President Obama unveiled his fiscal year 2012 budget today, and there’s good news and bad news. The good news is that there’s no major initiative such as the so-called stimulus scheme or the government-run healthcare proposal. The bad news, though, is that government is far too big and Obama’s budget does nothing to address this problem.
But perhaps the folks on Capitol Hill will be more responsible and actually try to save America from becoming a big-government, European-style welfare state. The solution may not be easy, but it is simple. Lawmakers merely need to restrain the growth of government spending so that it grows slower than the private economy.
Actual 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 product.
Fortunately, we have two role models from recent history that show it is possible to control the federal budget. This video from the Center for Freedom and Prosperity uses data from the Historical Tables of the Budget to demonstrate the fiscal policy achievements of both Ronald Reagan and Bill Clinton.
Some people will want to argue about who gets credit for the good fiscal policy of the 1980s and 1990s.
Bill Clinton’s performance, for instance, may not have been so impressive if he had succeeded in pushing through his version of government-run healthcare or if he didn’t have to deal with a Republican Congress after the 1994 elections. But that’s a debate for partisans. All that matters is that the burden of government spending fell during Bill Clinton’s reign, and that was good for the budget and good for the economy. And there’s no question he did a much better job than George W. Bush.
Indeed, a major theme in this new video is that the past 10 years have been a fiscal disaster. Both Bush and Obama have dramatically boosted the burden of government spending – largely because of rapid increases in domestic spending.
This is one of the reasons why the economy is weak. For further information, this video looks at the theoretical case for small government and this video examines the empirical evidence against big government.
Another problem is that many people in Washington are fixated on deficits and debt, but that’s akin to focusing on symptoms and ignoring the underlying disease. To elaborate, this video explains that America’s fiscal problem is too much spending rather than too much debt.
Last but not least, this video reviews the theory and evidence for the “Rahn Curve,” which is the notion that there is a growth-maximizing level of government outlays. The bad news is that government already is far too big in the United States. This is undermining prosperity and reducing competitiveness.
Don’t buy stuff?
/saturday-night-live-dont-buy-stuff
While the President is feeding us his line of garbage as to cutting spending, it came to my attention yesterday that the FED is considering a QE3 package adding to the 1.2 trillion dollars of worthless money they’ve already printed hasn’t done what they though it would. All of the cuts in the world are not going to offset the hyper inflation and the costs that come with printing worthless money. M1 has grown 15.2% in less than 3 months and all of that is unbacked paper!
Let’s not forget ALL of Clinton’s legacy:
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9c0de7db153ef933a0575ac0a96f958260
Dan: I have to disagree with you on this one. Clinton didn’t do jack! The Republican controlled Congress did this. No potus can create a surplus or deficit, only Congress can do this. No potus “inherits” a budget or surplus. Congress “inherits” it. Potus can submit budget proposals, but ultimately, Congress signs the check.
http://thedauntlessconservative.wordpress.com/2010/08/14/there-was-no-clinton-surplus/
http://thedauntlessconservative.wordpress.com/2010/09/08/the-bill-clinton-lie/
[...] haven’t gotten over my man-crush on the Gipper, I figured it would be interesting to look at Reagan’s fiscal record, particularly to see whether he was successful in restraining the growth of domestic [...]
[...] we can save ourselves. A previous video showed how both Ronald Reagan and Bill Clinton achieved positive fiscal changes by li…, with particular emphasis on reductions in the burden of domestic spending. This new video from the [...]
[...] we can save ourselves. A previous video showed how both Ronald Reagan and Bill Clinton achieved positive fiscal changes by li…, with particular emphasis on reductions in the burden of domestic spending. This new video from the [...]
[...] haven’t gotten over my man-crush on the Gipper, I figured it would be interesting to look at Reagan’s fiscal record, particularly to see whether he was successful in restraining the growth of domestic [...]
[...] we can save ourselves. A previous video showed how both Ronald Reagan and Bill Clinton achieved positive fiscal changes by li…, with particular emphasis on reductions in the burden of domestic spending. This new video from the [...]
[...] I’ve already explained that Bush was a statist rather than a conservative, and you can find additional commentary from me here, here, here, and here. [...]
[...] That’s the good news. The bad news is that Tax Freedom Day only measures the direct and immediate impact of taxation. It doesn’t measure the overall burden of government. This chart from the Tax Foundation shows that the fiscal burden of government has jumped enormously since the end of the Clinton years. [...]
[...] That’s the good news. The bad news is that Tax Freedom Day only measures the direct and immediate impact of taxation. It doesn’t measure the overall burden of government. This chart from the Tax Foundation shows that the fiscal burden of government has jumped enormously since the end of the Clinton years. [...]
[...] That’s the good news. The bad news is that Tax Freedom Day only measures the direct and immediate impact of taxation. It doesn’t measure the overall burden of government. This chart from the Tax Foundation shows that the fiscal burden of government has jumped enormously since the end of the Clinton years. [...]
[...] That’s the good news. The bad news is that Tax Freedom Day only measures the direct and immediate impact of taxation. It doesn’t measure the overall burden of government. This chart from the Tax Foundation shows that the fiscal burden of government has jumped enormously since the end of the Clinton years. [...]
[...] That’s the good news. The bad news is that Tax Freedom Day only measures the direct and immediate impact of taxation. It doesn’t measure the overall burden of government. This chart from the Tax Foundation shows that the fiscal burden of government has jumped enormously since the end of the Clinton years. [...]
[...] pointed out on several occasions that the burden of federal spending fell significantly during the Clinton years. Indeed, if we did [...]
[...] the burden of federal spending fell significantly during the Clinton years, I’m not sure he was successful in his [...]
[...] the burden of federal spending fell significantly during the Clinton years, I’m not sure he was successful in his [...]
[...] He argues that spending has been cut back, but that’s factually wrong – and a strange argument since Reich was in the cabinet of the last President who actually did reduce the burden of federal spending. [...]
[...] the United States has enjoyed periods of semi-impressive fiscal discipline, most notably during the Reagan and Clinton years. Unfortunately, the modest progress achieved [...]
[...] post also does not include the video about fiscal restraint during the Reagan and Clinton years, or the video looking at how nations such as New Zealand and Canada were able to restrain spending. [...]
[...] restraint, as shown in this video featuring Canada, Slovakia, New Zealand, and Ireland. And this video shows how the United States made progress during both the Reagan years and the Clinton [...]
[...] 1. For all the whining and complaining from the pro-spending lobbies, the RSC budget is hardly draconian. Federal spending, measured as a share of GDP, would only drop to where it was when Bill Clinton left office. [...]
[...] 1. For all the whining and complaining from the pro-spending lobbies, the RSC budget is hardly draconian. Federal spending, measured as a share of GDP, would only drop to where it was when Bill Clinton left office. [...]
[...] when Bill Clinton left office in 2001, following several years of spending restraint, the federal government was consuming 18.2 percent of economic [...]
[...] when Bill Clinton left office in 2001, following several years of spending restraint, the federal government was consuming 18.2 percent of economic [...]
[...] when Bill Clinton left office in 2001, following several years of spending restraint, the federal government was consuming 18.2 percent of economic [...]
[...] when Bill Clinton left office in 2001, following several years of spending restraint, the federal government was consuming 18.2 percent of economic [...]
[...] Bill Clinton left office in 2001, following several years of spending restraint, the federal government was consuming 18.2 percent of economic [...]
[...] when Bill Clinton left office in 2001, following several years of spending restraint, the federal government was consuming 18.2 percent of economic [...]
[...] when Bill Clinton left office in 2001, following several years of spending restraint, the federal government was consuming 18.2 percent of economic [...]
[...] yesterday about Obama’s demagoguery against the Ryan budget and criticized the President for sloppy budget math, tedious class warfare, and a deeply flawed grasp of America’s founding [...]
[...] yesterday about Obama’s demagoguery against the Ryan budget and criticized the President for sloppy budget math, tedious class warfare, and a deeply flawed grasp of America’s founding [...]
[...] when Bill Clinton left office in 2001, following several years of spending restraint, the federal government was consuming 18.2 percent of economic [...]
[...] when Bill Clinton left office in 2001, following several years of spending restraint, the federal government was consuming 18.2 percent of economic [...]
[...] when Bill Clinton left office in 2001, following several years of spending restraint, the federal government was consuming 18.2 percent of economic [...]
[...] the budget), but its harmful impact was more than offset by pro-growth policies – such as a reduction in the burden of federal spending, trade liberalization, welfare reform, and [...]
[...] the budget), but its harmful impact was more than offset by pro-growth policies – such as a reduction in the burden of federal spending, trade liberalization, welfare reform, and [...]
[...] I’ve said lots of nice things about Bill Clinton, noting that economic freedom increased during his tenure, in part because the burden of federal spending declined to 18.2 percent of GDP. [...]
[...] The various interest groups that infest Washington would complain about this degree of spending discipline, but Carter and Fichtner make a good point when they say that this simply means the same size government – as a share of GDP – that we had when Bill Clinton left office. [...]
[...] The various interest groups that infest Washington would complain about this degree of spending discipline, but Carter and Fichtner make a good point when they say that this simply means the same size government – as a share of GDP – that we had when Bill Clinton left office. [...]
[...] president in recent memory. Reagan jumps to second place. Clinton is in third place, which won’t surprise people who watched this video, while W and LBJ again are in last [...]
[...] president in recent memory. Reagan jumps to second place. Clinton is in third place, which won’t surprise people who watched this video, while W and LBJ again are in last [...]
[...] president in recent memory. Reagan jumps to second place. Clinton is in third place, which won’t surprise people who watched this video, while W and LBJ again are in last [...]
[...] This means that policy moves in the right direction when government grows slower than the private sector, as it did under Reagan and Clinton. [...]
[...] at the charts, it’s also rather obvious that party labels don’t mean much. Bill Clinton presided during a period of spending restraint, while every Republican other than Reagan has a dismal track [...]
[...] This means that policy moves in the right direction when government grows more slowly than the private sector, as it did under Reagan and Clinton. [...]
[...] I’ve done a video highlighting the good fiscal record of both Reagan and Clinton, this is music to my [...]
[...] What changed (and this is where Bill Clinton deserves credit) is that the nation enjoyed a multi-year period of spending restraint in the mid-1990s. [...]
[...] What changed (and this is where Bill Clinton deserves credit) is that the nation enjoyed a multi-year period of spending restraint in the mid-1990s. [...]
[...] when Bill Clinton left office in 2001, following several years of spending restraint, the federal government was consuming 18.2 percent of economic [...]
[...] yesterday about Obama’s demagoguery against the Ryan budget and criticized the President for sloppy budget math, tedious class warfare, and a deeply flawed grasp of America’s founding [...]
[...] at the charts, it’s also rather obvious that party labels don’t mean much. Bill Clinton presided during a period of spending restraint, while every Republican other than Reagan has a dismal track [...]
[...] when Bill Clinton left office in 2001, following several years of spending restraint, the federal government was consuming 18.2 percent of economic [...]
[...] Which makes me miss Bill Clinton, who was frugal by comparison. Or Ronald Reagan, who actually did the right things for the right [...]
[...] The various interest groups that infest Washington would complain about this degree of spending discipline, but Carter and Fichtner make a good point when they say that this simply means the same size government – as a share of GDP – that we had when Bill Clinton left office. [...]
[...] Which makes me miss Bill Clinton, who was frugal by comparison. Or Ronald Reagan, who actually did the right things for the right [...]
[...] What changed (and this is where Bill Clinton deserves credit) is that the nation enjoyed a multi-year period of spending restraint in the mid-1990s. [...]
[...] show the benefits of moving policy in the other direction. During the Reagan years, for instance, redistribution programs were constrained and the poverty rate began to fall. And during the Clinton years, welfare reform and other [...]
[...] America’s 42nd President actually did a pretty good job. Or, to be more accurate, we got good results during his tenure, particularly when looking at the burden of government spending. [...]
[...] also highlights the relatively good performance of the Clinton years. As I’ve done before, I announce that we’d be much better off with the Clinton tax [...]
[...] The burden of federal spending in the United States was down to 18.2 percent of gross domestic product when Bill Clinton left office. [...]
[...] The burden of federal spending in the United States was down to 18.2 percent of gross domestic product when Bill Clinton left office. [...]
[...] The burden of federal spending in the United States was down to 18.2 percent of gross domestic product when Bill Clinton left office. [...]
[...] also point out the similarities between what Paul Ryan is proposing today with what was achieved in the 1990s during the Clinton Administration. Rate this:Share this:PrintEmailFacebookTwitterMoredeliciousDiggFarkLinkedInRedditStumbleUponLike [...]
[...] though I have remarked on many occasions that the burden of government was reduced during the Clinton years, that doesn’t mean Bill Clinton was in favor of smaller government. And it definitely [...]
[...] though I have remarked on many occasions that the burden of government was reduced during the Clinton years, that doesn’t mean Bill Clinton was in favor of smaller government. And it definitely doesn’t [...]
[...] grow by about $1.5 trillion and consume nearly 22 percent of economic output. This is far about the 18.2 percent of GDP when Clinton left office, which should be the minimum target for [...]
[...] legislatures play a role in how well (or poorly) a state does in the report card – much as Bill Clinton’s reasonably good performance presumably was impacted by the GOP Congress. But Chris also looks at policies proposed by [...]
[...] Which makes me miss Bill Clinton, who was frugal by comparison. Or Ronald Reagan, who actually did the right things for the right [...]
[...] What changed (and this is where Bill Clinton deserves credit) is that the nation enjoyed a multi-year period of spending restraint in the mid-1990s. [...]
[...] This means that policy moves in the right direction when government grows more slowly than the private sector, as it did under Reagan and Clinton. [...]
[...] at the charts, it’s also rather obvious that party labels don’t mean much. Bill Clinton presided during a period of spending restraint, while every Republican other than Reagan has a dismal track [...]
[...] Bill Clinton, in retrospect, was a much better choice than Bush 41. And he paved the way for the GOP landslide in [...]
[...] president in recent memory. Reagan jumps to second place. Clinton is in third place, which won’t surprise people who watched this video, while W and LBJ again are in last [...]
[...] a good option since it means a return of Clinton-era tax rates (but unfortunately not a return to Clinton-era levels of spending and regulation), but at least there would also be “sequestration,” which is budget-wonk [...]
[...] P.S. You may have noticed that the White House used 20 percent of GDP as a benchmark in its chart, apparently because we should strive for the fiscal policy we had in Bill Clinton’s second term. I might be willing to take them up on that offer, so long as they’re also willing to accept Bill Clinton’s spending levels. [...]
It is important to remember cap gains got lowered from 28 percent to 20 percent in 1996.
[...] a good option since it means a return of Clinton-era tax rates (but unfortunately not a return to Clinton-era levels of spending and regulation), but at least there would also be “sequestration,” which is budget-wonk term [...]
[...] tax rates in his first year, but he put together a very strong record in subsequent years. He was particularly good about restraining the burden of government spending and overall economic freedom expanded during his [...]
[...] we definitely know he doesn’t want to go back to Bill Clinton spending levels, so he wants the bad part of the 1990s but not the good [...]
[...] tax rates in his first year, but he put together a very strong record in subsequent years. He was particularly good about restraining the burden of government spending and overall economic freedom expanded during his [...]
[...] also highlights the relatively good performance of the Clinton years. As I’ve done before, I announce that we’d be much better off with the Clinton tax rates – [...]
[...] Indeed, this is exactly what happened in 1995 when Newt Gingrich and Bill Clinton had their famous shutdown battle. The Democrats were anxious to cut a deal to get the gravy train rolling again, and Republicans used that leverage to achieve a significant policy victory. [...]
[...] Indeed, this is exactly what happened in 1995 when Newt Gingrich and Bill Clinton had their famous shutdown battle. The Democrats were anxious to cut a deal to get the gravy train rolling again, and Republicans used that leverage to achieve a significant policy victory. [...]
[...] Indeed, this is exactly what happened in 1995 when Newt Gingrich and Bill Clinton had their famous shutdown battle. The Democrats were anxious to cut a deal to get the gravy train rolling again, and Republicans used that leverage to achieve a significant policy victory. [...]
[...] The burden of federal spending in the United States was down to 18.2 percent of gross domestic product when Bill Clinton left office. [...]
[...] and they explain that the last period of strong growth took place during the late 1990s, when Bill Clinton and the GOP Congress substantially reduced the burden of federal [...]
[...] I also point out the similarities between what Paul Ryan is proposing today with what was achieved in the 1990s during the Clinton Administration. [...]
[...] it’s not just that the Gipper had good rhetoric. He also did a decent job of restraining spending and he significantly lowered marginal tax [...]
[...] it’s not just that the Gipper had good rhetoric. He also did a decent job of restraining spending and he significantly lowered marginal tax [...]
[...] and they explain that the last period of strong growth took place during the late 1990s, when Bill Clinton and the GOP Congress substantially reduced the burden of federal [...]
[...] though I have remarked on many occasions that the burden of government was reduced during the Clinton years, that doesn’t mean Bill Clinton was in favor of smaller government. And it definitely doesn’t [...]
[...] more information on Reagan and Clinton, this video has the [...]
[...] more information on Reagan and Clinton, this video has the [...]
[...] Let’s be clear, though, that this is not a libertarian budget. Federal spending will still be far too high. Indeed, the budget will consume a larger share of the economy than it did when Bill Clinton left office. [...]
[...] And all Paul Ryan is proposing is that we emulate the policy of the Clinton years. [...]
[...] personal finances? I very much doubt that any of them deserve to be called libertarian (though the burden of government shrunk under Bill Clinton, so maybe we can consider him an unintentional [...]
[...] by the way. The fiscal success of the late 1990s was a result of genuine spending restraint, as explained in this video. The lower taxes were simply a bit of icing on the [...]
[…] to satisfy this Golden Rule. It’s much harder to convince politicians to be frugal. Yes, it happened during the Reagan and Clinton years, and there also have been multi-year periods of spending discipline in nations such as Estonia, New […]
[…] grow by about $1.5 trillion and consume nearly 22 percent of economic output. This is far above the 18.2 percent of GDP when Clinton left office, which should be the minimum target for […]