Brett85
03-04-2014, 08:40 PM
This guy said he did. Does anyone know anything about this?
http://www.forbes.com/sites/johntamny/2014/03/02/rep-justin-amashs-libertarianism-will-greatly-disappoint-libertarians/
Recently I had the chance to see Rep. Justin Amash (R – Michigan) speak during a trip down to Florida. Known as one of the few libertarians in Congress, I approached his talk with excitement.
Figure Amash has been vocal in the verbal and legislative sense about NSA overreach, and then he’s rather famously known for consulting the Constitution ahead of every vote. The Constitution greatly limits the power of the federal government, and Amash’s consultation of it speaks to a politician who properly believes much federal government activity obnoxiously exceeds the strict limits set by our founding document.
Of course, it was Amash’s sterling reputation as a strict libertarian that made his talk a bit of a disappointment. If the fact that he looked down and read most of the speech can be ignored, his questionable economic views cannot be. Most libertarians would have been puzzled by the talk, and probably discouraged.
Indeed, it was hard to watch him read the speech without concluding that Amash is the latest in a long line of small-government talking Republicans fully willing to let the federal government grow by leaps and bounds. Evidence supporting this claim was his fixation on budget deficits over government spending, his view that massive tax increases will be required to pay the deficits off, and his strongly held belief that a balanced budget amendment is the solution to a federal government that always seems to grow no matter the political party in power.
About budget deficits, Amash believes that absent reform meant to rein them in, our economy and country will be “brought to its knees.” Interesting there is that it would take several Rose Bowls to seat all the pundits, politicians and economists who’ve said much the same over the decades. The problem is that these dire predictions never seem to come true.
Never explained by the doomsayers of the past, and not covered by Amash in the present, is what would be so bad about a scenario whereby the federal government would have trouble covering its debts. On its face, this would bring about a positive in that the investors who buy U.S. debt would simply allocate their capital elsewhere; ideally away from government consumption.
The predictable reply to the above is that default would greatly increase borrowing costs for the rest of us. Really? Apple AAPL +0.62%, Google GOOG +1.09% and Facebook are based in California, California’s government debts are legendary, but does anyone think that Apple would suddenly face financing difficulty if California were to default?
The reality is that if we ever reach the day that never seems to come, and that market signals historically embraced by conservatives and libertarians say isn’t coming, government alone would be brought to its knees. As for the rest of us, the relative unattractiveness of U.S. Treasuries would redound to the real economy through a reorientation of investment away from politicians. Money saved never lays idle despite what the economic punditry would have us believe.
Not surprisingly, Amash trotted out the tired quip used by all politicians about how we’re leaving behind a deficit mess that will be paid for by our children and grandchildren. The latter is a tried and true applause line, but Amash’s billing as a serious libertarian had me hoping for something better. Indeed, such an assertion misses the point by a mile.
For one, Amash referenced the eventual need for massive tax increases to pay off the deficits — absent spending reform. How odd, because if deficits are one’s worry, and they certainly are a concern for Amash, the last thing any deficit hawk would want to do is crash the economy with tax increases that would render far more difficult the federal government’s ability to pay them off. Seemingly lost on the congressman is that absent the economic productivity that has and continues to define the U.S., we not only would not have deficits, but the Treasuries already issued would be in freefall.
Second, while deficits aren’t the burden we’re leaving our grandchildren, a less evolved economy is. Deficits are finance, and as evidenced by the willingness of investors to line up in order to buy U.S. Treasuries, they’re an easy form of finance. The burden that deficits signal in not always vivid color is all the investment in real economic ideas that is not taking place thanks to all the government spending vacuuming up limited capital. Our grandchildren will inherit a much less evolved world in terms of technology, healthcare, and transportation advances precisely due to government waste occurring in the present. That’s the burden, and as a professed libertarian, Amash should intimately know that it is.
If this is doubted, it should be asked if readers would prefer an annual budget deficit of $500 billion amid $1.5 trillion in annual spending, or a balanced budget of $3.5 trillion. Basic economic logic of the libertarian kind calls for the former. Government spending is the burden on the economy, and whether it occurs in deficit form or through taxation is of little economic consequence.
All of which leads us to what was most disappointing about Amash’s speech. The Michigan congressman regularly referenced his desire to pass a “balanced budget amendment.” Of course, missed by Amash is just how inimical to limited government and mocking of the Constitution such an amendment would be.
To be blunt, a balanced budget amendment would legalize massive government as far as the eye can see. That’s the case because Americans are the most productive and entrepreneurial people on earth, intensely capable of creating jaw-dropping wealth. Because they are, and this is the sad part, they hand over trillions to the federal government each year.
A balanced budget amendment would legalize the spending of all that we send to Washington. This is particularly scary as the internet connects the world, and for doing so sets the stage for wealth creation that will make that of the past seem puny by comparison. Future wealth creation promises to stagger us in its scope, and if politicians like Amash pass a constitutional amendment that makes it legal for the political class to spend our trillions, we can rest assured they will. Government will grow and grow.
As a libertarian Amash should know this, and know it well. We live in a global economy, and a dollar is a dollar is a dollar whether it’s taxed or borrowed. Either way the economy suffers if politicians are allocating the capital. A balanced budget amendment means that many of those dollars will be allocated by U.S. politicians. Because this is true, it’s essential that libertarians in Congress get serious about greatly restraining the federal government overall, all the while trying to tweak the tax code so that government isn’t the recipient of so much of our wealth.
Given Amash’s billing as a libertarian, it was not unreasonable to expect that he would make an inspiring case for limited government. Instead, in a speech that was once again read almost verbatim, Amash revealed how empty is the political edition of a philosophy that elevates the rights of the individual. The libertarian movement deserves better, and hopefully Amash comes to understand why it does.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/johntamny/2014/03/02/rep-justin-amashs-libertarianism-will-greatly-disappoint-libertarians/
Recently I had the chance to see Rep. Justin Amash (R – Michigan) speak during a trip down to Florida. Known as one of the few libertarians in Congress, I approached his talk with excitement.
Figure Amash has been vocal in the verbal and legislative sense about NSA overreach, and then he’s rather famously known for consulting the Constitution ahead of every vote. The Constitution greatly limits the power of the federal government, and Amash’s consultation of it speaks to a politician who properly believes much federal government activity obnoxiously exceeds the strict limits set by our founding document.
Of course, it was Amash’s sterling reputation as a strict libertarian that made his talk a bit of a disappointment. If the fact that he looked down and read most of the speech can be ignored, his questionable economic views cannot be. Most libertarians would have been puzzled by the talk, and probably discouraged.
Indeed, it was hard to watch him read the speech without concluding that Amash is the latest in a long line of small-government talking Republicans fully willing to let the federal government grow by leaps and bounds. Evidence supporting this claim was his fixation on budget deficits over government spending, his view that massive tax increases will be required to pay the deficits off, and his strongly held belief that a balanced budget amendment is the solution to a federal government that always seems to grow no matter the political party in power.
About budget deficits, Amash believes that absent reform meant to rein them in, our economy and country will be “brought to its knees.” Interesting there is that it would take several Rose Bowls to seat all the pundits, politicians and economists who’ve said much the same over the decades. The problem is that these dire predictions never seem to come true.
Never explained by the doomsayers of the past, and not covered by Amash in the present, is what would be so bad about a scenario whereby the federal government would have trouble covering its debts. On its face, this would bring about a positive in that the investors who buy U.S. debt would simply allocate their capital elsewhere; ideally away from government consumption.
The predictable reply to the above is that default would greatly increase borrowing costs for the rest of us. Really? Apple AAPL +0.62%, Google GOOG +1.09% and Facebook are based in California, California’s government debts are legendary, but does anyone think that Apple would suddenly face financing difficulty if California were to default?
The reality is that if we ever reach the day that never seems to come, and that market signals historically embraced by conservatives and libertarians say isn’t coming, government alone would be brought to its knees. As for the rest of us, the relative unattractiveness of U.S. Treasuries would redound to the real economy through a reorientation of investment away from politicians. Money saved never lays idle despite what the economic punditry would have us believe.
Not surprisingly, Amash trotted out the tired quip used by all politicians about how we’re leaving behind a deficit mess that will be paid for by our children and grandchildren. The latter is a tried and true applause line, but Amash’s billing as a serious libertarian had me hoping for something better. Indeed, such an assertion misses the point by a mile.
For one, Amash referenced the eventual need for massive tax increases to pay off the deficits — absent spending reform. How odd, because if deficits are one’s worry, and they certainly are a concern for Amash, the last thing any deficit hawk would want to do is crash the economy with tax increases that would render far more difficult the federal government’s ability to pay them off. Seemingly lost on the congressman is that absent the economic productivity that has and continues to define the U.S., we not only would not have deficits, but the Treasuries already issued would be in freefall.
Second, while deficits aren’t the burden we’re leaving our grandchildren, a less evolved economy is. Deficits are finance, and as evidenced by the willingness of investors to line up in order to buy U.S. Treasuries, they’re an easy form of finance. The burden that deficits signal in not always vivid color is all the investment in real economic ideas that is not taking place thanks to all the government spending vacuuming up limited capital. Our grandchildren will inherit a much less evolved world in terms of technology, healthcare, and transportation advances precisely due to government waste occurring in the present. That’s the burden, and as a professed libertarian, Amash should intimately know that it is.
If this is doubted, it should be asked if readers would prefer an annual budget deficit of $500 billion amid $1.5 trillion in annual spending, or a balanced budget of $3.5 trillion. Basic economic logic of the libertarian kind calls for the former. Government spending is the burden on the economy, and whether it occurs in deficit form or through taxation is of little economic consequence.
All of which leads us to what was most disappointing about Amash’s speech. The Michigan congressman regularly referenced his desire to pass a “balanced budget amendment.” Of course, missed by Amash is just how inimical to limited government and mocking of the Constitution such an amendment would be.
To be blunt, a balanced budget amendment would legalize massive government as far as the eye can see. That’s the case because Americans are the most productive and entrepreneurial people on earth, intensely capable of creating jaw-dropping wealth. Because they are, and this is the sad part, they hand over trillions to the federal government each year.
A balanced budget amendment would legalize the spending of all that we send to Washington. This is particularly scary as the internet connects the world, and for doing so sets the stage for wealth creation that will make that of the past seem puny by comparison. Future wealth creation promises to stagger us in its scope, and if politicians like Amash pass a constitutional amendment that makes it legal for the political class to spend our trillions, we can rest assured they will. Government will grow and grow.
As a libertarian Amash should know this, and know it well. We live in a global economy, and a dollar is a dollar is a dollar whether it’s taxed or borrowed. Either way the economy suffers if politicians are allocating the capital. A balanced budget amendment means that many of those dollars will be allocated by U.S. politicians. Because this is true, it’s essential that libertarians in Congress get serious about greatly restraining the federal government overall, all the while trying to tweak the tax code so that government isn’t the recipient of so much of our wealth.
Given Amash’s billing as a libertarian, it was not unreasonable to expect that he would make an inspiring case for limited government. Instead, in a speech that was once again read almost verbatim, Amash revealed how empty is the political edition of a philosophy that elevates the rights of the individual. The libertarian movement deserves better, and hopefully Amash comes to understand why it does.