Justin Amash: Any Sequester Alternative Must Cut at Least as Much

When it comes to the sequester, Amash tells Reason that any deal to avoid automatic spending cuts on March 1 should reduce federal spending by at least $85 billion and that under no circumstances should taxes be raised. Amash says that as far as he knows, there are no talks going on between GOP leadership and the president to avert the sequester.

This is part of a longer interview with the man considered the likely heir to retired Rep. Ron Paul's role as the most libertarian member of the House of Representatives. Check back soon for the full conversation.

[shansen]

They like an even playing field, until they get full control. From that point on, the level playing field becomes the enemy....because they realize that they have to always work as hard as they did to get on top, to STAY on top.

[ekcoylejr]

I find it disingenuous to speak of this"sequestration" as a legitimate effort at curtailing spending. I am disappointed after after hearing Sen. Amash for the first time.

[stevemcgee]

What? 2 minutes and I understood everything he said, and he answered the questions directly?

[Loathomar]

Then reading about the sequester, the amount that is most often used is "$2.4T over 10 years" which means ~$240B per year on average. Now I can understand a lower start and increasing these "cuts" by as much as 5% per year, but that even at a 10% increase per year, you would need to start are $177B per year to get to "$2.4T over 10 years"... Reasons?

[UTubekookdetector]

I concur (except for maybe some of the profanity, no offence). Shut down HUD, the Dept. of Ed & the Dept. of Energy while we're on a roll.

[nathanatramp]

That's precisely the problem. When the public sector restricts what the private sector can do, then the excuse can always be used that "the private sector can't do X, therefore government." At what point is there a line of growing public sector power? We used to think that the post office was public only, but look at what private companies can do now! And yet we're still left holding the bag of an unprofitable public "service" called USPS.

[XCritonX]

When you make a budget you start with asking "How much money do I have?".
Next, you prioritize your expenses in a list (line item, not department).
Finally, starting at the top, you pay off as much as you can working your way down.
When you run out of money the bottom stuff gets pushed off into the future or defunded. If you do it right, only optional expenses will be unfunded.
Why cant government ever use that simple approach?
Oh, and I want to see the priority list before it is final.

[temujin]

I have the impression that he would reject a larger budget cut if it contained any tax increase at all. Libertarians seem more concerned about cutting taxes than actually reducing spending or the deficit. If you were just as devout towards cutting the larger part of the federal budget, non discretionary spending, I'd be all aboard.

[daobagua]

So you are pretty much a libertarian then. End subsidies to big corporations (and all subsidies). Having a minimum safety net is not Anti libertarian (look at milton friedmens negative income tax which is almost perfectly described by you).

[Trepur]

Mandatory spending is where its at. I would be willing to accept discretionary spending increases in any department by any number if we the person offering the increases also had a solution to make entitlements perfectly sustainable.

[mizzoulibertarian]

sorry about the cursing.We have the big mo. mccain and graham and obama are feeling heat. rand just changed the game. it only take one match to start a forest fire.

[daobagua]

Except capital gains is taken after corporate tax is already paid. So there are two taxes on the income of a business.

[DaveTheTuberx]

Agreed. A more libertarian-leaning path is the only way in which the GOP has any sort of future in American politics.

[tyronejones]

Its funny that the sequester is only 85 billion and thats the number the fed pumps into the market every month.

[rightwing]

Look, he may not be perfect, but this guy is the closest thing to sanity in a city of delusion and hypocrisy.

[JoeBlue]

Well I don't expect many too. When is the last time you heard of anyone taking a class on formal Logic?

[echatav]

I don't think it's a fair description of libertarians to say they are more concerned with cutting taxes than spending. Libertarians consider all government spending to be a tax, whether it's paid directly in taxes or through deficit (future taxes) or inflation. I can see what you're saying though. The pressure on politicians is more about taxes since that's what voters notice most. I think taxes are probably the least bad way to pay for spending for that precise reason.

[fishblades]

He said Go Blue, the 3rd District must be near Ann Arbor. I grew up in Lansing so go GREEEEN.

[goodbyetroll]

exactly, even the conservatives are playing their game by even talking about this garbage.

[IAMtheNewWorldOrder]

We need the government to do what the private sector can't do, and we need the private sector to do what the government can't. And yes, contrary to right wing belief, there ARE some things the private sector can't do, or shouldn't do, that the government should.

This inflated military budget is insane, the coprorate welfare we give to big oil and big agro in the form of subsidies is insane, but taking care of single mothers who work, but make minimum wage, is not insane, it's a GOOD idea.