Thursday, August 20, 2026

Our politicians will never agree, but we can dream...

 

My hat's off to President Milei of Argentina for his "Grillete Fiscal" proposal - literally, the "Fiscal Shackles".  He wants to make sure that no future Argentinian government commits the same economic errors that have doomed the nation to half a century or more of economic fluctuations, fiscal irresponsibility, and near-bankruptcy.


Milei first unveiled the proposal in his characteristically entertaining style during a televised address to the Argentine people. The bill must still be approved by Congress, where his party, La Libertad Avanza, is expected to secure the support of allied parliamentary factions in both chambers.

Although Milei lacks a parliamentary majority of his own, his alliances have thus far proved remarkably resilient.

If enacted, the legislation would break with one of modern politics' unwritten rules: the assumption that governments can always buy votes with higher spending, higher taxes, and ever more debt. The business of burdening future generations and taxpayers with politically manufactured credit expansion would, at least for the time being, come to an end.

Milei's idea is straightforward: future Argentine governments should have their wings clipped before they are even able to take flight on another debt-financed spending spree.

The mechanism is equally straightforward. Should the federal budget remain in deficit for several consecutive months, Congress would be given a deadline to restore fiscal balance. Failure to do so would automatically trigger a U.S.-style government shutdown. Non-essential government activities would be suspended automatically—without further parliamentary debate or political horse-trading. The President, Vice President, cabinet ministers, state secretaries, and every member of both houses of Congress would receive not a single peso in salary until the budget is balanced once again.

Furthermore, all new spending would be frozen. No new contracts could be awarded, and no additional public employees could be hired. Even more striking, discretionary transfers from the federal government to Argentina's provinces would also be suspended.

At the same time, the law deliberately protects the state's core responsibilities. Pension payments, healthcare services, unemployment benefits, as well as the salaries of police officers, members of the armed forces, and correctional staff would remain fully exempt from these austerity measures.


There's more at the link.

I'd dearly love to see similar principles enshrined in US law.  It would take years to achieve, because we'd have to pay down our enormous national debt first;  but it would shackle the hands of future politicians, and stop them buying votes by enacting legislation for massive handouts to attract supporters.  We'd also have to figure out how to keep essential functions (e.g. defense, etc.) going when we're savagely cutting back everywhere else.

There's also the question of what to do with the literally hundreds of millions of Americans (and others) who are dependent on government handouts to a greater or lesser extent.  They'd have to be "weaned" over a period of time, to allow them to grow accustomed to the idea that nobody's going to pay them to live at taxpayer expense any longer.  Expect civil unrest as a minimum;  possibly riots to make the George Floyd/BLM brouhaha look like a Sunday school picnic . . . but it's still an attractive idea.

All those difficulties notwithstanding, unless we can enact some form of President Milei's program here, I can't see how our present system of government can survive in the medium to long term.

Peter


13 comments:

  1. "...hundreds of millions of Americans..?"

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yes, hundreds of millions. Estimates I've read indicate that more than 60% of Americans are receiving government benefits/handouts in one or more forms, and many who don't are favored with a tax system that, every year, gives them a "refund" they haven't earned via the Earned Income Tax Credit.

      Delete
  2. '...It would take years to achieve, because we'd have to pay down our enormous national debt first;...'

    Would we? Why not pass a balanced budget bill with stout guardrails that prohibit overspending? Balance the annual budget first, and then start chipping away at the debt. Stop the bleeding, heal the wound.

    ReplyDelete
  3. The idea seems good on the surface, and would be useful in many western countries. The problem is ensuring that future politicians abide by it.

    I'm afraid I think that even in the event such a plan is adopted, a government with a sufficient majority who wishes to overspend will simply pass some legislation that temporarily or permanently overrides the constraints.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Dear Sir,
    I am 100% in agreement with the entire concept outlined above.
    Except:
    having begun paying into FDR's scam since the age of 14 (I am now over 85), I would like to be able to retrieve some of that government-enforced tax on my income that they promised me would be held for me when I would need it in my elder years.
    I am now being taxed somewhere over 20% on the pittance they do return.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Peter, I love the concept and would gladly support it, but without a constitutional amendment to establish it, it won't be worth the paper it's printed on. It's a well established concept that anything done by a current congress cannot limit a future congress as that congress has the ability to amend or revoked the prior actions. Nonetheless, I'd love to see something like this that would stop congressional and executive salary payments in the event of a government shut down.

    I would also exercise caution about your blanket statment regarding the high number of government benefits/handouts. As a seasoned citizen I receive both social security (which I paid for for over 50 years) and medicare (again I paid for it, am still paying for it and have no choice in whether or not I take it.) I suspect that those are both included in the category of "benefits/handouts". I also suspect that many military benefits such as pensions and medical benefits are also included in that number. I could be wrong, but that's what I've seen in past claims about the vast number of citizens receiving "handouts".

    ReplyDelete
  6. " Nonetheless, I'd love to see something like this that would stop congressional and executive salary payments in the event of a government shut down. "

    What makes you think that they need their nominal pay after being in the job for more than a few months or at most one year? They are allowed to play the stock market using their insider knowledge, which seems to be the reason they become multimillionaires pretty quickly. Just one of the ways to enrich themselves.

    ReplyDelete
  7. I honestly think Warren Buffet's idea is the best. Much simpler to implement.

    ReplyDelete
  8. This would be perfect for the USA, about 100 years ago.

    ReplyDelete
  9. According to Social Security, my employers and I have paid over half of a million dollars into Social Security and Medicare since 1975. I doubt that I will see much of this back to me in the form of Social Security payments and "free" Medicare part A health insurance.

    ReplyDelete
  10. I would sure like to get my money back. At least I would not hand it out to people who do not deserve it.

    ReplyDelete
  11. > I honestly think Warren Buffet's idea is the best. Much simpler to implement.

    What is Buffet's idea?

    ReplyDelete

  12. W/ respect to the guy talking about social security:

    Social security was always a Ponzi scheme. Gen X will never get what they're owed from it, much less millennials, gen-z or gen alpha. The greatest generation got the first bite, but they were small, so it wasn't obvious yet. Then the silents, but they were even smaller, so it still wasn't obvious. Then the boomers entered. And it was obvious from day one, that social security was a pyramid scheme enforced by men with guns. I'm almost 40, I've been paying into social security as a self employed business owner since I was 22 (16, technically, but wasn't self employed business owner until 22). The businesses changed three times, the social security tax remained mandatory. I've paid over 170k into social security, and I know I'll never see a dime of it. If I'd been given the option to waive any right to receive social security, in exchange for not paying the tax, I'd have taken it. That option was never available. I had to pay into something I knew from 18 I would never benefit from, or I'd go to prison. So did all my peers, and my parents. And my son's. Anyone kvetching in their 80s about wanting their social security that they "earned" can go jump in a lake. You benefited from theft. Thank the Lord for what you got, and that we who were robbed aren't taking it out on you who were paid from our stolen wages.

    ReplyDelete

ALL COMMENTS ARE MODERATED. THEY WILL APPEAR AFTER OWNER APPROVAL, WHICH MAY BE DELAYED.