Harry Browne's stand on the National Debt

Overview

The federal debt isn't just a bookkeeping curiosity. Every debt incurred on your behalf by the politicians increases the interest cost you have to pay each year.

Today Americans pay over a quarter of a trillion dollars a year in interest expenses. This is what you're paying for the failed political schemes of yesteryear -- schemes that were supposed to make health care more affordable, improve education, or clean up the environment. But the schemes failed, the politicians who created them retired with generous pensions, and you were left paying the interest expense year after year. We must get rid of that interest expense by retiring the entire federal debt.

The Quotable Harry Browne: on the Federal Debt

"I want to pay off the federal debt by auctioning off the assets the government shouldn't own -- western lands, power companies, unused military bases, and commodity reserves. The first proceeds from these sales should buy private retirement accounts for everyone dependent on Social Security. The remaining proceeds should pay down the federal debt. No one can know in advance what the assets will bring in the open market; the estimates have ranged from $5 trillion to $50 trillion. But if they bring in just $12 trillion, we can solve the Social Security problem once and for all, cover the other unfunded liabilities of the federal government, and pay off the entire national debt."

How to Pay off the Federal Debt and Save Social Security at the Same Time

You might assume that nearly all of what you pay in income tax is used to pay for current government programs, but that isn't the way it works. One quarter of your income tax is used to pay the interest on the national debt. In fact, you pay almost as much for interest as you pay for national defense or welfare.

If we paid off the national debt those interest payments would disappear and this alone would reduce your income tax by nearly a third. I have a plan to do just that. Better still, this plan would also protect the environment and allow us to fund the Social Security privatization plan I described above.

I want to auction off all the federal government's assets that have nothing to do with its constitutional responsibilities. These assets include one third of all the land in the United States, plus power companies, pipelines, commodity reserves, oil and mineral rights, unused military bases, hundreds of thousands of federal buildings, and a host of other properties.

Many people believe these assets are being held in trust to protect them from exploitation, but the truth is otherwise. For instance, many public lands are actually leased out to private interests for mining, grazing, drilling, and logging. Unfortunately, the government loses money on these leases -- and you not only have to pay for the losses, but also for the damage done to the properties.

Even so, you might expect that selling these properties would remove what little protection the government is still able to provide. But this assumes the federal government actually protects these properties. It doesn't. The Interior Department is already $12 billion behind in needed maintenance, and in many cases the government is actually ruining the properties it's supposed to protect.

For example, government mismanagement has obliterated most of the seed-bearing pines in the Blue Mountains of Oregon, and subjected the entire forest to a plague of destructive insects.

But a neighboring forest owned by Boise Cascade is perfectly healthy. This private company takes care of its property because it wants to make sure it will still be valuable 20 or 50 years from now. Boise Cascade has maintained the Ponderosa Pine forest that stood in the Blue Mountains 100 years ago. And this is only one example. Even the National Forest Service officials admit that old growth habitats fare better on private lands.

The same is true for mining and drilling. Private owners want to resell their lands at a good price after they extract the minerals, so they have a vested interest in protecting and restoring them. The government has no such incentive, because no one will suffer financially if its properties deteriorate.

My proposal will halt the continued exploitation and destruction of government-owned natural resources by politically powerful private interests. It will put those resources in the hands of private owners and conservation organizations who will care for them because they're concerned about the future value.

The Democratic and Republican approaches harm the environment, and impoverish you in order to pay interest on the failed government programs of yesteryear.

My approach not only helps the environment, it will pay off the national debt, cut your taxes, expand the economy, and fund the privatization of Social Security. Which approach do you prefer?

Your vote for me to be the first Libertarian President will send a clear message that the politicians can no longer run up bills in your name.

-- Uncle Deedah (unkeed@yahoo.com), March 16, 2000

Answers

yes why can't they pay for government expenditure out of current revenue

why can't I pay for my expenditure out of my checking account

probably for the same reason, financial stupidity, I expect more than I get

-- richard (richard.dale@onion.com), March 16, 2000.

Thanks,

We need to hear more from this guy.

-- Rick (rick7@postmark.net), March 16, 2000.

Theeerrrrreeeee'llllll be pie in the sky by and by - - -

Why is it people always get fascinated by the idea of getting something for nothing? Can't be done folks, can't be done.

Just to correct a few misstatements here:

Today Americans pay over a quarter of a trillion dollars a year in interest expenses. This is what you're paying for the failed political schemes of yesteryear -- schemes that were supposed to make health care more affordable, improve education, or clean up the environment. But the schemes failed, the politicians who created them retired with generous pensions, and you were left paying the interest expense year after year.

(((WRONG! About 3/4 of the Federal debt was incurred under the Reagan/Bush Administration, most of it in a futile attempt to enlarge the military AND stimulate the economy at the same time. Guns and Butter, in other words. Didn't work for Johnson, didn't work for them. {sure, you get temporary relief, but the hangover's a bitch})))

I want to auction off all the federal government's assets that have nothing to do with its constitutional responsibilities. These assets include one third of all the land in the United States, plus power companies, pipelines, commodity reserves, oil and mineral rights, unused military bases, hundreds of thousands of federal buildings, and a host of other properties.

(((At least three Administrations have tried to do this since I was a pup. Congress won't let it be done.)))

To be blunt, it sounds good, but the potential for abuse is AWESOME! Last time it was tried, the President, who had pushed for the plan, finally had to threaten to veto it and it died in Congress once again! Why the veto threat? Because the 'good old boys' had put in requirements that ANYONE who was USING Federal land would get the right to buy it for LESS than one years rent! How much debt will you pay off when you sell the land for $1.00 per acre or less?

And, BTW, how much is your house worth? How much do you want to see it drop in price? Don't you think a FLOOD of land coming onto the market might just have that effect? If I can buy 100 acres for less than a thousand bucks, why am I interested in paying 200K for your place? I'll just look for a telecommuting job that pays less, after all, the house payment just went down a LOT!

There ain't no such thing as a free lunch.

-- Paul Davis (davisp1953@yahoo.com), March 20, 2000.

Paul,

You wrote

Today Americans pay over a quarter of a trillion dollars a year in interest expenses. This is what you're paying for the failed political schemes of yesteryear -- schemes that were supposed to make health care more affordable, improve education, or clean up the environment. But the schemes failed, the politicians who created them retired with generous pensions, and you were left paying the interest expense year after year.

(((WRONG! About 3/4 of the Federal debt was incurred under the Reagan/Bush Administration, most of it in a futile attempt to enlarge the military AND stimulate the economy at the same time. Guns and Butter, in other words. Didn't work for Johnson, didn't work for them. {sure, you get temporary relief, but the hangover's a bitch})))

What does it matter where the debt came from?

And as for the rest of your post, it seems to me that rather than refute the validity of the Harry's ideas you have merely pointed out pitfalls to be wary of when executing them.

One last point, just who is looking for a free lunch? You must have us confused with the other two parties.

-- Uncle Deedah (unkeed@yahoo.com), March 20, 2000.