monetary fund and European Central Bank are producing research showing that spending discipline is the right approach.
This video provides all the details.
We can join the life to see another time to save 986498491
[…] have almost the same overall scenario. This provides us with a key insight: that we should look to spending restraint (read: entitlement reform), not tax increases, as the primary means to address our fiscal […]
[…] the video I keep recycling that explains why it’s important to restrain the growth of spending and also shows that when […]
[…] spending cuts would be the best option, of course, but limiting the growth of spending is all that’s needed to slowly shrink the burden of government spending relative to gross […]
[…] spending cuts would be the best option, of course, but limiting the growth of spending is all that’s needed to slowly shrink the burden of government spending relative to gross […]
[…] Not that these numbers are a surprise. I got similar results after last year’s update, and also earlier this year when the Economic and Budget Outlook was published. […]
[…] the spending. According to Dr. Dan Mitchell, senior fellow at the libertarian think tank the Cato Institute: …revenues are expected to grow (because of factors such as inflation, more population, and […]
[…] spending cuts would be the best option, of course, but limiting the growth of spending is all that’s needed to slowly shrink the burden of government spending relative to gross […]
[…] sum things up, it turns out that spending restraint and lower taxes are a recipe for good fiscal policy. This second chart (click to enlarge) modifies the first chart, showing actual deficits under this […]
[…] spending cuts would be the best option, of course, but limiting the growth of spending is all that's needed to slowly shrink the burden of government spending relative to gross domestic […]
[…] spending cuts would be the best option, of course, but limiting the growth of spending is all that’s needed to slowly shrink the burden of government spending relative to gross […]
[…] sum things up, it turns out that spending restraint and lower taxes are a recipe for good fiscal policy. This second chart modifies the first chart, showing actual deficits under this small-government […]
[…] spending cuts would be the best option, of course, but limiting the growth of spending is all that’s needed to slowly shrink the burden of government spending relative to gross […]
[…] spending cuts would be the best option, of course, but limiting the growth of spending is all that’s needed to slowly shrink the burden of government spending relative to gross […]
[…] spending cuts would be the best option, of course, but limiting the growth of spending is all that’s needed to slowly shrink the burden of government spending relative to gross […]
[…] sum things up, it turns out that spending restraint and lower taxes are a recipe for good fiscal policy. This second chart modifies the first chart, showing actual deficits under this small-government […]
[…] sum things up, it turns out that spending restraint and lower taxes are a recipe for good fiscal policy. This second chart (click to enlarge) modifies the first chart, showing actual deficits under this […]
[…] sum things up, it turns out that spending restraint and lower taxes are a recipe for good fiscal policy. This second chart modifies the first chart, showing actual deficits under this small-government […]
[…] sum things up, it turns out that spending restraint and lower taxes are a recipe for good fiscal policy. This second chart modifies the first chart, showing actual deficits under this small-government […]
[…] sum things up, it turns out that spending restraint and lower taxes are a recipe for good fiscal policy. This second chart modifies the first chart, showing actual deficits under this small-government […]
[…] Ridurre il deficit di bilancio è facile, almeno finché i politici lasceranno incrementare la spesa generale di un importo minore rispetto al gettito fiscale atteso. E con l’inflazione media prevista per lo stesso periodo pari a circa il 2 per cento, ci troviamo nelle condizioni ideali per un rigore fiscale atteso ormai da tempo. Congelando il tetto massimo della spesa al livello attuale, entro il 2017 il bilancio potrebbe essere praticamente in pareggio. Lo stesso risultato sarebbe possibile entro il 2019 limitando l’aumento della spesa all’1 per cento annuo. E se ammettiamo una crescita della spesa pari al 2 per cento annuo (ossia, tenendo il passo con l’inflazione), il pareggio arriverà nel 2021. […]
[…] This evening, I’ll be talking about how Italy should balance its budget by limiting the size of government, and my message will be identical to the one I give American policymakers. Restraining spending is the only pro-growth way of lowering red ink. […]
[…] This evening, I’ll be talking about how Italy should balance its budget by limiting the size of government, and my message will be identical to the one I give American policymakers. Restraining spending is the only pro-growth way of lowering red ink. […]
[…] This evening, I’ll be talking about how Italy should balance its budget by limiting the size of government, and my message will be identical to the one I give American policymakers. Restraining spending is the only pro-growth way of lowering red ink. […]
[…] International Liberty « Heidi Montag – Heartbeat Lyrics, Video, Ringtone watch Kitchen Nightmares Season 4 Episode 2 Classic American s04e02 online stream no survey » […]
[…] This post was mentioned on Twitter by @healing_bible, Dan Mitchell. Dan Mitchell said: New CBO Numbers Re-Confirm that Balancing the Budget Is Simple with Modest Fiscal Restraint http://tinyurl.com/4bk22qf […]