Almost exactly one year ago, I did a post entitled “A Laffer Curve Tutorial” because I wanted readers to have all the arguments and data in one place (and also because it meant I wouldn’t have to track down all the videos when someone asked me for the full set).

Riders from the fiscal policy short bus
Today, I’m doing the same thing on the issue of government spending. If you watch these four videos, you will know more about the economics of government spending than 99.9 percent of the people in Washington. That’s not a big achievement, to be sure, since you’re being compared to a remedial class, but it’s nonetheless good to have a solid understanding of an issue.
The first video defines the problem, explaining that deficits and debt are bad, but then explaining that red ink is best understood as a symptom of the real problem of too much government spending.
The second video reviews the theoretical reasons why a large public sector undermines prosperity.
The next video examines the empirical evidence, citing both cross-country data and academic research.
Last but not least, the final video looks at the research about the growth-maximizing size of government.
You may have noticed, by the way, that this post does not include any of the videos about Keynesian economics or Obama’s stimulus. That’s an entirely different issue, perhaps best described as being a debate over whether it’s good or bad in the short run to increase the burden of government spending. The videos in this post are about the appropriate size and scope of government in the long run.
This 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. Those are case studies, not economics.
[…] All that is true. But what about a stable monetary system? And what about areasonable tax regime and a modest burden of government spending? […]
[…] that politicians were aggressively going after another department. Anything that reduces the burden of government spending is a step in the right […]
[…] The burden of federal government spending in the United States is far too high and it should be reduced. That includes discretionary spending and entitlement spending. […]
[…] I write about fiscal policy, there are two ever-present […]
[…] I write about fiscal policy, there are two ever-present […]
[…] I write about fiscal policy, there are two ever-present […]
[…] Since it’s Christmas, I don’t think anyone is interested in boring diatribes about tax reform or government spending. […]
[…] scores will continue to decline because tax rates are now heading in the wrong direction and the burden of government spending is rising in many […]
[…] burden of government spending is too high, the tax code is too punitive, red tape is hindering entrepreneurship, and various […]
[…] they should all be forced to watch my video series on the economics of government […]
[…] they should all be forced to watch my video series on the economics of government […]
[…] that politicians were aggressively going after another department. Anything that reduces the burden of government spending is a step in the right […]
[…] that politicians were aggressively going after another department. Anything that reduces the burden of government spending is a step in the right […]
[…] that politicians were aggressively going after another department. Anything that reduces the burden of government spending is a step in the right […]
[…] wisely and efficiently, imposes economic costs. For more information, click here, here, here, here, here, and […]
[…] wisely and efficiently, imposes economic costs. For more information, click here, here, here, here, here, and […]
[…] the way, the CRFB folks fixate on how these initiative impact the deficit. What we really should be concerned about is how much money is being […]
[…] the way, the CRFB folks fixate on how these initiative impact the deficit. What we really should be concerned about is how much money is being […]
[…] I’m not fixated on getting to a balanced budget. What’s more important is that the burden of government spending shrinks when the budget grows slower than the private […]
[…] that politicians were aggressively going after another department. Anything that reduces the burden of government spending is a step in the right […]
[…] The moral of the story is that free trade is desirable…and small government is desirable. […]
[…] that politicians were aggressively going after another department. Anything that reduces the burden of government spending is a step in the right […]
[…] that politicians were aggressively going after another department. Anything that reduces the burden of government spending is a step in the right […]
[…] I’m not fixated on getting to a balanced budget. What’s more important is that the burden of government spending shrinks when the budget grows slower than the private […]
[…] that politicians were aggressively going after another department. Anything that reduces the burden of government spending is a step in the right […]
[…] I’m not fixated on getting to a balanced budget. What’s more important is that the burden of government spending shrinks when the budget grows slower than the private […]
[…] that politicians were aggressively going after another department. Anything that reduces the burden of government spending is a step in the right […]
[…] deficits would have been avoided. But, more important, the burden of government spending would have been significantly […]
[…] that politicians were aggressively going after another department. Anything that reduces the burden of government spending is a step in the right […]
[…] I’m not fixated on getting to a balanced budget. What’s more important is that the burden of government spending shrinks when the budget grows slower than the private […]
[…] that politicians were aggressively going after another department. Anything that reduces the burden of government spending is a step in the right […]
[…] that politicians were aggressively going after another department. Anything that reduces the burden of government spending is a step in the right […]
[…] that politicians were aggressively going after another department. Anything that reduces the burden of government spending is a step in the right […]
[…] that politicians were aggressively going after another department. Anything that reduces the burden of government spending is a step in the right […]
[…] of spending restraint (i.e., Mitchell’s Golden Rule). Politicians oftentimes refuse to reduce the burden of government spending because of an expectation of additional tax revenue. Heck, in many cases, higher taxes trigger an […]
[…] of spending restraint (i.e., Mitchell’s Golden Rule). Politicians oftentimes refuse to reduce the burden of government spending because of an expectation of additional tax revenue. Heck, in many cases, higher taxes trigger an […]
[…] that politicians were aggressively going after another department. Anything that reduces the burden of government spending is a step in the right […]
[…] that politicians were aggressively going after another department. Anything that reduces the burden of government spending is a step in the right […]
[…] I’m not fixated on getting to a balanced budget. What’s more important is that the burden of government spending shrinks when the budget grows slower than the private […]
[…] that politicians were aggressively going after another department. Anything that reduces the burden of government spending is a step in the right […]
[…] than 12 years ago, I shared this video containing lots of data and research on the negative relationship between government spending and economic […]
[…] than 12 years ago, I shared this video containing lots of data and research on the negative relationship between government spending and economic […]
[…] that politicians were aggressively going after another department. Anything that reduces the burden of government spending is a step in the right […]
[…] people ask me why I’m a libertarian, I rarely mention high taxes and wasteful spending. Nor do I make philosophical arguments about the non-aggression principle. And it’s also […]
[…] I’m not fixated on getting to a balanced budget. What’s more important is that the burden of government spending shrinks when the budget grows slower than the private […]
[…] in 2009 and 2010, when I had less gray hair, I narrated a four-part series on the economic burden of government […]
[…] in 2009 and 2010, when I had less gray hair, I narrated a four-part series on the economic burden of government […]
[…] Assuming, of course, that the goal is greater prosperity. […]
[…] Assuming, of course, that the goal is greater prosperity. […]
[…] that politicians were aggressively going after another department. Anything that reduces the burden of government spending is a step in the right […]
[…] that politicians were aggressively going after another department. Anything that reduces the burden of government spending is a step in the right […]
[…] that politicians were aggressively going after another department. Anything that reduces the burden of government spending is a step in the right […]
[…] that politicians were aggressively going after another department. Anything that reduces the burden of government spending is a step in the right […]
[…] that politicians were aggressively going after another department. Anything that reduces the burden of government spending is a step in the right […]
[…] a constitutional argument against federal involvement. There’s a fiscal argument against federal involvement. There’s a diversity argument against federal involvement. And […]
[…] This Steve Kelley cartoon is very appealing to me because it shows the President going after the sequester when the real problem is an excessive burden of government spending. […]
[…] I’m not fixated on getting to a balanced budget. What’s more important is that the burden of government spending shrinks when the budget grows slower than the private […]
[…] I’m not fixated on getting to a balanced budget. What’s more important is that the burden of government spending shrinks when the budget grows slower than the private […]
[…] in 2009 and 2010, when I had less gray hair, I narrated a four-part series on the economic burden of government […]
[…] in 2009 and 2010, when I had less gray hair, I narrated a four-part series on the economic burden of government […]
[…] that politicians were aggressively going after another department. Anything that reduces the burden of government spending is a step in the right […]
[…] that politicians were aggressively going after another department. Anything that reduces the burden of government spending is a step in the right […]
[…] that politicians were aggressively going after another department. Anything that reduces the burden of government spending is a step in the right […]
[…] that politicians were aggressively going after another department. Anything that reduces the burden of government spending is a step in the right […]
[…] that politicians were aggressively going after another department. Anything that reduces the burden of government spending is a step in the right […]
[…] that politicians were aggressively going after another department. Anything that reduces the burden of government spending is a step in the right […]
[…] Bigger government leads to less economic growth. […]
[…] that politicians were aggressively going after another department. Anything that reduces the burden of government spending is a step in the right […]
[…] that politicians were aggressively going after another department. Anything that reduces the burden of government spending is a step in the right […]
[…] P.S. If you want more information, here’s my video on Keynesian Economics, and here’s my 4-part series on the economics of government spending. […]
[…] that politicians were aggressively going after another department. Anything that reduces the burden of government spending is a step in the right […]
[…] The bad news is that Biden is taking advantage of the current political situation to increase the burden of government spending. […]
[…] .But I’m a policy nerd, so I’m focused on how we’re now saddled with a bigger burden of government spending. […]
[…] But I’m a policy nerd, so I’m focused on how we’re now saddled with a bigger burden of government spending. […]
[…] we know from other research that the economy also will suffer because of the higher spending burden. This is because of the various ways that growth is reduced when resources are diverted from the […]
[…] we know from other research that the economy also will suffer because of the higher spending burden. This is because of the various ways that growth is reduced when resources are diverted from the […]
[…] since I want to reduce the burden of government spending, let’s see whether school choice is good news for […]
[…] The bad news is that Biden is taking advantage of the current political situation to increase the burden of government spending. […]
[…] The bad news is that Biden is taking advantage of the current political situation to increase the burden of government spending. […]
[…] The bad news is that Biden is taking advantage of the current political situation to increase the burden of government spending. […]
[…] The bad news is that Biden is taking advantage of the current political situation to increase the burden of government spending. […]
[…] good news is that the report also contains lots of data on the variables – the spending burden and the tax burden – that should command our […]
[…] good news is that the report also contains lots of data on the variables – the spending burden and the tax burden – that should command our […]
[…] increased by only 1.8 percent per year last decade, which helped to substantially reduce the fiscal burden of government relative to the private […]
[…] that politicians were aggressively going after another department. Anything that reduces the burden of government spending is a step in the right […]
[…] ideal fiscal goal should be reducing the size of government, ideally down to the level envisioned by America’s […]
[…] ideal fiscal goal should be reducing the size of government, ideally down to the level envisioned by America’s […]
[…] ideal fiscal goal should be reducing the size of government, ideally down to the level envisioned by America’s […]
[…] Just in case it’s not obvious, the common theme is that I don’t want to give politicians new sources of revenue that would be used to expand the burden of government spending. […]
[…] why didn’t they factor in the impact of other government policies (trade, regulation, government spending, monetary policy, etc)? Taxation is just one small piece of the economic policy puzzle. […]
[…] why didn’t they factor in the impact of other government policies (trade, regulation, government spending, monetary policy, etc)? Taxation is just one small piece of the economic policy puzzle. Maybe they […]
[…] since I want to reduce the burden of government spending, let’s see whether school choice is good news for […]
[…] by explaining that politicians who want to “do something” almost always want to expand the burden of government spending, but he notes that this approach has meant deeper recessions and more economic suffering. And he […]
[…] that politicians were aggressively going after another department. Anything that reduces the burden of government spending is a step in the right […]
[…] It also makes important points about the economic impact of government spending. […]
[…] that politicians were aggressively going after another department. Anything that reduces the burden of government spending is a step in the right […]
[…] today and I don’t think you have to be a 100 percent libertarian to be my ally in the fight to restrain excessive government. And I also think it’s a good idea for people to be thinking of how to best articulate a message […]
[…] that politicians were aggressively going after another department. Anything that reduces the burden of government spending is a step in the right […]
[…] of spending restraint (i.e., Mitchell’s Golden Rule). Politicians oftentimes refuse to reduce the burden of government spending because of an expectation of additional tax revenue. Heck, in many cases, higher taxes trigger an […]
[…] At the risk of oversimplification and exaggeration, these six principles tell you everything you need to know about fiscal policy. […]
[…] that politicians were aggressively going after another department. Anything that reduces the burden of government spending is a step in the right […]
[…] that politicians were aggressively going after another department. Anything that reduces the burden of government spending is a step in the right […]
[…] that politicians were aggressively going after another department. Anything that reduces the burden of government spending is a step in the right […]
[…] that politicians were aggressively going after another department. Anything that reduces the burden of government spending is a step in the right […]
[…] today and I don’t think you have to be a 100 percent libertarian to be my ally in the fight to restrain excessive government. And I also think it’s a good idea for people to be thinking of how to best articulate a message […]
[…] that politicians were aggressively going after another department. Anything that reduces the burden of government spending is a step in the right […]
[…] The unemployment rate has been stuck above 8 percent ever since Obama pushed through his ill-fated stimulus scheme to increase the burden of government spending. […]
[…] that politicians were aggressively going after another department. Anything that reduces the burden of government spending is a step in the right […]
[…] that politicians were aggressively going after another department. Anything that reduces the burden of government spending is a step in the right […]
[…] you can see, the burden of government spending began to climb about 1970 and is now represents a bigger drag on their economy than what we’re enduring in the United […]
[…] is bad news for America since more of the economy’s output will be consumed by government, leaving fewer resources […]
[…] If the problem is properly defined as being too much government, then the only logical answer is to shrink the burden of government spending. […]
[…] the editorial warns, this undermines prosperity because resources get diverted from the economy’s productive […]
[…] that’s just the tip of the iceberg. The burden of government spending almost doubled during the Bush years, the federal government accumulated more power, and the […]
[…] far more important – and much more worrisome – is that the burden of government spending is projected to relentlessly increase, violating the Golden Rule of fiscal […]
[…] of dollars of revenue magically floated down from Heaven, bigger government would still be bad for the economy since politicians and bureaucrats would be in charge of (mis)allocating a much greater share of […]
[…] Given my interest in fiscal policy, I’m always on the lookout for articles on tax reform and the burden of government spending. […]
[…] other words, the Golden Rule has been in effect since 2009. As a result, the burden of government spending, relative to the economy’s productive sector, has been […]
[…] let’s not forget that Medicare-for-All would dramatically increase the burden of government spending. In one fell swoop, we’d become […]
[…] the budget is financed by taxes or borrowing, the level of spending is what really matters. Simply stated, that number measures the amount of money that politicians divert from the […]
[…] The problem, of course, is that good reforms won’t be easy to achieve if there’s no plan to limit the burden of government spending. […]
[…] I never studied the topic since I was focused at the time on domestic issues such as tax reform, Social Security reform, and the economic effect of government spending. […]
[…] horrible grade on regulation, and it’s also in the bottom half of all nations when looking at fiscal policy, quality of governance, and […]
[…] what worries me is that the numbers show that government spending will be consuming an ever-larger share of the nation’s economic […]
[…] bottom line is that the public sector already is too large in the United States. Yet we have politicians who want it to become an even bigger burden. In some […]
[…] at the Friedman conference in Australia, I got to listen to Professor Tony Makin talk about the burden of government spending in […]
[…] this simply means that the burden of government spending won’t grow as fast as previously planned. I’ve exposed this scam in discussions with […]
[…] neglected to explain, though, that there’s also an economic cost. All government spending is a burden since resources get diverted from the productive sector of the economy. Moreover, the associated […]
[…] I’m asked for a basic tutorial on fiscal policy, I normally share my four videos on the economics of government spending and my primer on fundamental tax […]
[…] more spending for a wall and isn’t even proposing some offsetting reductions to keep the overall burden of government from […]
[…] people were asking questions on the flat tax, Laffer Curve, or the economic impact of government spending, I could give succinct and targeted responses. On the topic of social capital, by contrast, I […]
[…] don’t get a recession by hiking taxes, adding red tape, or increasing the burden of government spending. Those policies are misguided, to be sure, but they mostly erode the economy’s long-run […]
[…] spending is the most accurate way of measuring the fiscal burden of government. Regardless of whether it is financed by taxes or borrowing, spending is what requires resources to […]
[…] that you generally don’t get a recession by hiking taxes, adding red tape, or increasing the burden of government spending. Those policies are misguided, to be sure, but they mostly erode the economy’s long-run […]
[…] Don’t forget that this competency argument for small government is augmented by the economic argument for small […]
[…] 3.1 (the dashed vertical line is the year a crisis occurs), are whether there’s a rising burden of government spending and whether the economy is […]
[…] When I write about the economics of fiscal policy and need to give people an easy-to-understand explanation on how government spending affects growth, I share my four-part video series. […]
[…] teoría subyacente es muy sencilla. No será fácil para los políticos aumentar la carga del gasto público si no pueden aumentar también los impuestos. En concreto, como los estados generalmente tienen […]
[…] underlying theory is very simple. It won’t be easy for politicians to increase the burden of government spending if they can’t also raise taxes. Particularly since states generally have some form of rule […]
[…] Switzerland ranks above the United States in Economic Freedom of the World, so many factors doubtlessly contributed to the nation’s superior performance. Both theory and evidence, however, suggest that fiscal discipline is good for prosperity. […]
[…] que respuesta más sencilla sería compartir mi serie de videos acerca de la economía del gasto público, especialmente porque cito multitud de investigación […]
[…] suppose the simplest response would be to share my video series about the economics of government spending, especially since I cite a wealth of academic […]
[…] é falar sobre economia e políticas fiscais, explicando os impactos tanto das receitas como das despesas […]
[…] And I’m equally flabbergasted that the IMF openly claims that bigger government is good for growth. Unsurprisingly, the bureaucrats never try to justify that bizarre and anti-empirical assertion. […]
[…] This all makes sense. Lower tax rates are good for growth, particularly if offset by reductions in the burden of government spending. […]
[…] This all makes sense. Lower tax rates are good for growth, particularly if offset by reductions in the burden of government spending. […]
[…] all the data is in inflation-adjusted dollars (2009 benchmark) to accurately gauge how and why the burden of federal spending has […]
[…] all the data is in inflation-adjusted dollars (2009 benchmark) to accurately gauge how and why the burden of federal spending has […]
[…] all the data is in inflation-adjusted dollars (2009 benchmark) to accurately gauge how and why the burden of federal spending has […]
[…] all the data is in inflation-adjusted dollars (2009 benchmark) to accurately gauge how and why the burden of federal spending has […]
[…] I’m more sanguine about red ink than most people. After all, deficits and debt are merely symptoms. The real problem is excessive government spending. […]
[…] The “Washington Consensus” also is based on good policy, but it undervalues the importance of a small burden of government spending. […]
[…] Most critics of the deal are focusing on how it means more red ink. But that’s a secondary problem. The real mistake is that government is getting bigger, and that means private sector activity is being displaced. […]
[…] Just in case it’s not obvious, the common theme is that I don’t want to give politicians new sources of revenue that would be used to expand the burden of government spending. […]
[…] out this comparison of Greece and Sweden, based on data from Economic Freedom of the World. Sweden is ranked #27, which is in the top-20 percent of nations for economic liberty. Greece, by […]
[…] both countries have terrible fiscal policy, but it turns out that Sweden is very market-oriented in areas like money, trade, regulation, and […]
[…] to say, they should be battling over how much to cut spending, not how much to increase […]
[…] takeaways was that Republican presidents – with the exception of Reagan – allowed the burden of government spending to increase far too rapidly. Oftentimes faster than budgets grew under Democratic […]
[…] best fiscal policy reform would be dramatically shrinking the size of the federal government so that a far greater share of labor and capital in our economy could be allocated by market forces […]
[…] think the most important data is contained in Figure 6, which maps the relationship between economic growth and spending restraint. As you can see, a lower burden of government spending is associated with better economic […]
[…] not delude ourselves. This deal is not good for the economy. It doesn’t do anything to cap the burden of government spending. It doesn’t reform entitlement […]
[…] a constitutional argument against federal involvement. There’s a fiscal argument against federal involvement. There’s a diversity argument against federal involvement. And […]
[…] a constitutional argument against federal involvement. There’s a fiscal argument against federal involvement. There’s a diversity argument against federal involvement. And […]
[…] slow growth is a problem rather than a crisis, the same can be said about bigger government. Yes, a larger fiscal burden saps an economy’s vitality and weakens national competitiveness, but it presumably doesn’t by itself produce a […]
[…] don’t particularly agree with his characterization. You can believe (as I surely do) that smaller government would lead to faster growth without having to disbelieve, deny, or debunk […]
[…] It will be more productive if we measure the harm so we can educate policy makers about the need for spending restraint. […]
[…] It will be more productive if we measure the harm so we can educate policy makers about the need for spending restraint. […]
[…] say that it is rather disappointing that the Report doesn’t include rankings for the overall burden of government spending. After all, government debt is basically a symptom of an underlying problem of a bloated public […]
[…] So I think I’m semi-happy with what Belgian politicians are doing in the short run (reserving the right to change my mind as more details are unveiled), but I don’t have much long-term hope in the absence of effective reforms to shrink the burden of government spending. […]
[…] slow growth is a problem rather than a crisis, the same can be said about bigger government. Yes, a larger fiscal burden saps an economy’s vitality and weakens national competitiveness, but it presumably doesn’t by itself produce a […]
[…] economist, I normally focus on big-picture issues such as the economically debilitating effect of excessive government spending and punitive […]
[…] economist, I normally focus on big-picture issues such as the economically debilitating effect of excessive government spending and punitive […]
[…] economist, I normally focus on big-picture issues such as the economically debilitating effect of excessive government spending and punitive […]
[…] deficit should not be our primary goal. It’s not good to have red ink, to be sure, but the more important goal should be to reduce the burden of federal […]
[…] All that is true. But what about a stable monetary system? And what about areasonable tax regime and a modest burden of government spending? […]
[…] this hasn’t exhausted your interest in this topic, click here for my entire four-part video series on the economics of government […]
[…] be hated by the crowd in DC, but the hostility would be based on the candidate’s agenda to shrink the size and scope of the federal government, not because the candidate makes offensive and/or controversial […]
[…] My primary role is to talk about the economics of fiscal policy, explaining the impact of both taxes and spending. […]
[…] My primary role is to talk about the economics of fiscal policy, explaining the impact of both taxes and spending. […]
[…] government spending is both understandable and enforceable. And such a rule directly deals with the preeminent fiscal policy problem of excessive […]
[…] government spending is both understandable and enforceable. And such a rule directly deals with the preeminent fiscal policy problem of excessive […]
[…] the burden of government spending is excessive in Estonia. According to the most recent OECD figures (see annex table 25), 38.5 […]
[…] nation in the OECD (Czech Republic, Estonia, Hungary, Poland, Slovakia, and Slovenia) has a larger burden of government spending than the United […]
[…] From an economic perspective, too much government spending is harmful to economic performance because politicians and bureaucrats don’t have very good incentives to spend money […]
[…] an economic perspective, too much government spending is harmful to economic performance because politicians and bureaucrats don’t have very good incentives to spend money […]
[…] At the risk of nitpicking, I would say “neoliberals” such as myself are much more direct than they imply. We want to achieve “a smaller role for the state” by reducing the burden of government spending. […]
[…] of my work on fiscal policy is focused on educating audiences about the long-run benefits of small government and modest […]
[…] of my work on fiscal policy is focused on educating audiences about the long-run benefits of small government and modest […]
[…] of my work on fiscal policy is focused on educating audiences about the long-run benefits of small government and modest […]
[…] of my work on fiscal policy is focused on educating audiences about the long-run benefits of small government and modest […]
[…] All that is true. But what about a stable monetary system? And what about areasonable tax regime and a modest burden of government spending? […]
[…] an economic perspective, too much government spending is harmful to economic performance because politicians and bureaucrats don’t have very good incentives to spend money […]
[…] an economic perspective, too much government spending is harmful to economic performance because politicians and bureaucrats don’t have very good incentives to spend money […]
[…] an economic perspective, too much government spending is harmful to economic performance because politicians and bureaucrats don’t have very good incentives to spend money […]
[…] an economic perspective, too much government spending is harmful to economic performance because politicians and bureaucrats don’t have very good incentives to spend money […]
[…] All that is true. But what about a stable monetary system? And what about areasonable tax regime and a modest burden of government spending? […]
[…] P.P.S. My goal, of course, is to help rational leftists understand that free markets are just one ingredient in the recipe for prosperity. We also should have small government. […]
[…] P.P.S. My goal, of course, is to help rational leftists understand that free markets are just one ingredient in the recipe for prosperity. We also should have small government. […]
[…] P.P.S. My goal, of course, is to help rational leftists understand that free markets are just one ingredient in the recipe for prosperity. We also should have small government. […]
[…] any good libertarian, I generally focus on the size of government. I compareFrance with Hong Kong and that tells me that big is bad and small is […]
[…] any good libertarian, I generally focus on the size of government. I compare France with Hong Kong and that tells me that big is bad and small is […]
[…] any good libertarian, I generally focus on the size of government. I compare France with Hong Kong and that tells me that big is bad and small is […]
[…] to know about a topic. I’ve used that tactic when writing about tax loopholes, entitlements, fiscal policy, bureaucracy (twice), tax evasion, France, Greece, corporate inversions, and economic […]
[…] small amount of (properly focused) government is associated with growth. But once the public sector gets too large, then government spending saps a nation’s […]
[…] small amount of (properly focused) government is associated with growth. But once the public sector gets too large, then government spending saps a nation’s […]
[…] small amount of (properly focused) government is associated with growth. But once the public sector gets too large, then government spending saps a nation’s […]
[…] All that is true. But what about a stable monetary system? And what about areasonable tax regime and a modest burden of government spending? […]
[…] All that is true. But what about a stable monetary system? And what about a reasonable tax regime and a modest burden of government spending? […]
[…] The most depressing data about America’s economy is not the top tax rate, the regulatory burden, or the level of wasteful of government spending. […]
[…] the broad measures of what causes prosperity, tax policy is just one piece of the puzzle. The burden of government spending also is important, as is trade policy, regulatory policy, monetary policy, property rights, and the […]
[…] the broad measures of what causes prosperity, tax policy is just one piece of the puzzle. The burden of government spending also is important, as is trade policy, regulatory policy, monetary policy, property rights, and the […]
[…] I’m personally agnostic on the precise level of mandatory savings. My goal is simply to shrink tax-and-transfer entitlement programs, particularly before demographic changes lead to a larger burden of government spending. […]
[…] I’m personally agnostic on the precise level of mandatory savings. My goal is simply to shrink tax-and-transfer entitlement programs, particularly before demographic changes lead to a larger burden of government spending. […]
[…] I’m personally agnostic on the precise level of mandatory savings. My goal is simply to shrink tax-and-transfer entitlement programs, particularly before demographic changes lead to a larger burden of government spending. […]
[…] is why I want pro-growth tax reform, a smaller government, and less suffocating red […]
[…] Obama has unveiled his final budget. The bad news is that it’s a roadmap for an ever-growing burden of government spending. Here are the relevant […]
[…] bad news is that it’s a roadmap for an ever-growing burden of government spending. Here are the relevant […]
[…] bad news is that it’s a roadmap for an ever-growing burden of government spending. Here are the relevant […]
[…] bad news is that it’s a roadmap for an ever-growing burden of government spending. Here are the relevant […]
[…] fiscal problem isn’t debt. That’s just a symptom. The real challenge is a rising burden of government spending, largely because of demographic change and poorly designed entitlement […]
[…] readers know I don’t fixate on fiscal balance. I’m far more concerned with reducing the burden of government spending relative to the private […]
[…] readers know I don’t fixate on fiscal balance. I’m far more concerned with reducing the burden of government spending relative to the private […]
[…] readers know I don’t fixate on fiscal balance. I’m far more concerned with reducing the burden of government spending relative to the private […]
[…] Though, in the interest of fairness, I should acknowledge that Hollande claims this plan will not involve a net increase in the burden of government spending. […]
[…] P.P.S. Carson still has a chance to move his overall grade to A or A+ if he makes the plan viable by proposing an equally detailed plan (presumably consisting of genuine entitlement reform and meaningful spending caps) to deal with the problem of excessive government spending. […]
[…] P.P.S. Carson still has a chance to move his overall grade to A or A+ if he makes the plan viable by proposing an equally detailed plan (presumably consisting of genuine entitlement reform and meaningful spending caps) to deal with the problem of excessive government spending. […]
[…] spending freeze between 2002 and 2005. And the same data, along with OECD data, shows that the burden of government spending has dropped by about 10 percentage points of GDP since that period of spending restraint early […]
[…] spending freeze between 2002 and 2005. And the same data, along with OECD data, shows that the burden of government spending has dropped by about 10 percentage points of GDP since that period of spending restraint early […]
[…] spending freeze between 2002 and 2005. And the same data, along with OECD data, shows that the burden of government spending has dropped by about 10 percentage points of GDP since that period of spending restraint early last […]
[…] no uncertain terms, an excessive burden of government spending is the problem that needs to be […]
[…] like all other forms of government spending, it’s important to calculate the economic burden that is imposed when resources are taken from the productive sector of the economy and transferred to […]
[…] This is a good thing, of course, assuming candidates have serious plans to restrain – and perhaps even cut – federal spending. I don’t lose sleep about whether there’s a balanced budget in year 5 or year 10, but a tax reform plan with a big tax cut isn’t serious unless there’s a concomitant proposal to shrink the burden of government spending. […]
[…] Very well stated. And I especially like how Walter explains that markets are a positive-sum game, whereas government-coerced redistribution is a zero-sum game (actually a negative-sum game when you include the negative economic impact of taxes and spending). […]
[…] It also makes important points about the economic impact of government spending. […]
[…] Needless to say, we should have big – and immediate – reductions in government spending. […]
[…] It also makes important points about the economic impact of government spending. […]
[…] know” hook on many occasions, dealing with diverse issues such as demographics, entitlements, fiscal policy, France, Greece, corporate inversions, supply-side economics, income inequality, the Ryan budget, […]
[…] fight on the yearly spending bills would be wrong since Obama could successfully impose a higher burden of government spending. I can understand why Obama wants to gut the spending caps. After all, they led to his […]
[…] But unilaterally ceding the fight on the yearly spending bills would be wrong since Obama could successfully impose a higher burden of government spending. […]
[…] more information on the merits of smaller government, here’s my tutorial on government […]
[…] obviously isn’t true. What really matters for long-run prosperity is limiting the size and scope of government. Once the growth-maximizing size of government is determined, then lawmakers should seek to finance […]
[…] à la réalité : nous avons un problème de dépense. Les déficits et la dette sont uniquement les symptômes de ce problème. Mais à part cette […]
[…] check: We have a spending problem. Deficits and debt are merely symptoms of that problem. But other than this chronic mistake, CRFB […]
[…] why is the burden of spending going […]
[…] instance, one would think that any sentient adult would understand that the overall burden of government spending in Europe is a problem, particularly outlays for redistribution programs that undermine incentives […]
[…] I’m an advocate of smaller government, you might imagine I’m perpetually depressed. After all, I work in Washington where I’m […]
[…] I’m an advocate of smaller government, you might imagine I’m perpetually depressed. After all, I work in Washington where I’m […]
[…] I’m an advocate of smaller government, you might imagine I’m perpetually depressed. After all, I work in Washington where I’m […]
[…] What’s especially discouraging is that the IMF explicitly wants a higher tax burden to finance an increase in the burden of government spending. […]
[…] However, there’s some controversy over which expenditure limitation offers the best approach. Many states use growth in personal income because adjustments for inflation, population and the size of the economy are all embedded within the number. But this assumes state government should grow as fast as the overall economy when we should be aiming to shrink government’s share of the overall economy. Letting the public sector get too large undermines future prosperity. (Cato’s Dan Mitchell explains why here.) […]
[…] amazingly simple to reduce the burden of government spending. Policy makers simply need to impose some modest spending restraint so that government […]
[…] But even more important, they should stop CBO from producing bad analysis is the future. The Republicans did recently replace a Democrat-appointed CBO Director, so it will be interesting to see whether their new appointee has a better understanding of how fiscal policy works. […]
[…] But even more important, they should stop CBO from producing bad analysis is the future. The Republicans did recently replace a Democrat-appointed CBO Director, so it will be interesting to see whether their new appointee has a better understanding of how fiscal policy works. […]
[…] But I also want to be fair. It’s politicians who have created our monstrous tax code. And it’s politicians who have created the bloated spending programs that undermine our prosperity. […]
[…] On the issue of so-called progressive taxation, our left-wing friends have conflicting goals. Some of them want to maximize tax revenue in order to finance ever-bigger government. […]
[…] On the issue of so-called progressive taxation, our left-wing friends have conflicting goals. Some of them want to maximize tax revenue in order to finance ever-bigger government. […]
[…] have more evidence that the President understands the dangers of class-warfare taxation and burdensome government spending. At least when he’s not talking about American fiscal […]
[…] Shrink the size of the federal government so that it only funds the core public goods, such as national defense and rule of law, envisioned by America’s Founding […]
[…] Shrink the size of the federal government so that it only funds the core public goods, such as national defense and rule of law, envisioned by America’s Founding […]
[…] have more evidence that the President understands the dangers of class-warfare taxation and burdensome government spending. At least when he’s not talking about American fiscal […]
[…] Government doesn’t “repair the damage” of high taxes when it spends money. Most of the time, it exacerbates the damage of high taxes by spending money in ways that further weaken the economy. […]
[…] both moral reasons and economic reasons, we should have small […]
[…] it oftentimes doesn’t get sufficient attention, the change in government spending is the most important number (or set of numbers) in any budget. If the burden of spending is […]
[…] it oftentimes doesn’t get sufficient attention, the change in government spending is the most important number (or set of numbers) in any budget. If the burden of spending is […]
[…] I have written, over and over again, restraining the size and scope of the federal government should be the main goal of fiscal policy. […]
[…] but the two cartoons included in this post may be amusing, but they should have focused on the underlying disease of too much spending (particularly the problem of entitlement programs) rather than highlighting the symptom of red […]
[…] but the two cartoons included in this post may be amusing, but they should have focused on the underlying disease of too much spending (particularly the problem of entitlement programs) rather than highlighting the symptom of red […]
[…] burden of government spending is well beyond the growth-maximizing level in the United States. This video […]
[…] burden of government spending is well beyond the growth-maximizing level in the United States. This video […]
[…] Or might turmoil lead to good policy, which both politicians and voters sobering up and realizing that there must be limits on the overall burden of government spending? […]
[…] that will bring with it skyrocketing regulatory compliance costs and taxes for businesses, and excessive government spending. The frequently-cited lower unemployment rate– just under 6% at the end of the year– […]
[…] Founding Fathers. I can’t stop myself from wistfully dreaming about the expanded freedom and increased growth we would enjoy if the federal government only consumed about 5 percent of economic […]
[…] new laws, but…that “record-low congressional accomplishment” translates into a smaller burden of government spending. Indeed, government spending actually has declined for two consecutive years. That hasn’t […]
[…] I even created a Bob Dole Award to chastise people who mistakenly focus on red ink when they should be worried about the overall burden of government spending. […]
[…] today and I don’t think you have to be a 100 percent libertarian to be my ally in the fight to restrain excessive government. And I also think it’s a good idea for people to be thinking of how to best articulate a message […]
[…] Reposted from International Liberty […]
[…] The Report Card is one of the Cato Institute’s most impressive publications since developments on the state level help illustrate the relationship between good fiscal policy and economic performance. […]
[…] want a smaller burden of government spending, so you can only imagine how frustrating it is for me to observe the fight in […]
[…] But even with those caveats, we have another strong piece of evidence that our economy would grow much faster if we reduced the burden of government spending. […]
[…] This Steve Kelley cartoon is very appealing to me because it shows the President going after the sequester when the real problem is an excessive burden of government spending. […]
[…] burden of government spending is too high, the tax code is too punitive, red tape is hindering entrepreneurship, and various […]
[…] argument that will prevail. So even though America still has some breathing room, and even though the economic and moral case for spending restraint is very powerful, we’re in the unfortunate situation of having to rely on politicians in […]
[…] In an interview last week about Detroit’s bankruptcy, I explained that the city got in trouble because of growing dependency and an ever-rising burden of government spending. […]
[…] Starve-the-Beast theory (and you should), this will make it harder for politicians to increase the burden of government spending in the […]
[…] This Steve Kelley cartoon is very appealing to me because it shows the President going after the sequester when the real problem is an excessive burden of government spending. […]
[…] this slide in the wrong direction. Here are the numbers from the new budget, showing that the burden of government spending will rise by an average of 3.5 percent annually over the next 10 […]
[…] Remember, the problem – both today and in the future – is the burden of government spending. […]
[…] By the way, even though this post is about tax policy, I can’t resist sharing some of Hood’s analysis of the impact of government spending. […]
[…] Now, via Cafe Hayek, I have a great cartoon showing the fancy equation that left-wing economists use when they tell us that the economy will grow faster if there’s a bigger burden of government spending. […]
[…] Now, via Cafe Hayek, I have a great cartoon showing the fancy equation that left-wing economists use when they tell us that the economy will grow faster if there’s a bigger burden of government spending. […]
[…] Denmark has a very large burden of government spending, you won’t be surprised to learn that the dependency class is a huge chunk of the […]
[…] a chart, based on IMF data, showing that the country enjoyed a nine-year period where the burden of government spending grew by an average of 1.9 percent per […]
[…] Want to see what’s happening with the burden of government spending? […]
[…] There are lots of provisions that deserve detailed attention, but I always look first at the overall trends. Most specifically, I want to see what’s happening with the burden of government spending. […]
[…] There are lots of provisions that deserve detailed attention, but I always look first at the overall trends. Most specifically, I want to see what’s happening with the burden of government spending. […]
[…] There are lots of provisions that deserve detailed attention, but I always look first at the overall trends. Most specifically, I want to see what’s happening with the burden of government spending. […]
[…] his actions of big-picture issues, such ashis proposed budget that would significantly shrink the burden of government spending, to hiswillingness to take on lower-profile but important issues such as repealing the Obama […]
[…] There’s an ongoing debate about Keynesian economics, stimulus spending, and various versions of fiscal austerity, and regular readers know I do everything possible to explain that you can promote added prosperity by reducing the burden of government spending. […]
[…] spending consumes 50 percent of economic output? That would be a very bad development if the burden of government spending reached that level, but it’s not necessarily fatal. Back in the early 1990s, the public sector […]
[…] spending consumes 50 percent of economic output? That would be a very bad development if the burden of government spending reached that level, but it’s not necessarily fatal. Back in the early 1990s, the public […]
[…] The burden of federal government spending in the United States is far too high and it should be reduced. That includes discretionary spending and entitlement spending. […]
[…] since I’m a practical and moderate guy, I’d be happy if the burden of government spending in the United States was merely reduced back down to 20 percent of economic […]
[…] My main goal for fiscal policy is shrinking the size and scope of the federal government and lowering the burden of government spending. […]
[…] My main goal for fiscal policy is shrinking the size and scope of the federal government and lowering the burden of government spending. […]
[…] already know, I don’t fixate on balancing the budget. I care much more about reducing the burden of government spending and restoring the kind of limited government our Founding Fathers […]
[…] other words, leftists want more tax money since they personally benefit when there’s a larger burden of government spending. And the greed can take many […]
[…] When the burden of government spending shrinks, the economy expands because labor and capital will be used more efficiently. Simply […]
[…] I don’t lose a wink of sleep thinking about deficits, but I toss and turn all night fretting about the overall burden of government spending. […]
[…] nations. Their big advantage, if you dig into the details, exists because of relatively low burdens of government spending and comparatively modest tax […]
[…] Well, I think reducing the burden of government spending during the Clinton years was a major […]
[…] It’s amazing how many good things happen if you reduce the burden of government spending! […]
[…] he’s making an argument that the burden of government spending should be higher in all […]
[…] This is the “starve the beast” theory, and I’ve previously explained why I think it is a necessary part of any long-run strategy to restrain the burden of government spending. […]
[…] 1. When almost every Republican and Democrat argued for a Keynesian-style stimulus in 2008, libertarians had the lonely job of explaining that you don’t get more growth by increasing the burden of government spending. […]
[…] my haranguing on the topic, is the common-sense notion that good fiscal policy is achieved when the burden of government spending shrinks compared to the size of the private […]
[…] since I want to reduce the burden of government spending, let’s see whether school choice is good news for […]
[…] only about 10 percent of economic output during the 1800s when nations became rich, but now the burden of government spending averages more than 40 percent of […]
[…] to make a partisan point by sharing these cartoons. I don’t like it when Democrats increase the burden of government spending and I’m equally dismayed when Republicans engage in same type of […]
[…] all fine and well, but perhaps it would be a good idea to talk about the need to fix the real crisis of excessive spending instead of arguing about how fast we should be traveling in the wrong […]
[…] And it appears that “record-low congressional accomplishment” translates into a smaller burden of government spending. […]
[…] makes sense. Whether financed by taxes or borrowing, excessive government expenditures hurt an economy by diverting resources from productive […]
[…] Lower down in this post, we have a couple of additional cartoons that deserve a few chuckles, but I also want to share this interview to help make an important policy point about the need to reduce the burden of government spending. […]
[…] routinely (some would say repetitively) argue that the burden of government spending is a drag on the economy because labor and capital are being misallocated via the political […]
[…] routinely (some would say repetitively) argue that the burden of government spending is a drag on the economy because labor and capital are being misallocated via the political […]
[…] and then reduce the national debt.” But as I explain in this video, the real problem is a federal government that is too big and spending too much. Red ink is just a symptom of that […]
[…] routinely (some would say repetitively) argue that the burden of government spending is a drag on the economy because labor and capital are being misallocated via the political […]
[…] routinely (some would say repetitively) argue that the burden of government spending is a drag on the economy because labor and capital are being misallocated via the political […]
[…] sort of where we are today. The burden of government spending has exploded and will get even worse if we don’t enact serious entitlement reform. But too many […]
[…] That’s one of the reasons why it’s important to reduce the burden of government spending. […]
[…] to enjoy this level of growth and can maintain this modest degree of fiscal discipline, the burden of government spending will soon drop below 40 percent of […]
[…] If you want something only about half as long, I recommend my video series on the economics of government spending. […]
[…] My goal in life is very simple. I want to promote freedom and prosperity by limiting the size and scope of government. […]
[…] would like this to be true. I may not be fond of big and bloated government, but the best interests of these kids are more important than my desire for a talking point against […]
[…] point out that if the burden of government spending grows faster than the private economy (sort of Obama’s Golden Rule rather than Mitchell’s […]
[…] In closing, let’s take a step back and look at the big picture. What’s America’s biggest long-run economic challenge? Almost surely, the answer is that poorly designed entitlement programs will lead to a much more onerous burden of government spending. […]
[…] be hoping that the current Congress is equally “unproductive” and we further shrink the burden of government spending and further curtail opportunities for political […]
[…] probably know that we’ve been suffering because of a rising burden of government spending. And you probably understand that much of the problem is the relentless growth of redistribution […]
[…] as government becomes bigger and bigger, diverting more and more resources from the productive sector of the economy, we can expect more stagnation and […]
[…] as government becomes bigger and bigger, diverting more and more resources from the productive sector of the economy, we can expect more stagnation and […]
[…] That’s not hard core, to be sure, but it certainly suggests that he understands the need to reduce the burden of government spending. […]
[…] to make a partisan point by sharing these cartoons. I don’t like it when Democrats increase the burden of government spending and I’m equally dismayed when Republicans engage in same type of […]
[…] That’s not hard core, to be sure, but it certainly suggests that he understands the need to reduce the burden of government spending. […]
[…] I realize the sequester kicks in tomorrow and I should be writing about that rare opportunity to control the burden of government spending. […]
[…] brings me to Australia, the country that probably would be at the top of my list. The burden of government spending in Australia is less than it is in the United […]
[…] same thing happened in Europe. The burden of government spending used to be quite modest on the other side of the Atlantic, with outlays consuming only about 10 […]
[…] This would force – automatically and immediately – a balanced budget. More important, it would produce a meaningful reduction in the burden of government spending. […]
[…] There’s a debate among policy wonks about whether a no-tax-hike policy is an effective way of restraining the burden of government spending. […]
[…] – that the United States faces a huge long-run fiscal nightmare because of an ever-growing burden of government spending. They may even vote for the Ryan budget, which theoretically commits them to supporting meaningful […]
[…] to make a partisan point by sharing these cartoons. I don’t like it when Democrats increase the burden of government spending and I’m equally dismayed when Republicans engage in same type of […]
[…] – that the United States faces a huge long-run fiscal nightmare because of an ever-growing burden of government spending. They may even vote for the Ryan budget, which theoretically commits them to supporting meaningful […]
[…] all fine and well, but perhaps it would be a good idea to talk about the need to fix the real crisis of excessive spending instead of arguing about how fast we should be traveling in the wrong […]
[…] Less than one week ago, I identified three potential vehicles for some long-overdue fiscal reforms to restrain the burden of government spending. […]
[…] of spending restraint (i.e., Mitchell’s Golden Rule). Politicians oftentimes refuse to reduce the burden of government spending because of an expectation of additional tax revenue. Heck, in many cases, higher taxes trigger an […]
[…] But at least there are some lawmakers who are fighting to do what’s right. I don’t know if they’ll ever succeed, but at least some folks in Washington understand that something needs to happen to restrain the burden of government spending. […]
[…] Keep in mind, though, that this assumes the dishonest Washington definition of a “cut,” which merely means spending doesn’t climb as fast as some artificial baseline that assumes an ever-rising burden of government spending. […]
[…] I constantly remind people, good fiscal policy occurs when the burden of government spending is falling as a share of economic […]
[…] Now we have some new numbers that confirm that the UK economy is suffering because of a heavy burden of government spending. […]
[…] would like this to be true. I may not be fond of big and bloated government, but the best interests of these kids are more important than my desire for a talking point against […]
[…] all, government spending imposes a heavy cost on the economy regardless of whether Republicans or Democrats are the ones in charge of […]
[…] to make a partisan point by sharing these cartoons. I don’t like it when Democrats increase the burden of government spending and I’m equally dismayed when Republicans engage in same type of […]
[…] I do have nightmares about government getting even bigger, and that’s why I don’t want tax increases on the table. I don’t even want them in the room. […]
[…] That’s hardly libertarian Nirvana, to be sure, but let’s remember the golden rule, which is that fiscal policy is headed in the right direction so long as the private sector grows faster than the burden of government spending. […]
[…] That’s hardly libertarian Nirvana, to be sure, but let’s remember the golden rule, which is that fiscal policy is headed in the right direction so long as the private sector grows faster than the burden of government spending. […]
[…] on the outcome, I think the United States will become a failed European-style welfare state. The burden of government spending already is far too high and our long-run outlook is terrible, as shown by these OECD and BIS […]
[…] Let’s return to the more substantive topic of taxes and economic performance. There’s a column examining this issue in today’s Wall Street Journal. Authored by two experts from the Kansas Policy Institute, it finds that states with no income tax have a lower burden of government spending. […]
[…] especially like the last video since it echoes many of the points I made in my video series on the economics of fiscal […]
[…] theory, however, such a deal might be worthwhile. It’s not a good idea to add to the burden of federal spending, of course, but if there’s a big enough reduction in the corporate tax rate, it might be worth […]
[…] theory, however, such a deal might be worthwhile. It’s not a good idea to add to the burden of federal spending, of course, but if there’s a big enough reduction in the corporate tax rate, it might be worth […]
[…] while I obviously think tax and spending policy is important, pro-growth fiscal policy may not mean much in a society where dependency and […]
[…] theory, however, such a deal might be worthwhile. It’s not a good idea to add to the burden of federal spending, of course, but if there’s a big enough reduction in the corporate tax rate, it might be […]
[…] In an interview last week about Detroit’s bankruptcy, I explained that the city got in trouble because of growing dependency and an ever-rising burden of government spending. […]
[…] In an interview last week about Detroit’s bankruptcy, I explained that the city got in trouble because of growing dependency and an ever-rising burden of government spending. […]
[…] The same politicians, by the way, that squander the money on varying vote-buying schemes that undermine prosperity and create […]
[…] This Steve Kelley cartoon is very appealing to me because it shows the President going after the sequester when the real problem is an excessive burden of government spending. […]
[…] That’s why the “exceptions to the rule” in Europe – such as Estonia and Germany – are so noteworthy. While their neighbors are doing the wrong thing, these countries are being at least semi-responsible and trying to rein in the burden of government spending. […]
[…] to make a partisan point by sharing these cartoons. I don’t like it when Democrats increase the burden of government spending and I’m equally dismayed when Republicans engage in same type of […]
[…] argument that will prevail. So even though America still has some breathing room, and even though the economic and moral case for spending restraint is very powerful, we’re in the unfortunate situation of having to rely on politicians in […]
[…] argument that will prevail. So even though America still has some breathing room, and even though the economic and moral case for spending restraint is very powerful, we’re in the unfortunate situation of having to rely on politicians in […]
[…] an objective observer, the answer is a rising burden of government spending, caused by poorly designed entitlement programs, growing levels of dependency, and unfavorable […]
[…] an objective observer, the answer is a rising burden of government spending, which is caused by poorly designed entitlement programs, growing levels of dependency, and […]
[…] an objective observer, the answer is a rising burden of government spending, caused by poorly designed entitlement programs, growing levels of dependency, and unfavorable […]
[…] widely, I also hope that you can utilize my educational videos on topics such as tax competition, government spending, and the Laffer Curve. Not everything can be explained in a […]
[…] not delude ourselves. This deal is not good for the economy. It doesn’t do anything to cap the burden of government spending. It doesn’t reform entitlement […]
[…] not persuaded, mostly because our big long-run fiscal challenge is a rising burden of government spending. And the fact that federal tax revenue is gradually climbing back to the historical norm of about […]
[…] I do have nightmares about government getting even bigger, and that’s why I don’t want tax increases on the table. I don’t even want them in the room. […]
[…] The good news is that more analysts have joined the fight, explaining that Europe is in trouble because of a failure to address the real problem of excessive government spending. […]
[…] permanently lower growth is the legacy of the Bush-Obama years. We now have a substantially bigger burden of government spending, and things will get worse rather than better in the absence of real entitlement […]
[…] French politicians don’t seem to care. They don’t seem to realize that a high burden of government spending causes economic weakness by misallocating labor and capital. They seem oblivious to basic tax […]
[…] point out that if the burden of government spending grows faster than the private economy (sort of Obama’s Golden Rule rather than Mitchell’s […]
[…] written about the negative relationship between government spending and economic performance, but most of my focus is on “macro” issues such as the overall diversion of resources from the […]
[…] for some bad news. Unlike the Baltic nations, the PIIGS dragged their feet and didn’t reduce the burden of government spending until they had no […]
[…] question fondamentale est donc : pourquoi les politiciens français imposent-ils un fardeau si lourd de dépenses publiques (avec un coût si élevé pour l'économie) lorsque les citoyens ne reçoivent pas de meilleurs […]
[…] sort of where we are today. The burden of government spending has exploded and will get even worse if we don’t enact serious entitlement reform. But too many […]
[…] underlying problem is that the burden of government spending is too high. And what the BIS and OECD numbers are really showing is that the public sector is […]
[…] is that fiscal conservatives should argue that sequestration isn’t the ideal way to trim the burden of government spending, but that it’s the only option since President Obama is refusing to look at any alternatives […]
[…] We don’t need a tax increase. We can balance the budget simply by limiting spending so that it grows by “only” 2.5 percent annually. As I say to Cavuto, the White House is pushing higher taxes in order to enable a bigger burden of government spending. […]
[…] sort of where we are today. The burden of government spending has exploded and will get even worse if we don’t enact serious entitlement reform. But too many […]
[…] closes by opining on why this is really a debate about the burden of government spending and whether taxpayers exist to feed the spending appetites of […]
[…] crooks in DC have created a system that allows them to claim they’re cutting the budget when the burden of government spending actually is […]
[…] fundamental question, then, is why French politicians impose such a heavy burden of government spending – with a very high cost to the economy – when citizens don’t get better […]
[…] are prevaricating. They’re really talking about higher taxes in order to enable a bigger burden of government spending, not less red ink. I make this point in an interview on Fox Business […]
[…] bloated budget means many opportunities to get unearned wealth by being politically well connected. A […]
[…] system even worse. He keeps pushing for class-warfare tax policy. And he wants to increase the burden of government spending. I fully expect him to pursue the same misguided policies in a second […]
[…] The good news is that more analysts have joined the fight, explaining that Europe is in trouble because of a failure to address the real problem of excessive government spending. […]
[…] all fine and well, but perhaps it would be a good idea to talk about the need to fix the real crisis of excessive spending instead of arguing about how fast we should be traveling in the wrong […]
[…] robbing grocery stores, but for being part of a political class that has dramatically increased the burden of government spending in Spain, from about 30 percent of GDP in 1980 to well over 40 percent […]
[…] written about the negative relationship between government spending and economic performance, but most of my focus is on “macro” issues such as the overall diversion of resources from the […]
[…] today and I don’t think you have to be a 100 percent libertarian to be my ally in the fight to restrain excessive government. And I also think it’s a good idea for people to be thinking of how to best articulate a message […]
[…] and I don’t think you have to be a 100 percent libertarian to be my ally in the fight to restrain excessive government. And I also think it’s a good idea for people to be thinking of how to best articulate a […]
[…] want a smaller burden of government spending, so you can only imagine how frustrating it is for me to observe the fight in […]
[…] want a smaller burden of government spending, so you can only imagine how frustrating it is for me to observe the fight in […]
[…] the ideal approach would be to dramatically reduce the burden of government spending, shrinking the size and scope of the federal government back to what the Founding Fathers had in […]
[…] What makes this cartoon so effective is that it properly and cleverly identifies what’s really driving the political class on this issue. They want more revenue to finance a bigger burden of government spending. […]
[…] his actions of big-picture issues, such ashis proposed budget that would significantly shrink the burden of government spending, to hiswillingness to take on lower-profile but important issues such as repealing the Obama […]
[…] his actions of big-picture issues, such as his proposed budget that would significantly shrink the burden of government spending, to his willingness to take on lower-profile but important issues such as repealing the Obama […]
[…] Here are the results of a recent poll showing that a strong majority understand that more revenue will lead to an expansion in the burden of government spending. […]
[…] If Obama actually wants to fix the economy, I suggest he watch this video tutorial so he can learn that the private sector is suffering because too many resources are being diverted […]
[…] Interestingly, the report also endorses tax competition as a means of restraining the burden of government spending. […]
[…] also will be hurt because slower growth is an inevitable consequence when tax rates climb and the burden of government spending […]
[…] and then reduce the national debt.” But as I explain in this video, the real problem is a federal government that is too big and spending too much. Red ink is just a symptom of that […]
[…] by explaining that politicians who want to “do something” almost always want to expand the burden of government spending, but he notes that this approach has meant deeper recessions and more economic suffering. And he […]
[…] main goal of fiscal policy should be to shrink the burden of government spending as a share of economic output. Fortunately, it shouldn’t be too difficult to achieve this […]
[…] The reason this grabbed my attention is that it was only 10 days ago that I posted some data from Professor Gurdgiev in Ireland showing that Sweden and Germany were among the tiny group of European nations that actually had reduced the burden of government spending. […]
[…] The reason this grabbed my attention is that it was only 10 days ago that I posted some data from Professor Gurdgiev in Ireland showing that Sweden and Germany were among the tiny group of European nations that actually had reduced the burden of government spending. […]
[…] main goal of fiscal policy should be to shrink the burden of government spending as a share of economic output. Fortunately, it shouldn’t be too difficult to achieve this […]
[…] However, even though Romney picked the wrong statistic and overstated the implications, he indirectly stumbled on a key issue. As seen in both BIS and OECD data, the U.S. is at risk of Greek-style fiscal chaos at some point in the not-too-distant future because of a rising burden of government spending. […]
[…] reason for better economic performance is that the burden of government spending has been reduced, at least when measured as a share of […]
[…] since I want to reduce the burden of government spending, let’s see whether school choice is good news for […]
[…] why expect better economic performance if “austerity” means that taxes go up and the burden of government spending stays the […]
[…] But the latter issue is the source of today’s quandary. Should marijuana be legal if it means more tax revenue that will be used by the political elite to expand the burden of government spending? […]
[…] wise fiscal policy, needless to say, is to follow Mitchell’s Golden Rule. If the burden of government spending grows slower than the private economy, any nation can climb out of a fiscal ditch. Especially if […]
[…] by explaining that politicians who want to “do something” almost always want to expand the burden of government spending, but he notes that this approach has meant deeper recessions and more economic suffering. And he […]
[…] be more specific, the net effect of the sequester is that the burden of government spending grows by $2.4 trillion over the next 10 years rather than $2.5 […]
[…] makes sense. Whether financed by taxes or borrowing, excessive government expenditures hurt an economy by diverting resources from productive […]
[…] makes sense. Whether financed by taxes or borrowing, excessive government expenditures hurt an economy by diverting resources from productive […]
[…] be more specific, the net effect of the sequester is that the burden of government spending grows by $2.4 trillion over the next 10 years rather than $2.5 […]
[…] be more specific, the net effect of the sequester is that the burden of government spending grows by $2.4 trillion over the next 10 years rather than $2.5 […]
[…] since I want to reduce the burden of government spending, let’s see whether school choice is good news for […]
[…] since I want to reduce the burden of government spending, let’s see whether school choice is good news for […]
[…] since I want to reduce the burden of government spending, let’s see whether school choice is good news for […]
[…] score has fallen from 8.65 in 2000 to 7.70 in the latest report. That’s not a surprise since the burden of government spending has exploded during the Bush-Obama […]
[…] French politicians don’t seem to care. They don’t seem to realize that a high burden of government spending causes economic weakness by misallocating labor and capital. They seem oblivious to basic tax […]
[…] plan, to be sure, such as lower marginal tax rates. And I suppose it’s worth noting that the burden of government spending didn’t climb as fast under their proposal as it did in Obama’s budget, though […]
[…] course, is that the sequester is too small. But at least this cartoon suggests that the problem is too much government spending and that Uncle Sam needs to lose some […]
[…] be sure, Spain’s main challenge is the need to dramatically reduce the burden of government spending. That will help long-run growth because more resources will be allocated by private […]
[…] burden of federal government spending in the United States is far too high and it should be reduced. That includes discretionary spending […]
[…] burden of federal government spending in the United States is far too high and it should be reduced. That includes discretionary spending […]
[…] the first thing I do every year is find the table showing how fast the burden of government spending will […]
[…] the first thing I do every year is find the table showing how fast the burden of government spending will […]
[…] burden of government spending is too high, the tax code is too punitive, red tape is hindering entrepreneurship, and various […]
[…] burden of government spending is too high, the tax code is too punitive, red tape is hindering entrepreneurship, and various […]
[…] P.P.P.S. I also say in the interview that the government should get out of the housing business – both on the spending side of the budget and the revenue side of the budget. And it goes without saying that I also explain the need to reduce the burden of government spending. […]
[…] Lower down in this post, we have a couple of additional cartoons that deserve a few chuckles, but I also want to share this interview to help make an important policy point about the need to reduce the burden of government spending. […]
[…] the way, Alan’s column isn’t completely depressing. He writes that the burden of government spending is reasonable (at least compared to Europe’s bankrupt welfare states) in some of the major […]
[…] Lower down in this post, we have a couple of additional cartoons that deserve a few chuckles, but I also want to share this interview to help make an important policy point about the need to reduce the burden of government spending. […]
[…] the way, Alan’s column isn’t completely depressing. He writes that the burden of government spending is reasonable (at least compared to Europe’s bankrupt welfare states) in some of the major […]
[…] America’s fiscal challenge is the overall burden of government spending, I’m not overly worried about the fact that Obama’s budget doesn’t get to […]
[…] In other words, steer clear of punitive class-warfare tax rates and make sure to control the burden of government spending. […]
[…] fundamental problem with the French system is that the burden of government spending is excessive and the politicians seem to think the answer is additional increments of class-warfare […]
[…] the growth-maximizing size of government. Practically speaking, this seems irrelevant since the burden of government spending in almost all nations is well above 20 percent-25 percent of […]
[…] So if you’re Obama or some other current-day politician (and assuming you don’t care about the future), what’s the downside of expanding the burden of government spending? […]
[…] Here’s one from A.F. Branco, which I also like because it simultaneously mocks Obama’s Keynesian mindset while showing that the real danger is an ever-rising burden of government spending. […]
[…] For several reasons, including the fact that it wouldn’t be a good idea to give politicians more revenue that will be used to increase the burden of government spending. […]
[…] Which leads me to ask a simple question: Can anybody show me a poor nation that became a rich nation while imposing high tax rates and having a bloated public sector? […]
[…] Starve-the-Beast theory (and you should), this will make it harder for politicians to increase the burden of government spending in the […]
[…] Starve-the-Beast theory (and you should), this will make it harder for politicians to increase the burden of government spending in the […]
[…] I even created a Bob Dole Award to chastise people who mistakenly focus on red ink when they should be worried about the overall burden of government spending. […]
[…] I even created a Bob Dole Award to chastise people who mistakenly focus on red ink when they should be worried about the overall burden of government spending. […]
[…] For several reasons, including the fact that it wouldn’t be a good idea to give politicians more revenue that will be used to increase the burden of government spending. […]
[…] other words, the burden of government spending should be reduced and we should allow markets to allocate […]
[…] leads to good policies to address the long-run imbalances – such as reductions in the burden of government spending and the implementation of pro-market reforms – remains to be […]
[…] What I want people to realize, though, is that governments only get into that kind of mess because there’s too much spending. […]
[…] not delude ourselves. This deal is not good for the economy. It doesn’t do anything to cap the burden of government spending. It doesn’t reform entitlement […]
[…] Well, I think reducing the burden of government spending during the Clinton years was a major […]
[…] Well, I think reducing the burden of government spending during the Clinton years was a major […]
[…] As shown in this remarkable chart, the real problem in France is that government is far too big. And if the public sector is consuming more than 50 percent of a nation’s economic output, […]
[…] all fine and well, but good fiscal policy is achieved by reducing the burden of government spending, and that means restraining the budget so that federal outlays grow slower than the private […]
[…] all fine and well, but good fiscal policy is achieved by reducing the burden of government spending, and that means that restraining the budget so that federal outlays grow slower than the private […]
[…] if the problem is that the burden of government spending is excessive, then how does it make sense to increase the corporate tax burden? To impose a capital […]
[…] This Steve Kelley cartoon is very appealing to me because it shows the President going after the sequester when the real problem is an excessive burden of government spending. […]
[…] This Steve Kelley cartoon is very appealing to me because it shows the President going after the sequester when the real problem is an excessive burden of government spending. […]
[…] example is important because the Obama White House is making the Keynesian argument that a smaller burden of government spending somehow will translate into less growth and fewer […]
[…] This is the “starve the beast” theory, and I’ve previously explained why I think it is a necessary part of any long-run strategy to restrain the burden of government spending. […]
[…] This is the “starve the beast” theory, and I’ve previously explained why I think it is a necessary part of any long-run strategy to restrain the burden of government spending. […]
[…] while I obviously think tax and spending policy is important, pro-growth fiscal policy may not mean much in a society where dependency and […]
[…] I realize the sequester kicks in tomorrow and I should be writing about that rare opportunity to control the burden of government spending. […]
[…] simple to balance the budget with a modest bit of spending restraint. My goal is reducing the burden of government spending, not fiscal balance, but it’s worth noting that we’d have a balanced budget in just 10 […]
[…] Here’s one from A.F. Branco, which I also like because it simultaneously mocks Obama’s Keynesian mindset while showing that the real danger is an ever-rising burden of government spending. […]
[…] Here’s one from A.F. Branco, which I also like because it simultaneously mocks Obama’s Keynesian mindset while showing that the real danger is an ever-rising burden of government spending. […]
[…] like Krugman, Bernstein seems to reflexively think that it’s always a good idea to have a higher burden of government spending. So a sequester is a bad idea if you have this mindset, just like it would be a bad idea to sail […]
[…] The number one goal for fiscal policy is to reduce the burden of government spending. […]
[…] saying, of course, that California’s politicians will respond to Prop 30 by increasing the burden of government spending. They then will act surprised when revenues fall short of projections because of the Laffer […]
[…] simple to balance the budget with a modest bit of spending restraint. My goal is reducing the burden of government spending, not fiscal balance, but it’s worth noting that we’d have a balanced budget in just 10 […]
[…] This isn’t a meaningless issue, but it puts the cart before the horse. What matters most is the size of government and the total burden of government spending – not whether it is financed with borrowing rather than […]
[…] like he can fulfill his promise the reduce the burden of government spending by implementing Paul Ryan’s entitlement reforms. But don’t hold your breath waiting for that to […]
[…] course, is that the sequester is too small. But at least this cartoon suggests that the problem is too much government spending and that Uncle Sam needs to lose some […]
[…] In other words, it is good news that Italy can’t use inflation as a temporary narcotic to offset the pain caused by too much red tape and an excessive burden of government spending. […]
[…] The unemployment rate has been stuck above 8 percent ever since Obama pushed through his ill-fated stimulus scheme to increase the burden of government spending. […]
[…] course, is that the sequester is too small. But at least this cartoon suggests that the problem is too much government spending and that Uncle Sam needs to lose some […]
[…] is that fiscal conservatives should argue that sequestration isn’t the ideal way to trim the burden of government spending, but that it’s the only option since President Obama is refusing to look at any alternatives […]
[…] explain in this appearance on Fox Business News, we won’t make progress until we control the burden of government spending and unless we make sure that deductions are eliminated only if we use every penny of revenue to […]
[…] brings us to the moral of the story. As the burden of government spending increases, this creates an ever-growing incentive for more and more people to figure out ways of […]
[…] that’s just the tip of the iceberg. The burden of government spending almost doubled during the Bush years, the federal government accumulated more power, and the […]
[…] especially like the last video since it echoes many of the points I made in my video series on the economics of fiscal […]
[…] robbing grocery stores, but for being part of a political class that has dramatically increased the burden of government spending in Spain, from about 30 percent of GDP in 1980 to well over 40 percent […]
[…] Modest fiscal restraint is all that we need, though it would be preferable to make genuine cuts in the burden of government spending. […]
[…] that’s just the tip of the iceberg. The burden of government spending almost doubled during the Bush years, the federal government accumulated more power, and the […]
[…] Texas is clearly doing better on jobs, and it’s easy to avoid higher taxes when you obey Mitchell’s Golden Rule and restrain the burden of government spending. […]
[…] a rising burden of government spending and more class-warfare tax policy, the only folks getting a real Valentine are the special interest […]
[…] a rising burden of government spending and more class-warfare tax policy, the only folks getting a real Valentine are the special interest […]
[…] a rising burden of government spending and more class-warfare tax policy, the only folks getting a real Valentine are the special interest […]
[…] I’m in Slovenia where I just finished indoctrinating educating a bunch of students on the importance of Mitchell’s Golden Rule as a means of restraining the burden of government spending. […]
[…] be sure, Spain’s main challenge is the need to dramatically reduce the burden of government spending. That will help long-run growth because more resources will be allocated by private […]
[…] of this blog that I emphasized the importance of restraining the growth of government so that the burden of the public sector shrinks as a share of overall economic […]
[…] Texas is clearly doing better on jobs, and it’s easy to avoid higher taxes when you obey Mitchell’s Golden Rule and restrain the burden of government spending. […]
[…] Krugman, Bernstein seems to reflexively think that it’s always a good idea to have a higher burden of government spending. So a sequester is a bad idea if you have this mindset, just like it would be a bad idea to sail […]
[…] even though the economist in me wants to reduce the burden of government spending and implement a flat tax because such policies will boost growth and lead to higher living […]
[…] all, government spending imposes a heavy cost on the economy regardless of whether Republicans or Democrats are the ones in charge of […]
[…] noted at the beginning of the post, I’m much more concerned about reducing the burden of government spending. Balancing the budget is a secondary […]
[…] good to me. We need to reduce the burden of government spending, so some genuine budget cuts would be very […]
[…] good to me. We need to reduce the burden of government spending, so some genuine budget cuts would be very […]
[…] good to me. We need to reduce the burden of government spending, so some genuine budget cuts would be very […]
[…] probably know that we’ve been suffering because of a rising burden of government spending. And you probably understand that much of the problem is the relentless growth of redistribution […]
[…] So accept the fact that gridlock is the best possible outcome for the next four years and don’t get seduced into a tax hike. Unless, of course, you want to make it easier for the crowd in Washington to increase the burden of government spending. […]
[…] burden of federal spending in the United States was down to 18.2 percent of gross domestic product when Bill Clinton left […]
[…] brings me to Australia, the country that probably would be at the top of my list. The burden of government spending in Australia is less than it is in the United […]
[…] same thing happened in Europe. The burden of government spending used to be quite modest on the other side of the Atlantic, with outlays consuming only about 10 […]
[…] lesson to be learned is that we live in an era of higher taxes on productive activity, a heavier burden of government spending, and more costly government regulation and intervention. And since we’re now more like […]
[…] Just another example of how the game in Washington is designed to rationalize and enable a bigger burden of government spending. […]
[…] the public sector is too large, for instance, that undermines economic growth by diverting resources from the productive sector of […]
[…] the public sector is too large, for instance, that undermines economic growth by diverting resources from the productive sector of […]
[…] the public sector is too large, for instance, that undermines economic growth by diverting resources from the productive sector of […]
[…] merely means a reduction in the growth of federal spending. Even if we have the sequester, the burden of government spending will still be about $2 trillion higher in 10 […]
[…] And it’s particularly worrisome to see that the author wants a value-added tax, which is a sure-fire way of giving politicians a big pile of money that will be used to expand the burden of government spending. […]
[…] meant that politicians were aggressively going after another department. Anything that reduces the burden of government spending is a step in the right […]
[…] would like this to be true. I may not be fond of big and bloated government, but the best interests of these kids are more important than my desire for a talking point against […]
[…] probably know that we’ve been suffering because of a rising burden of government spending. And you probably understand that much of the problem is the relentless growth of redistribution […]
[…] In previous posts, I put together tutorials on the Laffer Curve, tax competition, and the economics of government spending. […]
[…] Now we have some new numbers that confirm that the UK economy is suffering because of a heavy burden of government spending. […]
[…] And that makes me a very lucky guy. Every day, thanks to Cato, I get to fight against wasteful, bloated, and corrupt government. […]
[…] no way to boost the burden of government spending to European levels without mimicking European tax […]
[…] since our goal should be to minimize the long-run burden of government spending, that suggests that it’s more important to reform the healthcare […]
[…] all, government spending imposes a heavy cost on the economy regardless of whether Republicans or Democrats are the ones in charge of […]
[…] though I’m first and foremost an advocate of limited government and that’s the primary focus of this blog, I’m also glad to have the opportunity to […]
[…] This would force – automatically and immediately – a balanced budget. More important, it would produce a meaningful reduction in the burden of government spending. […]
[…] This would force – automatically and immediately – a balanced budget. More important, it would produce a meaningful reduction in the burden of government spending. […]
[…] This would force – automatically and immediately – a balanced budget. More important, it would produce a meaningful reduction in the burden of government spending. […]
[…] if anybody thinks that it’s a good idea to increase the burden of government spending, then they need to explain why America will be better off if we make our country more like Greece […]
[…] And it’s particularly worrisome to see that the author wants a value-added tax, which is a sure-fire way of giving politicians a big pile of money that will be used to expand the burden of government spending. […]
[…] a riddle for policy wonks. What do you get if you take my videos on the economics of government spending and mix them in a blender with my videos on America’s entitlement […]
[…] make a partisan point by sharing these cartoons. I don’t like it when Democrats increase the burden of government spending and I’m equally dismayed when Republicans engage in same type of […]
[…] brings us to the moral of the story. As the burden of government spending increases, this creates an ever-growing incentive for more and more people to figure out ways of […]
[…] There’s a debate among policy wonks about whether a no-tax-hike policy is an effective way of restraining the burden of government spending. […]
[…] Good fiscal policy doesn’t require heavy lifting. Governments simply need to limit the burden of government spending. […]
[…] Less than one week ago, I identified three potential vehicles for some long-overdue fiscal reforms to restrain the burden of government spending. […]
[…] for some bad news. Unlike the Baltic nations, the PIIGS dragged their feet and didn’t reduce the burden of government spending until they had no […]
[…] some bad news. Unlike the Baltic nations, the PIIGS dragged their feet and didn’t reduce the burden of government spending until they had no […]
[…] of spending restraint (i.e., Mitchell’s Golden Rule). Politicians oftentimes refuse to reduce the burden of government spending because of an expectation of additional tax revenue. Heck, in many cases, higher taxes trigger an […]
[…] number one fiscal problem is an excessive burden of government spending. […]
[…] government” score has fallen from 8.65 in 2000 to 7.70 in the latest report, signaling that the burden of government spending has exploded during this time. In addition, the U.S. trade score also dropped significantly over […]
[…] But at least there are some lawmakers who are fighting to do what’s right. I don’t know if they’ll ever succeed, but at least some folks in Washington understand that something needs to happen to restrain the burden of government spending. […]
[…] Keep in mind, though, that this assumes the dishonest Washington definition of a “cut,” which merely means spending doesn’t climb as fast as some artificial baseline that assumes an ever-rising burden of government spending. […]
[…] Less than one week ago, I identified three potential vehicles for some long-overdue fiscal reforms to restrain the burden of government spending. […]
[…] Our fiscal problem is an excessive burden of government spending. […]
[…] does create jobs? I explain we need to shrink the burden of government and I cite my favorite Golden Rule about the importance of making sure the productive sector of the […]
[…] There’s a debate among policy wonks about whether a no-tax-hike policy is an effective way of restraining the burden of government spending. […]
[…] There’s a debate among policy wonks about whether a no-tax-hike policy is an effective way of restraining the burden of government spending. […]
[…] There’s a debate among policy wonks about whether a no-tax-hike policy is an effective way of restraining the burden of government spending. […]
[…] There’s a debate among policy wonks about whether a no-tax-hike policy is an effective way of restraining the burden of government spending. […]
[…] point out that if the burden of government spending grows faster than the private economy (sort of Obama’s Golden Rule rather than […]
[…] point out that if the burden of government spending grows faster than the private economy (sort of Obama’s Golden Rule rather than […]
[…] on the outcome, I think the United States will become a failed European-style welfare state. The burden of government spending already is far too high and our long-run outlook is terrible, as shown by these OECD and BIS […]
[…] number one fiscal problem is an excessive burden of government spending. A big part of the solution is entitlement […]
[…] Back in early December, I wrote in the New York Post that the fiscal cliff was just a speed bump and that our real problem was an ever-expanding burden of government spending. […]
[…] bad. Our taxation of labor income is generally not as bad as other industrialized nations. And the burden of government spending in the United States tends to be lower than European nations (though both Bush and Obama have […]
[…] number one fiscal problem is an excessive burden of government spending. A big part of the solution is entitlement […]
[…] not delude ourselves. This deal is not good for the economy. It doesn’t do anything to cap the burden of government spending. It doesn’t reform entitlement […]
[…] Keep in mind, though, that this assumes the dishonest Washington definition of a “cut,” which merely means spending doesn’t climb as fast as some artificial baseline that assumes an ever-rising burden of government spending. […]
[…] not delude ourselves. This deal is not good for the economy. It doesn’t do anything to cap the burden of government spending. It doesn’t reform entitlement […]
[…] delude ourselves. This deal is not good for the economy. It doesn’t do anything to cap the burden of government spending. It doesn’t reform entitlement […]
[…] restraint (i.e., Mitchell’s Golden Rule). Politicians oftentimes refuse to reduce the burden of government spending because of an expectation of additional tax revenue. Heck, in many cases, higher taxes trigger […]
[…] restraint (i.e., Mitchell’s Golden Rule). Politicians oftentimes refuse to reduce the burden of government spending because of an expectation of additional tax revenue. Heck, in many cases, higher taxes trigger an […]
[…] But at least there are some lawmakers who are fighting to do what’s right. I don’t know if they’ll ever succeed, but at least some folks in Washington understand that something needs to happen to restrain the burden of government spending. […]
[…] of our income to a bunch of spendaholics, and they’re going to use the money to increase the burden of government spending and dig us into a deeper fiscal […]
[…] Suisse pourrait certainement se situer en tête de liste. Le fardeau des dépenses publiques y est modeste au regard des standards européens, en partie en raison d'un très bon plafond de […]
[…] this is why the nonprofit community should join the rest of us in fighting against an ever-climbing burden of government spending. If we don’t rein in Leviathan, it’s just a matter of time before politicians get rid of the […]
[…] the debt brake first took effect in 2003, the burden of government spending has dropped from 36 percent of GDP to 34 percent of economic output – a rather remarkable […]
[…] I do have nightmares about government getting even bigger, and that’s why I don’t want tax increases on the table. I don’t even want them in the room. […]
[…] surely is at the top of the list. The burden of government spending is modest by European standards, in part because of a very good spending cap that prevents […]
[…] But I also think I made a mistake. When asked how states can get rid of their income taxes, I mentioned that sales taxes do less damage – per dollar raised – than income taxes. That’s true, but I should have stated first and foremost that states should reduce the burden of government spending. […]
[…] financed by high tax rates. According to OECD data, only France and Denmark have a bigger burden of government spending. And the OECD also shows that Sweden’s top income tax rate of 56.6 percent is the most onerous in […]
[…] this is why the nonprofit community should join the rest of us in fighting against an ever-climbing burden of government spending. If we don’t rein in Leviathan, it’s just a matter of time before politicians get rid […]
[…] Let’s return to the more substantive topic of taxes and economic performance. There’s a column examining this issue in today’s Wall Street Journal. Authored by two experts from the Kansas Policy Institute, it finds that states with no income tax have a lower burden of government spending. […]
[…] a pretty clear statement. We have folks on the left who say they want higher taxes both to prop up big government and to cause internal damage to the […]
[…] Let’s return to the more substantive topic of taxes and economic performance. There’s a column examining this issue in today’s Wall Street Journal. Authored by two experts from the Kansas Policy Institute, it finds that states with no income tax have a lower burden of government spending. […]
[…] Let’s return to the more substantive topic of taxes and economic performance. There’s a column examining this issue in today’s Wall Street Journal. Authored by two experts from the Kansas Policy Institute, it finds that states with no income tax have a lower burden of government spending. […]
[…] We don’t need a tax increase. We can balance the budget simply by limiting spending so that it grows by “only” 2.5 percent annually. As I say to Cavuto, the White House is pushing higher taxes in order to enable a bigger burden of government spending. […]
[…] its maximum point. The academic literature suggests that prosperity is at its peak level when the burden of government spending is about 20 percent of […]
[…] French politicians don’t seem to care. They don’t seem to realize that a high burden of government spending causes economic weakness by misallocating labor and capital. They seem oblivious to basic tax […]
[…] are prevaricating. They’re really talking about higher taxes in order to enable a bigger burden of government spending, not less red ink. I make this point in an interview on Fox Business […]
[…] crooks in DC have created a system that allows them to claim they’re cutting the budget when the burden of government spending actually is […]
[…] We don’t need a tax increase. We can balance the budget simply by limiting spending so that it grows by “only” 2.5 percent annually. As I say to Cavuto, the White House is pushing higher taxes in order to enable a bigger burden of government spending. […]
[…] He kept arguing that America is more dynamic and innovative than Europe, which generally is true, but then he argued that we should copy Europe’s fiscal policy by increasing the burden of government spending. […]
[…] We don’t need a tax increase. We can balance the budget simply by limiting spending so that it grows by “only” 2.5 percent annually. As I say to Cavuto, the White House is pushing higher taxes in order to enable a bigger burden of government spending. […]
[…] wonder the burden of government spending has reached record […]
[…] I’ve been arguing against higher taxes because of my concerns that more revenue will simply lead to a bigger burden of government spending. […]
[…] What a depressing excerpt. And it doesn’t even touch on some of the worst ideas being advanced by the political elite, such as a potential international tax organization. Governments clearly are doing everything they can to pave the way for higher tax rates and a bigger burden of government spending. […]
[…] are prevaricating. They’re really talking about higher taxes in order to enable a bigger burden of government spending, not less red ink. I make this point in an interview on Fox Business […]
[…] are prevaricating. They’re really talking about higher taxes in order to enable a bigger burden of government spending, not less red ink. I make this point in an interview on Fox Business […]
[…] in DC have created a system that allows them to claim they’re cutting the budget when the burden of government spending actually is […]
[…] long-run fiscal outlook is as bad as Greece and worse than Spain and Italy. And if the burden of government spending gets too high, it swamps any good policies in other […]
[…] all fine and well, but perhaps it would be a good idea to talk about the need to fix the real crisis of excessive spending instead of arguing about how fast we should be traveling in the wrong […]
[…] solution is to follow Mitchell’s Golden Rule. That’s the only way to make sure that the burden of government spending shrinks relative to economic […]
[…] VIDEOS HERE […]
[…] Earlier this year, I explained that tax revenues would soon climb above their long-run average of 18 percent of GDP, even if the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts were made permanent. In other words, the nation’s fiscal challenge is entirely the result of a rising burden of government spending. […]
[…] you need to know is that the burden of government spending will climb by about $2 trillion over the next 10 years without Obama’s budget […]
[…] all fine and well, but perhaps it would be a good idea to talk about the need to fix the real crisis of excessive spending instead of arguing about how fast we should be traveling in the wrong […]
[…] score has fallen from 8.65 in 2000 to 7.70 in the latest report. That’s not a surprise since the burden of government spending has exploded during the Bush-Obama […]
[…] in the above video that Europe can grow and prosper, but only if politicians are willing to reduce the burden of government spending and lower tax […]
[…] that’s not even considering the fact that politicians will probably increase the burden of government spending because of the expectation of additional tax […]
[…] that’s not even considering the fact that politicians will probably increase the burden of government spending because of the expectation of additional tax […]
[…] réel problème fiscal, en Espagne et aux États-Unis, c’est que l’État est bien trop gros. Et essayer de limiter l’appétit d’ogre des politiciens avec leurs hausses de taxes est […]
[…] La bonne nouvelle est que davantage d’analystes rejoignent la lutte, considérant que l'Europe est en difficulté en raison de son incapacité à résoudre le réel problème des dépenses publiques excessives. […]
[…] permanently lower growth is the legacy of the Bush-Obama years. We now have a substantially bigger burden of government spending, and things will get worse rather than better in the absence of real entitlement […]
[…] In this chart, you can see the bad news using either the methodology of the Office of Management and Budget or the approach of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development. Since I’m not sure which approach is right, I basically split the difference when discussing the overall burden of government spending. […]
[…] Here are the results of a recent poll showing that a strong majority understand that more revenue will lead to an expansion in the burden of government spending. […]
[…] In previous posts, I put together tutorials on the Laffer Curve, tax competition, and the economics of government spending. […]
[…] Here are the results of a recent poll showing that a strong majority understand that more revenue will lead to an expansion in the burden of government spending. […]
[…] in the above video that Europe can grow and prosper, but only if politicians are willing to reduce the burden of government spending and lower tax […]
[…] permanently lower growth is the legacy of the Bush-Obama years. We now have a substantially bigger burden of government spending, and things will get worse rather than better in the absence of real entitlement […]
[…] because the real fiscal problem, in Spain and the United States, is that government is far too big. And trying to curb the rapacious appetites of politicians with a tax hike is akin to trying to […]
[…] this is the exception rather than the rule. The burden of government spending is excessive in the United Kingdom, in part because of the faux budget cuts of David […]
[…] sort of where we are today. The burden of government spending has exploded and will get even worse if we don’t enact serious entitlement reform. But too […]
[…] inside-the-beltway term for automatic spending cuts. …anything that restrains the growing burden of government spending is a good idea, so a small step is better than nothing. The bad fiscal cliff is the automatic tax […]
[…] SANITY HERE […]
[…] But the Mediterranean island nation is a good case study illustrating the economic dangers of big government. […]
[…] I’ve put together a video series on the need for entitlement reform and another one on the economics of government spending. […]
[…] That’s a left-vs-left battle, which makes me think it would be a good idea if they fought each other to the point of exhaustion, thus enabling forward movement on a pro-growth agenda of tax reform and reductions in the burden of government spending. […]
[…] But I confess that the international bureaucracies sometimes generate good data and produce interesting studies. The World Bank, for instance, showed how the welfare state and excessive government spending are reducing prosperity in Europe. And the European Central Bank also has produced solid research showing that large public sectors undermine economic growth. […]
[…] no way to boost the burden of government spending to European levels without mimicking European tax […]
[…] I do have nightmares about government getting even bigger, and that’s why I don’t want tax increases on the table. I don’t even want them in the room. […]
[…] saying, of course, that California’s politicians will respond to Prop 30 by increasing the burden of government spending. They then will act surprised when revenues fall short of projections because of the Laffer […]
[…] system even worse. He keeps pushing for class-warfare tax policy. And he wants to increase the burden of government spending. I fully expect him to pursue the same misguided policies in a second […]
[…] establishment press should be open to the idea that voters aren’t very happy about a rising burden of government spending. That’s certainly what we see in this new polling […]
[…] I’m motivated primarily by the desire to reduce the burden of government spending and block bad tax policy, let’s look first at the key fiscal measures on this year’s […]
[…] is that nations get in trouble because they violate Mitchell’s Golden Rule. In other words, the burden of government spending climbs faster than the private sector’s ability to finance […]
[…] 3. The high cost of the death tax – I don’t like double taxation, but the death tax is usually triple taxation and that makes a bad tax even worse. Especially since the tax causes the liquidation of private capital, thus putting downward pressure on wages. And even though the tax doesn’t collect much revenue, it probably does result in some upward pressure on government spending, thus augmenting the damage. […]
[…] I’ve written, ad nauseum, about the economic impact of excessive government spending. […]
[…] tax policy is like a dark cloud over the economy, and even though his plans to further increase the burden of government spending will accelerate America’s descent a Greek-style fiscal quagmire, he may dodge the proverbial […]
[…] will be over and we can get back to what really matters – figuring out how to control the burden of government spending, how to implement much-needed entitlement reform, and how to fix the corrupt tax […]
[…] 3. The high cost of the death tax – I don’t like double taxation, but the death tax is usually triple taxation and that makes a bad tax even worse. Especially since the tax causes the liquidation of private capital, thus putting downward pressure on wages. And even though the tax doesn’t collect much revenue, it probably does result in some upward pressure on government spending, thus augmenting the damage. […]
[…] However, even though Romney picked the wrong statistic and overstated the implications, he indirectly stumbled on a key issue. As seen in both BIS and OECD data, the U.S. is at risk of Greek-style fiscal chaos at some point in the not-too-distant future because of a rising burden of government spending. […]
[…] P.P.S. And don’t forget that poor and middle-income taxpayers also will be hurt because slower growth is an inevitable consequence when tax rates climb and the burden of government spending increases. […]
[…] 3. The high cost of the death tax – I don’t like double taxation, but the death tax is usually triple taxation and that makes a bad tax even worse. Especially since the tax causes the liquidation of private capital, thus putting downward pressure on wages. And even though the tax doesn’t collect much revenue, it probably does result in some upward pressure on government spending, thus augmenting the damage. […]
[…] also will be hurt because slower growth is an inevitable consequence when tax rates climb and the burden of government spending […]
[…] also will be hurt because slower growth is an inevitable consequence when tax rates climb and the burden of government spending […]
[…] also will be hurt because slower growth is an inevitable consequence when tax rates climb and the burden of government spending […]
[…] I used to think I was in favor of every possible step to reduce the burden of government spending. […]
[…] In other words, steer clear of punitive class-warfare tax rates and make sure to control the burden of government spending. […]
[…] that nations get in trouble because they violate Mitchell’s Golden Rule. In other words, the burden of government spending climbs faster than the private sector’s ability to finance […]
[…] What I want people to realize, though, is that governments only get into that kind of mess because there’s too much spending. […]
[…] You have to give President Obama credit for chutzpah. He pushed through a faux stimulus in his first year and Obamacare in his second year, both of which significantly increased the burden of government spending. […]
[…] repeatedly expressed my concerns that Romney would be another Bush, expanding the burden of government spending and failing to engage in desperately needed entitlement […]
[…] I’ve attacked Bush for expanding the burden of government spending and reducing economic freedom, this resonates with […]
[…] the bureaucrats are overpaid at these agencies is merely adding insult to injury. It’s the size of government that we should worry about, […]
[…] Which leads me to ask a simple question: Can anybody show me a poor nation that became a rich nation while imposing high tax rates and having a bloated public sector? […]
[…] I’ve attacked Bush for expanding the burden of government spending and reducing economic freedom, this resonates with […]
[…] definitely could use a big dose of economic liberalization. The burden of government spending is enormous, consuming 53.5 percent of economic output – worse than all other European […]
[…] With the exception of Romney saying he wants to defund Big Bird and the rest of the moochers at PBS, I don’t think either candidate has breathed a word about the need to reduce the burden of government spending. […]
[…] definitely could use a big dose of economic liberalization. The burden of government spending is enormous, consuming 53.5 percent of economic output – worse than all other European nations […]
[…] definitely could use a big dose of economic liberalization. The burden of government spending is enormous, consuming 53.5 percent of economic output – worse than all other European […]
[…] And my takeaway message from the segment is that we need some discussion on the need to reduce the burden of government spending. […]
[…] Obama wants to use Washington math, where spending increases get redefined as spending cuts if the burden of government spending doesn’t rise as fast as was projected in some artificial […]
[…] they screwed up and reverse the horrible policies that crippled California. They will reduce the burden of government spending and replace the state’s class-warfare tax system with a simple and fair flat […]
[…] So if you’re Obama or some other current-day politician (and assuming you don’t care about the future), what’s the downside of expanding the burden of government spending? […]
[…] irks me about Obama is that he wants to increase the burden of government spending, which means the numerator in the equation is going in the wrong direction. And he wants […]
[…] irks me about Obama is that he wants to increase the burden of government spending, which means the numerator in the equation is going in the wrong direction. And he wants […]
[…] report card uses variables such as the burden of government spending and the degree of class warfare tax policy to determine which states are moving in the right […]
[…] irks me about Obama is that he wants to increase the burden of government spending, which means the numerator in the equation is going in the wrong direction. And he wants […]
[…] irks me about Obama is that he wants to increase the burden of government spending, which means the numerator in the equation is going in the wrong direction. And he wants […]
[…] A bloated budget means many opportunities to get unearned wealth by being politically well connected. A loophole-ridden, 72,000-page tax code creates a sandbox for lobbyists. And special interest groups view Washington’s massive regulatory apparatus the way pigs view a mudbath. […]
[…] report card uses variables such as the burden of government spending and the degree of class warfare tax policy to determine which states are moving in the right […]
[…] report card uses variables such as the burden of government spending and the degree of class warfare tax policy to determine which states are moving in the right […]
[…] Which leads me to ask a simple question: Can anybody show me a poor nation that became a rich nation while imposing high tax rates and having a bloated public sector? […]
[…] bloated budget means many opportunities to get unearned wealth by being politically well connected. A […]
[…] When I first saw this polling data, I thought we had some great news. After all, it shows that Americans – by a margin of more than 4-to-1 – want to reduce the burden of government spending. […]
[…] When I first saw this polling data, I thought we had some great news. After all, it shows that Americans – by a margin of more than 4-to-1 – want to reduce the burden of government spending. […]
[…] the greatest threat to America’s future is a growing burden of government spending, I watched last night’s debate with hopes of seeing some evidence that either candidate […]
[…] be sure, Spain’s main challenge is the need to dramatically reduce the burden of government spending. That will help long-run growth because more resources will be allocated by private […]
[…] That’s the problem. The politicians always gravitate to “solutions” that means more government intervention, more government dependency, and more government spending. […]
[…] I try to be self aware, so I realize that I have the fiscal version of Tourette’s. Regardless of the question that is asked, I’m tempted to blurt out that the answer is to reduce the burden of government spending. […]
[…] shown in the video series on the economics of government spending, I’m not a big fan of the welfare state, which is big government in the long […]
[…] I try to be self aware, so I realize that I have the fiscal version of Tourette’s. Regardless of the question that is asked, I’m tempted to blurt out that the answer is to reduce the burden of government spending. […]
[…] I try to be self aware, so I realize that I have the fiscal version of Tourette’s. Regardless of the question that is asked, I’m tempted to blurt out that the answer is to reduce the burden of government spending. […]
[…] shown in the video series on the economics of government spending, I’m not a big fan of the welfare state, which is big government in the long […]
[…] If you want some serious analysis about government spending and red ink, watch my video (part of my series on the economics of government spending). […]
[…] I wrote earlier this year that I could accept a tax hike if there was a deal that actually resulted in a permanent reduction in the burden of government spending. […]
[…] the failed Keynesian stimulus. And I explained that big government facilitates corruption and that excessive government spending undermines growth, so I’m generally happy with my […]
[…] So if you’re Obama or some other current-day politician (and assuming you don’t care about the future), what’s the downside of expanding the burden of government spending? […]
[…] bad. Our taxation of labor income is generally not as bad as other industrialized nations. And the burden of government spending in the United States tends to be lower than European nations (though both Bush and Obama have […]
[…] As with the VAT, there are features of a carbon tax that make it a less-destructive alternative when compared to other forms of taxation. The problem is that politicians wouldn’t permanently lower or eliminate any other tax, and the new revenues would be used to further expand the size and scope of the federal government. […]
[…] score has fallen from 8.65 in 2000 to 7.70 in the latest report. That’s not a surprise since the burden of government spending has exploded during the Bush-Obama […]
[…] and then reduce the national debt.” But as I explain in this video, the real problem is a federal government that is too big and spending too much. Red ink is just a symptom of that […]
[…] However, even though Romney picked the wrong statistic and overstated the implications, he indirectly stumbled on a key issue. As seen in both BIS and OECD data, the U.S. is at risk of Greek-style fiscal chaos at some point in the not-too-distant future because of a rising burden of government spending. […]
[…] This isn’t a meaningless issue, but it puts the cart before the horse. What matters most is the size of government and the total burden of government spending – not whether it is financed with borrowing rather than […]
[…] like he can fulfill his promise the reduce the burden of government spending by implementing Paul Ryan’s entitlement reforms. But don’t hold your breath waiting for that to […]
[…] score has fallen from 8.65 in 2000 to 7.70 in the latest report. That’s not a surprise since the burden of government spending has exploded during the Bush-Obama […]
[…] projected to climb well above the long-run average of 18 percent of GDP. In other words, a rising burden of government spending is responsible for more than 100 percent of America’s long-run fiscal […]
[…] has fallen from 8.65 in 2000 to 7.70 in the latest report. That’s not a surprise since the burden of government spending has exploded during the Bush-Obama […]
[…] matter whether you have an R after your name or a D after your name. If you expand the burden of government spending, the economy isn’t going to prosper. Rate this:Share […]
[…] I argue that these good reforms don’t fully offset the damage caused byexcessive government spending. And now I have a new – and very pointy – arrow in my argumentative quiver. A study from the […]
[…] real problem in our economy is the overall burden of government. The tax system is punitive. Wasteful and excessive government spending is diverting resources from productive use. The regulatory burden continues to […]
[…] The unemployment rate has been stuck above 8 percent ever since Obama pushed through his ill-fated stimulus scheme to increase the burden of government spending. […]
[…] I argue that these good reforms don’t fully offset the damage caused by excessive government spending. And now I have a new – and very pointy – arrow in my argumentative quiver. A study […]
[…] robbing grocery stores, but for being part of a political class that has dramatically increased the burden of government spending in Spain, from about 30 percent of GDP in 1980 to well over 40 percent […]
[…] fiscal restraint is all that we need, though it would be preferable to make genuine cuts in the burden of government spending. Like this:LikeBe the first to like this. By Everette Hatcher III, on September 11, 2012 at 5:25 […]
[…] explaining that politicians who want to “do something” almost always want to expand the burden of government spending, but he notes that this approach has meant deeper recessions and more economic suffering. And he […]
[…] I obviously agree with his conclusion. Unless European politicians decide to reduce the burden of government spending, the continent is in deep […]
[…] What I want people to realize, though, is that governments only get into that kind of mess because there’s too much spending. […]
[…] we have more evidence that the President understands the dangers of class-warfare taxation and burdensome government spending. At least when he’s not talking about American fiscal […]
[…] I’m in Slovenia where I just finished indoctrinating educating a bunch of students on the importance of Mitchell’s Golden Rule as a means of restraining the burden of government spending. […]
[…] The unemployment rate has been stuck above 8 percent ever since Obama pushed through his ill-fated stimulus scheme to increase the burden of government spending. […]
[…] Francs (about $262,000 U.S. dollars). And the Swiss also have a spending cap that has reduced the burden of government spending while most other nations have moved in the wrong […]
[…] The unemployment rate has been stuck above 8 percent ever since Obama pushed through his ill-fated stimulus scheme to increase the burden of government spending. […]
[…] I’m in Slovenia where I just finished indoctrinating educating a bunch of students on the importance of Mitchell’s Golden Rule as a means of restraining the burden of government spending. […]
[…] like he can fulfill his promise the reduce the burden of government spending by implementing Paul Ryan’s entitlement reforms. But don’t hold your breath waiting for […]
[…] of government abuse is a good example of why I’m a libertarian. Yes, I get upset about bloated and counterproductive government spending. And I also get irked by our punitive and destructive class-warfare tax […]
[…] fiscal restraint is all that we need, though it would be preferable to make genuine cuts in the burden of government spending. Rate this:Share this:PrintEmailFacebookTwitterMoredeliciousDiggFarkLinkedInRedditStumbleUponLike […]
[…] a riddle for policy wonks. What do you get if you take my videos on the economics of government spending and mix them in a blender with my videos on America’s entitlement […]
[…] a riddle for policy wonks. What do you get if you take my videos on the economics of government spending and mix them in a blender with my videos on America’s entitlement […]
[…] robbing grocery stores, but for being part of a political class that has dramatically increased the burden of government spending in Spain, from about 30 percent of GDP in 1980 to well over 40 percent […]
[…] isn’t a meaningless issue, but it puts the cart before the horse. What matters most is the size of government and the total burden of government spending – not whether it is financed with borrowing rather than […]
[…] In previous posts, I put together tutorials on the Laffer Curve, tax competition, and the economics of government spending. […]
[…] And it’s particularly worrisome to see that the author wants a value-added tax, which is a sure-fire way of giving politicians a big pile of money that will be used to expand the burden of government spending. […]
[…] The last sentence of the excerpt is critical. If the Golden Rule of fiscal policy is to have the private sector grow faster than government, then the Golden Goal is to reduce government spending as a share of GDP. […]
[…] Moreover, I just wrote a Wall Street Journal editorial saying nice things about the Ryan budget. And I also have done a couple of TV interviews explaining how that plan would do a good job of controlling the burden of government spending. […]
[…] The last sentence of the excerpt is critical. If the Golden Rule of fiscal policy is to have the private sector grow faster than government, then the Golden Goal is to reduce government spending as a share of GDP. […]
[…] of this blog that I emphasized the importance of restraining the growth of government so that the burden of the public sector shrinks as a share of overall economic […]
[…] burden of federal spending in the United States was down to 18.2 percent of gross domestic product when Bill Clinton left […]
[…] may vaguely understand that big government undermines economic performance, but that’s a secondary concern. They’re main goal is buying votes with other […]
[…] burden of federal spending in the United States was down to 18.2 percent of gross domestic product when Bill Clinton left […]
[…] burden of federal spending in the United States was down to 18.2 percent of gross domestic product when Bill Clinton left […]
[…] In previous posts, I put together tutorials on the Laffer Curve, tax competition, and the economics of government spending. […]
[…] the burden of government spending at record levels, every beneficiary of federal largesse should be willing to back away from the […]
[…] no way to boost the burden of government spending to European levels without mimicking European tax […]
[…] The indictment against Obama is that he doubled down on that approach, further expanding the burden of government spending and further expanding the web of government regulation, even though he promised hope and change. […]
[…] The indictment against Obama is that he doubled down on that approach, further expanding the burden of government spending and further expanding the web of government regulation, even though he promised hope and change. […]
[…] if anybody thinks that it’s a good idea to increase the burden of government spending, then they need to explain why America will be better off if we make our country more like Greece […]
[…] bad. Our taxation of labor income is generally not as bad as other industrialized nations. And the burden of government spending in the United States tends to be lower than European nations (though both Bush and Obama have […]
[…] does create jobs? I explain we need to shrink the burden of government and I cite my favorite Golden Rule about the importance of making sure the productive sector of the […]
[…] this blog focuses on big issues such as the economic damage of government spending and the self-defeating foolishness of high tax […]
[…] this blog focuses on big issues such as the economic damage of government spending and the self-defeating foolishness of high tax […]
[…] Obama, with his plans to exacerbate class-warfare taxation and further expand the burden of government spending, wants America to be more like nations that have lower living […]
[…] by any other name would still smell like garbage), it will be just a matter of time before the burden of government spending becomes even more onerous and Cayman loses its allure and drops from being one of the world’s […]
[…] beach by any other name would still smell like crap), it will be just a matter of time before the burden of government spending becomes even more onerous and Cayman loses its allure and drops from being one of the world’s […]
[…] bad. Our taxation of labor income is generally not as bad as other industrialized nations. And the burden of government spending in the United States tends to be lower than European nations (though both Bush and Obama have […]
[…] bad. Our taxation of labor income is generally not as bad as other industrialized nations. And the burden of government spending in the United States tends to be lower than European nations (though both Bush and Obama have […]
[…] But the Mediterranean island nation is a good case study illustrating the economic dangers of big government. […]
[…] but not least, he makes an essential point about the role of bad spending policy. The problem is that spending is too high – central government current expenditure is up by 3.7 […]
[…] we have more evidence that the President understands the dangers of class-warfare taxation and burdensome government spending. At least when he’s not talking about American fiscal […]
[…] explain that Europe can grow and prosper, but only if politicians are willing to reduce the burden of government spending and lower tax […]
[…] We know that President Obama’s class-warfare agenda is bad economic policy. We know high tax rates undermine competitiveness. And we know tax increases will lead to even more wasteful and destructive government spending. […]
[…] And without America support, it is highly doubtful that the OECD would have any ability to bully nations into expanding the burden of government. […]
[…] We know that President Obama’s class-warfare agenda is bad economic policy. We know high tax rates undermine competitiveness. And we know tax increases will lead to even more wasteful and destructive government spending. […]
[…] showed them this Rahn Curve video and then posted just one slide – the one showing that the burden of government spending in Europe used to be very […]
[…] We know that President Obama’s class-warfare agenda is bad economic policy. We know high tax rates undermine competitiveness. And we know tax increases will lead to even more wasteful and destructive government spending. […]
[…] Dan Mitchell is in Estonia to give a speech about economic reform; Last month, I exposed some major errors that Paul Krugman committed when he criticized Estonia for restraining the burden of government spending. […]
[…] Last month, I exposed some major errors that Paul Krugman committed when he criticized Estonia for restraining the burden of government spending. […]
[…] Last month, I exposed some major errors that Paul Krugman committed when he criticized Estonia for restraining the burden of government spending. […]
[…] does create jobs? I explain we need to shrink the burden of government and I cite my favorite Golden Rule about the importance of making sure the productive sector of the […]
[…] it’s also why I try to stress that bloated government is basically a racket that either allows people to obtain unearned benefits or makes it harder for […]
[…] it’s also why I try to stress that bloated government is basically a racket that either allows people to obtain unearned benefits or makes it harder for […]
[…] I do have nightmares about government getting even bigger, and that’s why I don’t want tax increases on the table. I don’t even want them in the room. […]
[…] Mitchell’s Golden Rule, which is the simple – but essential – notion that the burden of government spending shouldn’t grow faster than the private […]
[…] But the Mediterranean island nation is a good case study illustrating the economic dangers of big government. […]
[…] But I also think I made a mistake. When asked how states can get rid of their income taxes, I mentioned that sales taxes do less damage – per dollar raised – than income taxes. That’s true, but I should have stated first and foremost that states should reduce the burden of government spending. […]
[…] I do have nightmares about government getting even bigger, and that’s why I don’t want tax increases on the table. I don’t even want them in the room. […]
[…] Last but not least, he makes an essential point about the role of bad spending policy. […]
[…] financed by high tax rates. According to OECD data, only France and Denmark have a bigger burden of government spending. And the OECD also shows that Sweden’s top income tax rate of 56.6 percent is the most onerous in […]
[…] but not least, he makes an essential point about the role of bad spending policy. The problem is that spending is too high – central government current expenditure is up by 3.7 […]
[…] is bad for the overall economy because it means a larger burden of government spending and it’s bad for poor people because it undermines their self reliance and self […]
[…] everyone has a cross to bear in life, and (if you allow me to mix my metaphors) griping about bloated government is my Sisyphean […]
[…] is bad for the overall economy because it means a larger burden of government spending and it’s bad for poor people because it undermines their self reliance and self […]
[…] a pretty clear statement. We have folks on the left who say they want higher taxes both to prop up big government and to cause internal damage to the […]
[…] Statism is a bad idea, regardless of which political party is promoting bigger government. And it’s a really bad idea when people who should know better decide to increase the burden of government spending. […]
[…] But these clowns never learn. Just yesterday, a bunch of European politicians announced a “growth” plan. Did this mean they were cutting taxes, or perhaps even implementing flat tax reforms? Did this mean slashing the burden of red tape? What about pension reform? Or cutting back the burden of government spending? […]
[…] concluded, because they just released a report on problems in the eurozone without once mentioning excessive government spending or high tax burdens.The tax-free IMF bureaucrats do claim that “Important actions have been […]
[…] concluded, because they just released a report on problems in the eurozone without once mentioning excessive government spending or high tax […]
[…] The same politicians, by the way, that squander the money on varying vote-buying schemes that undermine prosperity and create […]
[…] around the world, the evidence is stronger than ever about the adverse economic consequences of bloated public sectors and punitive tax […]
[…] around the world, the evidence is stronger than ever about the adverse economic consequences of bloated public sectors and punitive tax […]
[…] around the world, the evidence is stronger than ever about the adverse economic consequences of bloated public sectors and punitive tax […]
[…] we have more evidence that the President understands the dangers of class-warfare taxation and burdensome government spending. At least when he’s not talking about American fiscal […]
[…] we have more evidence that the President understands the dangers of class-warfare taxation and burdensome government spending. At least when he’s not talking about American fiscal […]
[…] I touch on some of these issues in this CNBC debate with Stan Collender. We both agree that America faces short-term and long-term fiscal challenges, but a key difference is that Stan wants higher taxes to facilitate a bigger burden of government spending. […]
[…] argued, unsurprisingly, that the economy is anemic because Obama’s been pursuing an agenda of wasteful spending and class […]
[…] He kept arguing that America is more dynamic and innovative than Europe, which generally is true, but then he argued that we should copy Europe’s fiscal policy by increasing the burden of government spending. […]
[…] argued, unsurprisingly, that the economy is anemic because Obama’s been pursuing an agenda of wasteful spending and class […]
[…] seems I was put on the planet to educate people about the negative economic impact of excessive government. Though I must be doing a bad job because the burden of the public sector keeps […]
[…] seems I was put on the planet to educate people about the negative economic impact of excessive government. Though I must be doing a bad job because the burden of the public sector keeps […]
[…] a pretty clear statement. We have folks on the left who say they want higher taxes both to prop up big government and to cause internal damage to the […]
[…] Shows How Big Government … June 17, 2012By The ThinkerIt seems I was put on the planet to educate people about the negative economic impact of excessive government. Though I must be doing a bad job because the burden of the public sector keeps […]
[…] If Obama actually wants to fix the economy, I suggest he watch this video tutorial so he can learn that the private sector is suffering because too many resources are being diverted […]
[…] He kept arguing that America is more dynamic and innovative than Europe, which generally is true, but then he argued that we should copy Europe’s fiscal policy by increasing the burden of government spending. […]
[…] I do have nightmares about government getting even bigger, and that’s why I don’t want tax increases on the table. I don’t even want them […]
[…] It seems that any argument about the economy eventually boils down to the core issue of whether government spending acts as a stimulus or whether it is – in the words of Thomas Sowell – a sedative that undermines prosperity. […]
[…] almost enough to make you think government spending is the problem rather than the solution. Share this:TwitterFacebookPrintEmailMoreStumbleUponRedditDiggLike […]
[…] that’s a separate issue. The key takeaway from the Laffer/Moore column is that government spending undermines prosperity. …the most amazing feature of the nearby chart, which is rarely ever noted, is that when […]
[…] almost enough to make you think government spending is the problem rather than the solution. Rate this:Share […]
[…] financed by high tax rates. According to OECD data, only France and Denmark have a bigger burden of government spending. And the OECD also shows that Sweden’s top income tax rate of 56.6 percent is the most […]
[…] Back in 2009, I wrote about various schemes to impose taxes on unhealthy food. At the time, I was primarily concerned about the risks of giving politicians a new source of revenue that would be used to increase the burden of government spending. […]
[…] But I also think I made a mistake. When asked how states can get rid of their income taxes, I mentioned that sales taxes do less damage – per dollar raised – than income taxes. That’s true, but I should have stated first and foremost that states should reduce the burden of government spending. […]
[…] in the above video that Europe can grow and prosper, but only if politicians are willing to reduce the burden of government spending and lower tax […]
[…] seems I was put on the planet to educate people about the negative economic impact of excessive government. Though I must be doing a bad job because the burden of the public sector keeps […]
[…] England) – It seems I was put on the planet to educate people about the negative economic impact of excessive government. Though I must be doing a bad job because the burden of the public sector keeps […]
[…] seems I was put on the planet to educate people about the negative economic impact of excessive government. I must be doing a bad job, because the burden of the public sector keeps […]
[…] Shows How Big Government Undermines Prosperity admin It seems I was put on the planet to educate people about the negative economic impact of excessive government. Though I must be doing a bad job because the burden of the public sector keeps […]
[…] seems I was put on the planet to educate people about the negative economic impact of excessive government. Though I must be doing a bad job because the burden of the public sector keeps […]
[…] seems I was put on the planet to educate people about the negative economic impact of excessive government. Though I must be doing a bad job because the burden of the public sector keeps […]
[…] seems we was put on a universe to educate people about a disastrous mercantile impact of extreme government. Though we contingency be doing a bad pursuit given a weight of a open zone keeps […]
[…] seems I was put on the planet to educate people about the negative economic impact of excessive government. Though I must be doing a bad job because the burden of the public sector keeps […]
[…] seems I was put on the planet to educate people about the negative economic impact of excessive government. Though I must be doing a bad job because the burden of the public sector keeps […]
[…] Big Government Undermines Prosperity May 25, 2012By The ThinkerIt seems I was put on the planet to educate people about the negative economic impact of excessive government. Though I must be doing a bad job because the burden of the public sector keeps […]
[…] seems I was put on the planet to educate people about the negative economic impact of excessive government. I must be doing a bad job, because the burden of the public sector keeps […]
[…] seems I was put on the planet to educate people about the negative economic impact of excessive government. Though I must be doing a bad job because the burden of the public sector keeps […]
[…] seems I was put on the planet to educate people about the negative economic impact of excessive government. Though I must be doing a bad job because the burden of the public sector keeps […]
[…] notable about Westerville’s list is that there is nothing about the overall burden of spending, even though Europe is saddled with bloated welfare states. There is nothing about high tax rates, […]
[…] in the above video that Europe can grow and prosper, but only if politicians are willing to reduce the burden of government spending and lower tax […]
[…] No, Mr. Speaker. The problem is spending, spending, spending. […]
[…] No, Mr. Speaker. The problem is spending, spending, spending. […]
[…] No, Mr. Speaker. The problem is spending, spending, spending. […]
[…] explain that Europe can grow and prosper, but only if politicians are willing to reduce the burden of government spending and lower tax […]
The first video makes a claim, without evidence, that government spending harms the economy. In my view there is a First Principle Argument why this is so. The First Principles are based upon Adam Smith’s wealth creation and The Law of Supply and Demand.
1. Government runs on the wealth created by the private sector. That wealth, according to Adam Smith, is created by trade. More precisely the labor of people creates wealth; trading amplifies the wealth creation. Whatever form, therefore, of a tax it is levied upon trades.
2. According to the Law of Supply and Demand a trade is made when the producer and consumer agree to a price. The trade is therefore mutally beneficial AT THAT PRICE. If government burden is increased the benefit of a trade has a reduced benefit for the parties.
3. As government burden (taxes, mandates, and regulations) increase economic activity slows by the Law of Supply and Demand.
Thus an economy is slowed because the additional burdens of governernment, according to the Law of Supply and Demand, results in less trading, which in turn reduces the wealth creation in the private sector.
The Rahn Curve, also a wonderful Dan Mitchell video, shows that sometime government actions help trade more than they hur ti and at other times it hards mtrade more than it hurts it.
[…] explain that Europe can grow and prosper, but only if politicians are willing to reduce the burden of government spending and lower tax […]
[…] widely, I also hope that you can utilize my educational videos on topics such as tax competition, government spending, and the Laffer Curve. Not everything can be explained in a picture. Rate this: Share […]
[…] term. If you want some economic analysis of the consequences of big government, here’s a link to a post with my videos that analyze that issue. Rate this: Share this:PrintEmailFacebookTwitterMoredeliciousDiggFarkLinkedInRedditStumbleUponLike […]
[…] When you have 20 to 25 minutes to spare, I recommend brushing up on government spending with Dan Mitchell’s four-part video series from his blog post Fiscal Policy Tutorial. […]
For my own personal ears, the most relevant, concise and enduring campaign slogan would be:
“It’s the Rahn Curve stupid!”
[…that is the overriding determinant of your prosperity in anything but the myopic short term].
I’m now wondering if you’ve actually looked at the empirical evidence, or any of the other videos, Clarence, before making your unfortunately somewhat incoherent comment?
If your point is that Republicans as well as Democrats are politicians and both can have severely detrimental spend-and-spend policies, then we can probably all agree. But if you are advocating Obama’s as good yet Bush’s policies as bad, then please provide the evidence that proves your point…
Mind you, I suspect the reason you haven’t done so is because there is none!
sho! Reagan increased spending 80% and debt 180%
Bush 92% and 112%.
3 R prez 1980-2009
600 budget to 3500 (less wjc itsy bitsy)
Debt 1000 to 10,000
Deficit surplus to 1400
10 foreign conflicts
Jobs-218,000 per month to 99,000
Smashed Housing
Smashed World Financial Market
Great Recession
want hell on earth hire Republicans