The US Treasury's recent announcement that the government will reach the
debt ceiling on November 3 means Congress will soon be debating raising the
government's borrowing limit again. Any delay in, or opposition to, raising
the debt ceiling will inevitably be met with hand-wringing over Congress'
alleged irresponsibility. But the real irresponsible act would be for
Congress to raise the debt ceiling.
Cutting up its credit card is the only way to make Congress reduce
spending. Anyone who doubts this should listen to the bipartisan whining over
how sequestration has so drastically reduced spending that there is literally
nothing left to cut. But, according to the Heritage Foundation, sequestration
has only reduced spending from $3.6 trillion to $3.5 trillion. Only in DC
would a less than one percent spending reduction be considered a draconian
cut.
Defense hawks have found a way around sequestration by shoving billions of
dollars into the Overseas Contingency Operations (OCO) account. OCO spending
is classified as "emergency" spending so it does not count against
the spending limits, even when OCO is used for items that do not fit any
reasonable definition of emergency.
Yet, even using OCO to boost military spending by as much as $80 billion
does not satisfy the military-industrial complex's ravenous appetite for
taxpayer dollars.
During the majority of my time in Congress, debt ceiling increases were
routinely approved. In fact, congressional rules once allowed the House of
Representatives to increase the debt ceiling without a vote or even a debate!
Congress' need to appear to respond to growing concerns over federal spending
has forced it to end the practice of rubber-stamping debt ceiling increases.
Continuously increasing spending will lead to rising inflation as the
Federal Reserve tries to monetize the ever-increasing debt. This will
eventually lead to a serious economic crisis. When the crisis occurs,
Congress will have no choice but to cut spending. The question is not if, but
when and under what circumstances, spending will be cut.
The only alternative for cutting spending in response to economic crisis
involves Congress gradually unwinding the welfare state in a manner that does
not harm those dependent on federal programs. Congress will not even consider
doing this until enough people have embraced the ideas of liberty to force
the politicians to reconsider the proper role of government.
Those who accept the premises of the welfare statists are incapable of
making principled arguments against welfare and entitlement programs. Thus,
they can only quibble over spending levels or how to more efficiently manage
the federal bureaucracy. While fiscal conservatives may gain some minor
victories with this approach, their failure to challenge the welfare state's
morality or effectiveness dooms any effort to seriously curtail welfare state
spending.
Similarly, one cannot favor both serious reductions in the military budget
and an aggressive foreign policy. So-called cheap hawks may achieve some
reforms in the Pentagon's budget. They many even succeed in killing a few
wasteful weapons projects. However, their unwillingness to oppose a foreign
policy of perpetual war means they will always cave in to the war hawks'
demands for ever-higher military budgets.
Those who understand the dangers from continuing on our current path
should support efforts to stop Congress from raising the debt ceiling.
However, supporters of liberty will not win the political battle over
government spending on welfare and warfare until we win the intellectual
battle over the role of government. Those of us who know the truth must do
all we can to spread the ideas of liberty.
