Leviathan on the Right: How Big-Government Conservatism Brought Down the Republican Revolution

From chapter one of his book | March 2, 2007 | Michael D. Tanner

[A.Hun]

BS! Most of it was actually Big Government "conservatism" at home.

Got any proof?

[abb]

The Peter/Paul analogy is right on point. Actually, I think there is something that can be done without congressional approval. An executive order would do it. Simply do away with tax withholding by employers. Let everyone write a monthly/quarterly check payable to the US Treasury. Everything else would take care of itself.

Recommended reading on the subject.
http://www.cato.org/pubs/journal/cj14n3-1.html
EVOLUTION OF FEDERAL INCOME TAX WITHHOLDING: THE MACHINERY OF INSTITUTIONAL CHANGE

Charlotte Twight

[A.Hun]

Let everyone write a monthly/quarterly check payable to the US Treasury. Everything else would take care of itself.

I've heard this idea before and wholeheartedly support it. Thanks for the link.

[abb]

It’s the same logic with gasoline taxes collected at the pump. Government shifts the blame to the oil companies which serve as collection agents. Government gets the money, but doesn’t take the hickey when prices at the pump go up.

[NC28203]

>>>Spread over how many years? How does that exposure relate to anticipated revenue? What do these numbers have to do with anything? On current trend lines, the budget will be balance by late 2008.

This is referring to future liabilities that the government owes to its workers (retirement and other post employment benefits) as well as beneficiaries of government benefits (primarily social security and medicare and veterans).
Think of this as the balance sheet and the budget as the income statement. The Budget reports cash outlays when the Government makes payments to individuals, businesses or other parties. These financial statements reflect costs in the period in which resources are consumed or liabilities increased. For example, each year that I work I make contributions to social secrity that help the current budget, but also create a liability that the government will have to pay in the future. It uses a 75 year horizon.

I believe the large jump in the past 7 years of future liabilities is due to the new Medicare prescription program, increased debt exposure and accrued interest on that debt.

[A.Hun]

It uses a 75 year horizon.

In other words, totally meaningless.

[Tlaloc]

Mike Huckabee wants to almost double the size of the US military bringing it back to the 6% GDP level we had during the Reagan years. If that’s “big government,” I can’t say I’m against it.

[A.Hun]

That is the one place I truly believe our money is well spent, however, we spend more on defense than the next 18 countries combined.

Something to consider.

[Tlaloc]

That’s why we are the most powerful nation in the world. It’s doesn’t come cheap.

[jammer]

There is no political consensus for doing it.

There wasn't in 1975, either. What is required is a leader who unashamedly--and honestly--articulates those positions, rather than surrendering to the big-government statists (or articulating that position and then doing things like signing CFR, pushing through Medicare Part D, etc.)