[Rushtalk] Grover Norquist is Partially Right
Winblows at lavabit.com
Sat Dec 15 22:09:21 MST 2012
November 29, 2012
Grover Norquist is Partially Right
by Jacob G. Hornberger
Statists are ecstatic over the fact that a few Republican members of
Congress are turning their backs on the no-tax-hike pledge they signed
at the request of GOP activist Grover Norquest. Overjoyed by the fact
that the welfare-warfare state might be able to plunder the American
citizenry even more, the statists are overjoyed that the federal
government might now have even more money at its disposal for welfare
programs and warfare programs.
But the fact is that Norquest is right. The problem with the federal
deficit is not the deficit. The problem with the federal deficit is
federal spending, not the fact that the federal government isn't taxing
The government is spending $1.3 trillion more than what it is bringing
in with taxes. What's the solution to this? The solution is to just
slash $1.3 trillion dollars of spending. That's the way to balance the
expenditures with tax revenues.
Norquest is right — the worst thing that public officials can do is
raise taxes as a way to close the gap between tax revenues and spending.
Every dollar that is confiscated from the private sector damages people
It is the private sector that is the productive sector. Standards of
living rise only because of the wealth produced by the private sector.
The public (i.e., government) sector is the parasitic sector. It
survives by confiscating wealth from the private sector. The more wealth
that the public sector confiscates from the private sector, the lower
the standard of living of the citizenry.
Norquest is right when he says that increasing tax revenues only
encourages public officials to spend more than they were spending
before. So, we end up with the worst of all possible worlds — higher
taxes and higher spending.
The best thing that could happen to America is an immediate slashing of
$1.3 trillion in federal spending. Oh, sure, the statists would go
ballistic over such a notion. They would call that going off a gigantic
cliff, suggesting that America would die with such drastic expenditure
What nonsense. They say the same thing about places like Cuba and North
Korea, where about 99 percent of the citizenry work for the public
sector, a sector that confiscated all private wealth a long time ago.
The North Korean people are starving to death and the Cuban people are
on the verge of starvation.
What's the solution to Cuba and North Korea? It's a no-brainer for us
libertarians. We would say: Lay off 99 percent of public employees,
leave economic enterprise free of government regulation, control,
licenses, and permits, abolish all welfare programs, including their
version of Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid, dismantle the
standing army, and leave people free to keep everything they earn. Push
the button: Do it immediately, all at once.
There would immediately be the greatest outburst of creative energy that
people could ever imagine. The starvation would disappear. Standards of
living would start to rise.
But the statists in Cuba, North Korea, and the United States would go
ape over that libertarian solution. "Don't do it!," they would scream.
"You'll go over the cliff! You will have unemployment. People will die
in the streets. The solution is to just raise taxes, keep spending and
borrowing, and printing paper money. That will produce growth and put
people to work. Your welfare-warfare state can still be saved. Happy
days will be here again."
What economic idiocy. There is no private sector in North Korea and
Cuba. It's been taxed and confiscated out of existence. That's why
people are starving or on the verge of starvation. Freeing them from
having to work in the parasitic sector would restore them to the private
sector, the productive sector.
It's no different in principle here in the United States. People who are
currently on public largess would be cut off. They would be restored to
the private sector, the productive sector. There would be a doubly
positive effect: the people who were having their wealth confiscated
from them to pay for the largess would now be free to keep their money,
which means a higher standard of living for society. And those who were
in the parasitic sector, living off the confiscated wealth, would now be
in the private sector, the productive sector, which would mean an even
higher standard of living for society.
So, Norquest is right: the solution to out-of-control federal spending
is a drastic slashing of federal expenditures and no increase in taxes.
So, why is Norquest only partially right?
Because like other conservatives, he talks in terms of reducing federal
expenditures rather than dismantling the welfare-warfare programs that
the spending and borrowing is funding. This is the moral blind spot that
has long afflicted conservatives: They cannot see the fundamental
immorality and wrongfulness of the entire welfare-warfare state way of
life. The result is that while they want to reduce spending, they have
no problems with keeping the programs in existence.
This is one of the major distinguishing characteristics of libertarians.
We think in terms of moral principles. We say that it's morally wrong
for the government to forcibly take money from people in order to give
it to other people. We say it's wrong for the state to regulate peaceful
So, we don't just call for a reduction in federal spending that will
necessarily leave such things as Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid,
farm subsidies, food stamps, foreign aid to dictators, the drug war, the
occupation of Afghanistan, and the vast overseas military empire in
existence, albeit in reduced form. We call for ending, repealing, and
dismantling all welfare-warfare programs based on their fundamental
immorality and wrongfulness, not just because they are also bankrupting
So, while Norquest and other conservatives, as well as liberals, operate
within the welfare-warfare paradigm, we libertarians challenge that
paradigm. That's the real issue facing Americans: Should we continue
with the statist experiment with socialism, interventionism, and
imperialism, which are based on immoral principles and which are sending
our nation down the road to destruction, or is it time to restore a
free, peaceful, and prosperous society to our land by dismantling the
immoral and destructive paradigm that statists have foisted upon our
ObombA did not win erection, Trotskite RINO Mitt Romney threw the
election. -- Rush Limbaugh
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Rushtalk