Tax increases not required to balance federal budget – it’s fiscal restraint and spending

Dan Mitchell from the Center for Freedom and Prosperity Foundation has a new video out detailing why it is absolutely not necessary to raise taxes to balance the budget. He shows with just a small amount of fiscal restraint, the federal budget can be balanced within six years.

A spending freeze is a good first step, and Mitchell points out that if we do freeze spending at current levels, the budget could be balanced within years instead of decades.

Right at the start of the video, Mitchell points out spending is the problem. He also mentions Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution clearly details what the federal government’s responsibility is. Sound familiar?

Watch the video, but I’ll take Mitchell’s point one step further and remember, his video is very specific to the federal budget issue.

The 10th Amendment is tied to Article 1, Section 8. The 10th is specific … the states and the people (State Legislatures) retain control and all government power that is not defined in Article 1, Section 8. Why is is so hard for politicians to understand this simple fact? If we want those entitlement programs or pork spending projects, they must be funded exclusively at the state and local level.

Of course, we know that the Washington D.C. insiders like their power and control. They want to play their own games with back-room back scratching deals to fund completely unconstitutional pet projects that constantly redistribute cash. They steal from one, and give to another.

Remember the politicians that laugh at you and call you tenthers. Those are the ones who swore an oath to the Constitution. They are liars. They are cheaters. They need to be voted out of office immediately. Drain the swamp of statists like Rep. Jan Schakowsky who only support some parts of the Constitution.

On to the video.


Posted in

Steve McGough

Steve's a part-time conservative blogger. Steve grew up in Connecticut and has lived in Washington, D.C. and the Bahamas. He resides in Connecticut, where he’s comfortable six months of the year.


  1. Odonna on October 4, 2010 at 8:15 am

    I love these CFP primers!

  2. Dimsdale on October 4, 2010 at 8:15 am

    Unfortunately, the old adage about "if you want more of something, you subsidize it; if you want less, you tax it" holds true for buying votes too.


    Sadly, the currency of this vote buying is unnecessary spending.


    Like most laws, the politicians don't think the Constitution applies to them either.

  3. pat on October 5, 2010 at 6:39 am

    Congratulations to Linda M for last night's debate!  I believe she "held her own and clarified her record on 'minimum wage'".  I hope the folks in CT listened very carefully about the issues and will send her to Washington to represent our state.

    I'm afraid of what the effects of Obamacare will have on Medicare for seniors–not to mention the number of physicians that will no longer accept Medicare as an accepted provider of coverage.  We need the health care reform bill repealed and reworked. Most importantly, I hope the politicians in Washington will start WORKING TOGETHER FOR THE PEOPLE–NOT THEMSELVES!

  4. Steve M on October 5, 2010 at 7:07 am

    @pat – Please keep your comments on topic.


The website's content and articles were migrated to a new framework in October 2023. You may see [shortcodes in brackets] that do not make any sense. Please ignore that stuff. We may fix it at some point, but we do not have the time now.

You'll also note comments migrated over may have misplaced question marks and missing spaces. All comments were migrated, but trackbacks may not show.

The site is not broken.