OPINION:
We wrote recently on these pages that we must engage in “right-sizing America’s government to protect our economic growth.” That is, we must safeguard the rapid economic growth induced by our major tax reform/tax cut legislation of 2017, and not dissipate it on more wasteful spending as we have in the past and as will be urged by the new “progressive” (not Democratic) majority in the House.
Some federal spending is not only good, but essential to the survival of our nation — national defense being the key, obvious area to secure our freedom and way of life. That streamlining of the military can and should be done is confirmed by the savings and modernization already implemented and projected by the Department of Defense.
But national defense should be priority one. We need solid defense to make clear to our adversaries — Russia and China (and to a lesser extent North Korea and Iran) — that we mean business and that their best response is improving trade and other relations, not building new missiles, armaments and defense outposts (through artificial island garrisons — China) or (invading, or threatening, neighbors who prefer independence — Russia).
President Trump is right to demand more defense spending by NATO allies to protect themselves, so we can reduce our bases abroad in their nations. But we must upgrade and multiply our forces — at home and strategically located around the world — to be credible, as well as highly visible, to China, Russia and the rest who threaten the West, including Iran and the renegade nations of Islam which have been enemies of the United States since the days of our founding.
The liberals/progressives/socialists who now man the oars of the opposition party (whatever it should be called) claim that the funds Mr. Trump has added to the national defense budget are risky because they may increase the national debt. This is from the party whose president, Barack Obama, succeeded during his eight-year residency in the White House in adding more debt than all prior presidents combined — from George Washington to George Bush. At least Mr. Trump has produced growth, which eases debt repayment, unlike Mr. Obama.
Yes, we must bring down our national debt, but we must do it with fair and thoughtful choices on domestic programs, work requirements, devolution of program management to states and local governments, ending “corporate welfare,” farm (especially sugar), and other subsidies. Most important is entitlement reform, which involves the biggest slices of the budget. That is addressed most powerfully by the Plan for America.
The new Plan for America, arising from grassroots conservatives and libertarians, looks to the private sector to provide better benefits for those depending on entitlement programs. Under the Plan for America, workers would each be free to choose lifetime savings and investment to finance their Social Security benefits. That would enable the Middle Class to retire as millionaires, and ultimately end poverty in America.
Under the Plan for America, everyone is guaranteed at least as much in benefits as Social Security promises today. But through a lifetime of private savings and investment through personal accounts (at standard, long term market investment returns and compound interest) seniors would enjoy much higher benefits than Social Security even promises, let alone what it can pay.
The Plan would also finance private health insurance and Health Savings Accounts, chosen in competitive markets by each worker, that would provide better benefits for the poor than Medicaid, for seniors than Medicare, and for everyone else than Obamacare. That includes coverage for pre-existing conditions.
Under the Plan for America, everyone is free to choose the private sector alternatives or remain in the current programs. Under the Plan, financing is secured for all with no benefit cuts. Because the benefits offered under the private alternatives are so much better, experience both at home and abroad shows that the financing problems of the current programs would be eliminated. Indeed, the Plan for America would balance the budget in year one by reducing spending by trillions through better benefits paid by the private sector while reducing taxes by hundreds of billions as well.
As our Chairmen of the Senate and House Armed Services Committees, Sen. Jim Inhofe and Rep. Mac Thornberry, have urged, “we cannot and should not balance our budget on the backs of America’s troops.” We should salute our brave fighting men and women with generosity — not paucity. They put their lives on the line and we must give them everything they need to do their jobs. We can do this — and balance the budget, through the thoughtfully designed Plan for America.
• Lewis K. Uhler is chairman of the National Tax Limitation Committee and Foundation. Peter J. Ferrara is a senior policy adviser for the Foundation and teaches economics at Kings College in New York.
Please read our comment policy before commenting.