Peter Robinson: Right, into the Social Security fund.
Milton Friedman: So they take these bonds out and sell them again to the public. How else are they going to pay for it? So what you are doing is simply changing the form of the debt, but you’re not really reducing the debt—
Peter Robinson: Because these obligations are going to be there no matter—
Milton Friedman: —is an evasion. In the long run government will spend whatever the tax system will raise, plus as much more as it can get away with. That’s what history tells us, I think. So my view has always been: cut taxes on any occasion, for any reason, in any way, that’s politically feasible. That’s the only way to keep down the size of government.
This is certainly a good argument for NOT raising taxes but what we really need is a balanced budget amendment with no exceptions(and term limits). War, recession, emergencies??? Forget it. There is NO one that we can elect that can be trusted to not to call everything an emergency and run up debts for political purposes, or just hit us with taxes. But at least with taxes presidents usually get voted out of office for raising them , unlike deficits that screw the unborn voter.
I started to say that such an amendment should require that all tax hikes have to be approved by a popular referendum, but California tried that, and the crooks in the legislature renamed taxes as "fees." (Note that the Obama regime uses the word "taxes" only when it's convenient, as in states suing Obamacare).
Bearing that in mind, you would have to be very careful how you define "balanced budget."
There is NO one that we can elect that can be trusted to not to call everything an emergency and run up debts for political purposes, or just hit us with taxes.
Speaking of "emergencies"