Richard J Grant

Published in The Tennessean , Sunday, December 23, 2012 and at FORBES with archives . by Richard J. Grant November 2012 was an expensive month for Americans in more ways than one. In simple fiscal terms, the U.S. government spent $333.8 billion last month. Half of that was borrowed (government receipts were only $161.7 billion), but November was not an average month. Nevertheless, it was consistent with the bias toward rising government outlays. The 2012 fiscal year, which ended in September, ran up a deficit of just over $1 trillion. That was not quite a third of the $3.5 trillion that the federal government spent last year. The 2011 fiscal year had a proportionately higher deficit and, at just over $3.6 trillion, the highest level of spending in history. When adjusted for inflation, it roughly ties 2009 for the highest level of real spending. The extraordinary 18-percent leap in government spending during 2009 was due in part to the addition of new “stimulus” funding as we...

Published in The Tennessean , Sunday, December 9, 2012 and at FORBES with archives . by Richard J. Grant As a society advances, the ability to provide a “safety net” for those who have suffered some type of misfortune increases. But, perhaps paradoxically, that very advancement should also reduce the perceived need for such a safety net. Advanced societies, which necessarily have relatively well-developed property rights and legal systems, are characterized by rising levels of productivity and income. Over time, the proportion of the population living in poverty, as measured by some objective and absolute standard, should be declining. If that is not the case, or is no longer the case, then it is a sure sign that the protection of property rights is in retreat. Certainly, as our standards of living rise, our perceptions of what constitutes poverty might also rise. This is why various Western governments currently define poverty relative to some average income and can include ...

Published at FORBES with archives. A shortened version was published in The Tennessean , Sunday, December 2, 2012. by Richard J. Grant The only politicians who are serious about limiting taxes are those who are serious about limiting government spending. Any vote for spending increases is a vote for increased taxes to be paid either now or in the future. Much of the perceived tax burden can be shifted into the future by deficit spending, which means increased government borrowing. By shifting the perceived burden onto future taxpayers, politicians make their current government spending appear to be less burdensome than it actually is. This illusion is compounded by the belief of many voters that someone else is also bearing the direct cost of current taxes. Where once there was a stigma against indebtedness, especially to excess, this has broken down over the past century. Politicians, recognizing the value of spending to their reelection chances, welcomed any theory that cou...