A few thoughts on the federal debt crisis
For years, I’ve sounded the alarm on the moral bankruptcy and consequences of our spiraling federal debt. It’s an exhausting topic. The debt crisis has become little more than a political football in Washington’s endless power game. With no political courage in sight, it may take a financial meltdown of historic proportions before voters demand the reforms our republic desperately needs.
Still, it’s worth highlighting David Hebert’s piece in National Review addressing the topic. We’re seeing some renewed content on the federal debt given that we’ve officially surpassed $37 trillion and Hebert rightly calls for reorienting Washington to its Constitutional constraints. He notes:
- It is about solving two fundamental issues: The government is involved in far too many things and lacks a sensible budget process. The inevitable result is a government that simultaneously overspends and underdelivers.
- The problem is that the federal government has made far too many promises to far too many people.
- Instead, what we need to do is starve the beast of responsibilities. This will require a careful reading of the Constitution, which serves as a guidebook, and specifically the Tenth Amendment, which reserves to the states or to the people all powers not granted to the federal government.
Hebert also focused on some agencies that need to be nixed or dramatically curtailed but like any budget commentator dealing with reality, he pinpoints entitlement reform as the most essential component to getting spending under control.
He also calls for a dramatic change in the way in which Congress appropriates debt, returning to pre-1917 spending days which would require borrowing to have specific approval for any reason, creating more transparency for voters to evaluate exactly what the debt is being issued for by lawmakers. Under this process, the debt ceiling is done away with entirely.
Of course, the ultimate goal should always be to restore greater authority to the states, allowing them to design and administer more of their own social programs. This would not only align policy decisions more closely with the unique needs and values of their citizens, but also promote healthy competition among states. When states have both the power and the responsibility to innovate, successful approaches can be emulated, while ineffective or wasteful programs can be reformed or abandoned. In this way, federalism becomes a mechanism for both accountability and creativity, empowering the states to serve as true laboratories of democracy.
I like the idea of the people actually tailoring more of the policies they actually want through decision making closer to home. The highly centralized decision making schemes have robbed of us not only of our purchasing power, but also our ability to govern ourselves.
At any rate, this entire mess is a great example of why the last thing Washington needs is more power.
— Ray Nothstine
— The Federalism Beat