UK Home Secretary Reopening Resettlement Schemes for Palestinians Who Have Fled the Horror...
Sen. Mark Warner Says 100,000 Virginians Have Been Kicked Off of SNAP Because...
Sunny Hostin Defended the Cornell 7 — and, Painfully, She’s Right
Rev. Suggests Lazarus Was Gay Because Jesus Called for Him to ‘Come Out’
Rep. LaMonica McIver Is Facing Prison for Touching ICE Officers — She Just...
Mamdani the Pied-À-Terrible: NYC Mayor Loses in Court on Tax-The-Rich Rollout
The Bulwark’s Focus Group Says Abdul El-Sayed Is Over-Performing With Trump Voters
Kyle Kulinski Has No Doubt Mossad Has Videos of Trump 'Doing Ungodly Things...
Cory Booker Thinks a Criminal Who Undermined One Election Is Very Likely to...
Tight Race, Tight Pants: James Talarico Victory Could Obliterate State Religion of Texas...
Venezuelan Shot by ICE Charged by DOJ With Assaulting a Federal Officer
El-Sayed Wants Money Out of Politics — Except the Soros Family That Hand-Selected...
Jack Smith Subpoenaed Checks From Thousands of Americans Who Donated As Little As...
The Cornell 7: Viral Outrage, Changing Statements, and Why Prosecutors May Have Walked...
Nikole Hannah-Jones and Her Daughter Did a Podcast. Only One of Them Truly...

@CatoInstitute Is Right: 'The US Can't Keep Spending So Much Without Consequences'

AP Photo/Pablo Martinez Monsivais, File

"The US can't keep spending so much without consequences," reads a tweet by the Cato Institute.

Advertisement

There exists a limit to the amount of national spending that can be sustained. What exactly the limit is may not be clearly visible or precisely definable, at least not at the current moment, but it exists.  A corporate checking account balance precisely defines the limit beyond which a company cannot spend without the consequence of borrowing. A speed limit sign on the side of a road precisely defines with clear visibility the posted lawful limit of speed beyond which a driver may subject himself to the consequence of being ticketed. What the limit of national spending is will be brought to clear visibility and precisely defined by the "consequences" that the Cato Institute tweet references.

One solution is for those elected to stop oversized spending to do what they are elected to do. High inflation continues to damage the economy. The national debt is skyrocketing, now more than $34 trillion. Stuffed-pig spending legislation seems to be the rule without exception. When the Republican Party, the political party of the two which holds to principles of fiscal responsibility, wins an election, such as the 2022 Midterm Elections yielded for House Republicans, those elected Republicans are empowered to be a check on the reckless spending that Democrats without which do. When those elected to stop reckless spending fail to do so, there is a threefold result. First, it renders less valuable the electoral choice of voters who elected Republicans to provide fiscal responsibility. Second, it diminishes the Republican Party, which purports itself to stand for fiscal responsibility. This has a real effect beyond merely political rhetoric and abstract ideological debate, and that real effect can be manifested by a tangential down-pulling effect on other Republicans running for office. Third, and perhaps most practically, it allows the reckless spending to continue, furthering an already perilous spending and economic situation.

Advertisement

If Republicans campaign as fiscal hawks who are sincerely tired of the immoral spending practices that the U.S. federal government has engaged in for too long, they must also govern unwaveringly toward that end. Spending beyond sustainable levels will catch our nation up at some point, and the spending hole gets deeper with every oversized spending package it takes to stop spending beyond what is affordable.

Join the conversation as a VIP Member

Recommended

Trending on Twitchy Videos

Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement