The
following was written in November 2013 as a response to the
questionnaire for federal candidates seeking an endorsement from the
Liberty Caucus of the Republican Conference (i.e., the Republican
Party).
Here is the link to the original questionnaire:
http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CC4QFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwi.rlc.org%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2010%2F05%2FFederal-Candidate-Questionnaire.doc&ei=u3B8UqXbBqPiiwL2ioCoDg&usg=AFQjCNHAzM58Dr-APGVchRKzOkVV0TKRyw&sig2=qStOgZ0RAgXVAbnHi2kFtw
This is my answer to Question #6.
6.
B
(From
the current level, federal government spending should decrease,
returning any surpluses to the private sector through debt repayments
and/or tax decreases rather than increase or be set at some
undetermined level)
Federal
government spending should (B)
decrease, returning any surpluses to the private sector through debt
repayments and/or tax decreases. I
would not favor (A
and C) increasing
spending because I believe that we can and should reduce spending and
eventually reduce taxes without
ceasing federal involvement in any programs which cannot be
administered without the assistance of the federal government.
I
would not favor (D) setting
spending at whatever level is necessary to fund worthwhile government
programs,
because I feel that this attitude reflects a lack of principles about
the proper role, size, and scope of government, and that it is a
slippery slope to lack of fiscal restraint, deficits, and unfunded
liabilities.
As
such, I would support efforts to pass a balanced budget amendment,
and I would enthusiastically consider – but be cautious to approve
– any proposed Cut-Cap-and-Balance-type legislation.
For
more entries on budgets, finance, debt, and the bailouts, please
visit:
No comments:
Post a Comment