Prev Next
Featured Quizzes
Politix Daily Headlines
Featured Debates
Issues

See all 19 issues

RISING ON THE RIGHT

Is a Former Ron Paul Staffer the Next Grover Norquist?

If he is, it'll be due to spending concerns, not taxes

Next>

by Dain Fitzgerald

Staff Writer t +

Bydlak stumping for Ron Paul in 2008 / Image: YouTube

The efforts of the Ron Paul campaign continues to bear fruit, this time in the form of a 29-year-old former hedge fund staffer who's being dubbed the next Grover Norquist.

Jonathan Bydlak is a Princeton graduate who worked in 2008 for Ron Paul's energized but ultimately doomed quest for the presidency, and he's gaining traction as head of the Coalition to Reduce Spending, an organization that aims to do precisely what it says on the tin.

CRS is modeled after anti-tax icon Grover Norquist's Americans For Tax Reform, which is why Bydlak is being considered a follower in his fiscally-minded footsteps. But unlike Norquist, Bydlak is all about putting a lid on borrowing, rather than taxation, as Business Insider's Grace Wyler points out.

"For a long time, Grover's pledge made sense because the fear of raising taxes was a check on the fear of raising spending," says Bydlak. "But the political climate has changed - there is far more of a willingness to borrow than before, and that requires a new solution."

Part of his solution has come in the form of the Norquist-approved tactic of the pledge. CRS' pledge from lawmakers to reduce spending has thus far garnered 24 signatures, including those of Sen. Ted Cruz and Rep. David Hancock.

Via Business Insider.
Like this article? B Vote Up
?

Is spending more important than taxation for the country's fiscal solvency?

View results

42 Comments (view in Forum)

  • MBernard
    !
    Any normal govt system will want to do both that is in the situation that America finds herself in right now. We need to cut spending or be smart about spending and raising taxes.
  • Thunderchicken
    !
    I think of government as a consumer of wealth, There's only so much wealth the government can take out of the private sector before the private sector shuts down. (That's what we've been seeing in advance of the fiscal cliff.) We've got to get serious about cutting spending. If we don't nothing else will matter.
  • DARSB
    !
    I don't entirely follow this logic, "can take out of the private sector before the private sector shuts down." It seems to assume the government removes wealth from the economy, and keeps it. But isn't it true that the government puts money back into the economy in terms of goods and services purchased, not to mention the multiplier effect of government employee salaries?

    Anyway, as for this cap on borrowing idea, it is a logical step after the Norquist no-new-taxes pledge (which is not to say I think Norquist is correct). But, as with Grover's crusade, I don't much like people I never voted for trying to have an outsized influence over my government and my Representatives.
  • Thunderchicken
    !
    @DARSB

    The government doesn't keep wealth, it disperses it. Simply shuffling money around doesn't build wealth. If one wants to build wealth,(or in our government's case pay down debt) one has to have in income larger than expenditures.

    I see the private sector as a generator of wealth. But the more the government takes out of the private sector, the less wealth the private sector can generate.

    Now having the government disperse wealth is not entirely a bad thing. Unless the government has to take so much out of the private sector that it stalls the generator. The only long tern solution is to shrink the government's need for private wealth. Borrowing and printing only forestall the inevitable crash that will happen.

    I'm no economist (obviously) but I know what has worked in my life. And what has worked for me is to live below my income.
  • Calfkiller
    !
    Until the left's thirst for revenge against the 'wealthy' is satisfied I don't believe any sensible argument is going to sink in. The problem is that they will never be satisfied and therefore never become sensible. Don't get me wrong the Republicans are equally to blame for our spending problems, in their own right.
  • stepped_in_it
    !
    HMMM, as for my family "budget", I tried the "work 80 hours thing". I got tired and the "family" spent more. Divorced that "family", worked less hours and controlled my spending....budget crisis solved! Vicious cycle. Spend more, borrow more, tax more. Pretty soon, you can't borrow more or tax more....then what?
  • Thunderchicken
    !
    I've been there too. The first step when your expenditures exceed your income is to cut spending. Spending is completely under your control. Income often isn't.
  • stepped_in_it
    !
    Ok, we talk about entitlement cuts (Social Security, Medicare & welfare programs). They "supposedly" make up approx 62% of the fed budget (22% medicare/medicaid health care 21% Social sec 19% welfare/other).
    Knowing average income is $44,300. SS and medicare tax at 7.1% of that (44,300 X 7.1%=$3145 a yr).$3145 X 100 million (employed workers)= A LOT OF MONEY!
    Can someone tell me how much "taxes" are taken in from welfare/medicaid....etc recipients?(last I looked....I think ZERO).
    Now, exactly which one is an "entitlement" and which one is not?
  • Dan_Tien
    !
    @stepped_in_it On a personal level, making more money often does not mean that you have more money because it gets spent. So your standard of living may improve but you don't have more money in the bank. It takes discipline and planning to save the extra money that you make. I would never call Congress disciplined or cooperative.

  • Load more replies >

  • Neo_NtheMatrix
    !
    The poll doesn't make sense. It asks, "Is spending more important than taxation for the country's fiscal solvency?" No, it's not more important, it's equally as important. We need to control spending and taxation in this country. Both are way out of control, and both are detrimental to the success of our nation. I just can't understand why in a time of such national crisis would a president be demanding to increase taxes on the population while also proposing to spend more money.

    Me an my wife have balanced our family budget many times, sometimes making some very difficult and painful decisions. We never thought the solution to a financial crunch was to both demand our employers give us more money and then decide to spend even more money. Does that rationale make any sense to anyone who isn't a liberal? Money doesn't grown on trees.
  • LGRepublican
    !
    It's pretty simple. It doesn't matter if your talking about a family, a business, or the government, if you continue to spend $2 when you only make $1, eventually the credit card maxes out. Even if you manage to increase your income to $2, it STILL won't be enough because that just keeps you level with spending, it doesn't help pay off your debt or the interest accumulating on that debt. The ONLY way to solve the budget problems is to cut spending.
  • jessejaymes
    !
    When my wife and I made 19,000.00 the first year we were married we spent what we had. When we made 200,000.00 a year a decade later? Spent what we had. But after a few years of living large we learned to save some, invest some, and still live nicely. Our government spends on things unimaginable. They spent millions to develop a phone app to tell soldiers when to go on a coffee break. They spend 300.00 for a hammer and 1,500.00 for a toilet seat.

    I'm at the head of the line wanting the rich to pay the same percentage on income (regardless of source) that I do. But this spending has to stop. Liberals say raise taxes and spend spend spend. Conservatives say no taxes and spend spend spend. It's just a matter of which side wants to spend on what. Until the voters refuse to re - elect anyone for about two voting cycles (12 years) in both the Senate and House, nothing changes. Which party holds the presidency is of little to no impact compared to those spending IDIOTS from BOTH parties in Congress. Re-elect NO ONE.
  • harold_lloyd
    !
    There should be the choice of,"All the above."
    The important thing is to not spend more than we tax, except in emergencies.
    Right now, it's more imortant to focus on the debt. It needs to be going down, however little.
  • harold_lloyd
    !
    Let him lobby and pontificate, but I don't want any politician I vote for to have anything to do with any commitment or pledge to anyone but the voters in the district.
  • Denizen_Kate
    !
    Dear PolitixDain, please give us a third choice on this poll: Both taxes and spending cuts are needed.

    And BTW, do we need a "next Grover Norquist"? I think the current one is already too many.