WASHINGTON – As Republicans and Democrats in Washington continue chewing the scenery in their ‘Debt Limit Theater,’ Libertarian Party Chair Mark Hinkle released the following statement today:
“Everything I’ve heard from Washington politicians about the debt limit is nonsense. I propose the simplest option: Do nothing. Don’t raise the debt limit, period.
“None of the deals I’ve heard would do anything to cut federal spending. Some reduce the rate of growth a little bit, but I’m afraid that doesn’t count.
“And of course, some of the proposals would increase taxes, which Libertarians are totally opposed to.
“The best outcome would be no deal at all. If the debt limit is not raised, then the federal government will have to cut its spending by over 40%. That would be the best outcome for the future of America, and it’s certainly the preferred outcome for Libertarians. (It reminds me of the World’s Smallest Political Quiz, produced by the Advocates for Self-Government, which includes the libertarian option to ‘Cut taxes and government spending by 50% or more.’)
“I’m actually shocked at how resistant both the Republicans and Democrats are to making cuts. I wasn’t expecting much, but their proposals are downright embarrassing.
“For example, consider Speaker Boehner’s plan. According to the Cato Institute, the Boehner plan doesn’t cut spending. It just sets the spending increases slightly below the imaginary Congressional Budget Office (CBO) ‘baseline.’
“According to the CBO report released yesterday, the Boehner plan has practically no effect on the deficit in 2012, the only year that really matters. In fact, the Boehner plan actually increases Pell Grant spending by $4 billion in 2012. (So does the Reid plan in the Senate.)
“Of course, the Reid plan largely takes advantage of massive errors in the CBO baseline to claim ‘cuts.’ (For example, the CBO predicts absurdly high levels of spending for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.)
“As usual, Republicans and Democrats are trying to create the illusion of a high-stakes game between two vastly different visions. In fact, their visions are practically identical. I hope Americans will see through all the smoke, and consider the Libertarian option to make real reductions in the size and scope of government, across the board.”
For more information, or to arrange an interview, call LP Executive Director Wes Benedict at 202-333-0008 ext. 222.
The LP is America’s third-largest political party, founded in 1971. The Libertarian Party stands for free markets, civil liberties, and peace. You can find more information on the Libertarian Party at our website.
A few work arounds have been proposed as here http://www.slate.com/id/2300428/
As a geolibertarian, I too advocate equal taxes on all income: zero.
Geolibertarians oppose all taxes on things that aren’t aggression: honest income (wages, interest, dividends, profits, gifts, and inheritance), clean production (including value added), consensual transactions (e.g. the sale, import, or export of goods and services), and fairly-acquired wealth (e.g. real estate improvements, capital, or other produced assets).
Geolibertarians favor taxes/fines only on aggression — e.g. polluting, depleting, congesting, or monopolizing the commons. In practical terms, this means
@4 Libertarian does not have to equal out of your gourd, but some people are working hard to prove the two of us are wrong.
Also, if you are going to fight a war, you have to pay for it, which generally requires raising taxes.
I advocate equal taxes on all income, as opposed to the claim of Republican plutocrats that their income is better than some of mine and therefore should not be taxed as heavily as some of mine. That’s the aristocratic nonsense we fought the first revolution to defeat.
Yes, some. Some of mine is taxed more lightly than the rest under our silly tax laws.
My biggest issue with allowing default and forcing the government to cut 40% of its spending without any rhyme or reason is that it stands a good chance of turning most Americans off from libertarian goals for a generation. Voters can handle cuts in spending, provided such cuts are done in am orderly, planned fashion. People like to have time to plan how to live without government assistance. Pulling the rug out from underneath them and then demanding that they be thankful for the resulting bump on their head is a bit much.
Also, I agree with George – the GOP’s misguided “starve the beast” policy has just made a bad situation worse. Lowering taxes is well and good, but if you don’t lower spending first, you’re just trading short term gain for long term disaster.
Libertarians aren’t anti-tax. We’re pro- fiscal responsibility, which means not spending money that doesn’t belong to you. We just also believe tax money doesn’t belong to the government.
Not me!
Does anyone really believe that there’s any possibility the politicians won’t give themselves permission to borrow more money and forge your signature as co-signer?
The whole thing is kabuki.
@George, are you advocating tax increases? That doesn’t sound very libertarian…
Same argument used by the Bush Administration for TARP and eventual bailout boondoggle. It works everytime until there’s nothing left.
Estimates I’ve heard is that w/o a debt ceiling raise, most spending would have to be cut 40%. I would like to see that happen, but I’m not sure it’s wise to advocate an overnight cut of that magnitude. Yes, it might cleanse things, or it might lead to massive dislocation.
Seems a bit risky to me.
There is no solution here.
The Secretary of the Treasury has bills based on Congressional appropriations rolling in, and due to Republican incompetence and their crazy theory about cutting taxes to raise revenue (Feds are now down to 15% of GNP from 19%) not to mention their crazy theory about fighting a large war without war taxes he has way too little money to pay for it.
What is he supposed to do?
One answer in some legal circles is to take the position that those appropriations override the debt limit and just issue more debt.
Another is not to spend money he does not have.