Guests - Murray Sabrin, Janet Wittenbraker

Restoring Constitutional Fiscal Responsibility: An Economic Vision for America

The Unconstitutional Growth of Federal Spending

Dr. Murray Sabrin, Mises Institute Associated Scholar and Emeritus Professor of Finance at Ramapo College of New Jersey, offered a sobering assessment of America's fiscal situation during the first 100 days of Donald Trump's presidency. Rather than celebrating the administration's early actions, Sabrin called for a fundamental reorientation of federal spending priorities.

"I wish Donald Trump would make a statement to the American people along the lines of my recent Mises Institute essays saying we need a constitutional federal budget," Sabrin explained. "If you look at the Constitution, Article 1, Section 8, and you look at the federal budget, there's a real disconnect."

According to Sabrin, this disconnect lies at the heart of America's fiscal troubles. "The federal government spends the taxpayer's money on things not authorized by Article 1, Section 8. Therefore, the 10th Amendment says if it's not authorized by the federal government, then it diverts to the states or the people."

This constitutional principle would radically transform the federal government's role in American society. "All the social welfare spending, all the grants that the federal government does should be done by the states, if people in those states want it, or it should be done by the people through the nonprofit sector," Sabrin argued. "We have the most vibrant nonprofit sector in the history of the world. They provide social services from Hurricane A to housing, to food banks, to medical care."

Sabrin emphasized that this approach represents the return to America's traditional values: "Everything the federal government does to try to help people can be done through the old-fashioned American ethic of philanthropy and volunteerism."

The Bipartisan Nature of Fiscal Irresponsibility

Sabrin stressed that excessive government spending isn't a partisan issue - both major political parties bear responsibility. "This is a fundamental constitutional and philosophical issue. It's not a partisan issue. Both parties are responsible for the $37 trillion in debt, the $7 trillion plus budget and the $2 trillion deficit as far as I can see."

He called for President Trump to adopt a more statesmanlike approach: "Trump needs to get into that mode of he's president of 340 million people. He has enormous powers. He should work with the Congress on both sides of the aisle and say, 'Gentlemen and ladies, we have a problem. It's called excessive spending and unconstitutional spending. And we need to do something about it. Otherwise, we go off the fiscal cliff.'"

Sabrin urged Trump to address the American people in relatable terms: "No household can spend more than they take in. No businesses can spend more than they take in. So therefore the government shouldn't be able to do that either."

The current system, Sabrin explained, depends on the Federal Reserve to perpetuate unsustainable spending: "The government has a backstop for the Federal Reserve because they buy up some of the debt that the federal government issues in order to balance its budget. So we need to address the Federal Reserve issue, which is printing money, buying up government debt, manipulating interest rates, and the federal budget, which is basically out of control."

The Historical Roots of America's Fiscal Crisis

Sabrin traced the origins of America's fiscal problems to two watershed events in 1913: the ratification of the 16th Amendment, which authorized the federal income tax, and the creation of the Federal Reserve.

"1913 was basically an effective overthrow of the principles of the American Revolution, of the Declaration of Independence," Sabrin stated. "What 1913 did is put tremendous power in the hands of the Washington bureaucrats."

The evolution of the income tax illustrates this power shift: "The income tax had grown from a minuscule revenue raiser to $4 trillion a year. And when the income tax was proposed, the proponents said this would be a rich man's tax, only 2% of the population would pay it. And now virtually everyone pays it."

Sabrin contrasted this reality with political rhetoric about tax fairness: "The top 10% of income earners in America pay 72% of the federal income tax. While the bottom 50% of income earners pay 3% of the income tax. So when Bernie Sanders and AOC decry the notion of people not paying their fair share, they don't know what they're talking about."

The American Empire and Perpetual Warfare

Sabrin connected America's fiscal crisis to its global military footprint: "We've become this huge empire. We have troops all around the world, which don't protect our borders. We have troops, bases all over the world. And Trump is right. We have to end these endless wars."

The costs of this military posture have been staggering: "We've been in perpetual war footing since the end of World War II - Korea, Vietnam, the Middle East, South America. I mean, it would be all over the place. And what have we gotten for it? Absolutely nothing. All that money has been borrowed, by the way. Trillions of dollars has been borrowed to create this welfare warfare state."

Sabrin reminded listeners that President Eisenhower foresaw these dangers: "President Eisenhower warned us about the military industrial complex in his farewell address in 1961. So we're now seeing the consequences of big government domestically and internationally."

A Vision for Economic Reform

Sabrin offered several concrete proposals for economic reform, starting with a bold tax policy change:

"The President should propose, and the Congress should quickly enact, an elimination of the corporate income tax, which raises around $530 billion a year. That would make the United States one of the freest economies on the planet, and would attract businesses from all over the world, because they would not pay any income tax on their profits in the United States."

To offset the revenue reduction, Sabrin suggested targeting unconstitutional spending: "In order to cut revenue by $530 billion, he easily can cut $530 billion out of the budget, because you have so many expenditures that are not authorized. We can start with the Department of Education and all the aid to colleges and universities. They have huge endowments, many of the big colleges and universities. Why are they subsidized by people in Arizona and Texas and Florida where I live?"

These reforms would return America to its founding principles: "We need to get back to a simple principle, financial independence, that an adult human being is responsible for their own well-being. That means getting a job, starting a business, earning money, and spending it as you see fit, as Thomas Jefferson articulated in his inaugural address in 1801."

Reforming Healthcare and Social Security

Sabrin criticized the current healthcare system as fundamentally misaligned:

"Most of the medical care in the United States is paid by government. That's not a vision that the founders looked to in America. We really need to restructure the economy in many ways, just like the Soviet Union had to restructure when it fell apart and it became Russia, because we have so much bloat in the government."

He highlighted the accountability problem in government spending: "When you're a bureaucrat in Washington and the state capitol, it's not your money. So you don't care if it's spent wisely because that money is always going to come to you through the next year's appropriation."

Regarding Social Security, Sabrin challenged common perceptions: "Most people think Social Security is an earned right. Well, in 1960, the Supreme Court ruled against a worker who worked 19 years and put money for Social Security, but because he was a communist, the government denied him Social Security benefits, and the Supreme Court upheld that. So the notion that you own, you have a right to Social Security was blown out of the water in 1960 in a famous case of the Supreme Court, Nesta vs. Fleming."

Instead of government programs, Sabrin advocated for a transition to individual accounts: "In my Mises essay that I wrote two months ago, I do an outline of how we can move people from Social Security and Medicare and Medicaid into their own savings accounts, into their own medical accounts, and not rely on taxpayer dollars, but rely on themselves, their neighbors, their community through philanthropy if necessary."

Medical Care Reform

Sabrin has written extensively about healthcare reform, advocating for a system based on individual responsibility rather than third-party payment:

"The single payer would be the individual, not the government. This is the opposite of Bernie Sanders who wants Medicare for all. I'm saying we should have a medical system based upon the doctor-patient relationship, and we should only have insurance for catastrophic illnesses, not going to the doctor for a sore throat or an ingrown toenail."

He identified the core problem with the current system: "Insurance has been corrupted by the people, by the government, by the bureaucrats. Insurance is supposed to be a very small part of medical care. Instead, it's an all-encompassing approach to medical care."

Sabrin contrasted today's healthcare with his experience growing up: "When I was growing up in the '50s and '60s, you go to the doctor, you pay a $5 visit. There's no insurance, no copay, no deductibles. You get a prescription if you need it and antibiotic for an illness. And you go to the local pharmacy, you pay a few bucks. There's no copay, no insurance, deductible. That is the way that I grew up learning about medicine and how medicine works."

The current system, he argued, has become financially unsustainable: "Today, medicine is a $5 trillion sector of the U.S. economy. Nearly $1 out of $5 spent in the United States is for medical care, which is much greater than any other nation in the world."

Global Trade and Manufacturing

When asked about America's reliance on foreign manufacturing, particularly for pharmaceuticals, Sabrin offered a nuanced view of global trade:

"The reason that we have goods from overseas is because there are advantages to having goods produced overseas because it's very expensive to produce a lot of things in America because of the high cost of labor, the high cost of regulations, taxes."

He explained this within the context of business evolution: "Companies have been doing this since the beginning of the republic, trying to find the low cost areas. For example, in the 1950s and '60s, the textile mills left the northeast of the United States, went down south because labor was cheap. Then what happened? Labor got more expensive and companies went overseas."

Rather than viewing this as problematic, Sabrin saw it as a natural economic process: "This is a natural progression of companies trying to figure out where they can get the most bang for the buck and consumers want to get most bang for the buck. So this is the give and take, if you will, of the marketplace. And it works out beautifully because the United States is one big free trade area."

He contrasted this with the tariff approach advocated by some: "So we know historically tariffs are poison, especially tariffs that are so outrageous that it makes it difficult for goods to cross borders."

The Path Forward and America's 250th Anniversary

As the United States approaches its 250th anniversary in 2026, Sabrin offered a vision for returning to constitutional principles:

"Trump has this opportunity, he has the platform. And instead of going to these rallies and talking about sleepy Joe Biden, who cares about sleepy Joe Biden? We have a fundamental financial crisis evolving in this country and Trump needs to address it."

Sabrin urged a return to the principles of the Declaration of Independence: "The Founders got it right. We have dropped the ball over the past 200 years, and that's why government has grown so much."

He emphasized the importance of peaceful international relations: "We have to stop these endless wars. We have to be the peacemaker, help create peaceful relations among the nations of the world. That's what a great power does. It doesn't create chaos."

Tackling Tucson's Violent Crime Crisis: A Candidate's Perspective

The Growing Safety Concerns in Tucson

J.L. Wittenbraker, candidate for Tucson City Council in Ward 3, addressed the escalating violent crime crisis affecting the city. "The violent crime in Tucson has gotten to an epidemic crisis," Wittenbraker stated. "And it's multifaceted, just like so many other social problems that we have."

According to Wittenbraker, the factors contributing to this crisis include "a high poverty rate, recidivism, and crime that we're not stopping. We're not punishing it when it happens. And in the cases where we do and someone is incarcerated, we're not rehabilitating them. We're not reintroducing them into society."

Wittenbraker acknowledged some positive steps: "I do want to give credit to the Tucson Crime Free Coalition and Pima County supervisors that implemented the Pima County Transition Center, which is designed for those people when they're released from prison to help them assimilate back into society." However, she noted this resource is "vastly underused."

The impact of violent crime is expanding beyond traditionally high-crime areas. "What we've seen, and what people are finally realizing, is that crime has now reached people who are living a life far removed from crime and drugs and homelessness," Wittenbraker explained.

She cited the case of Jacob Couch, a visitor to Tucson who was "nearly decapitated at a bus station where he was sitting with his wife to get to the next stop. They were only taking a short stop here in Tucson." This attack, which resulted in Couch's death, received nationwide attention.

Another recent incident involved a 13-year-old girl who was "brutally attacked at a bus station outside her school off of Harrison... by an individual who had been previously arrested and released. And she wasn't involved in buying or selling drugs or trying to rob anyone. She was innocently waiting at the bus stop."

Challenges with City Leadership

Wittenbraker took issue with comments from Tucson Mayor Regina Romero, who was quoted saying that people who criticize her administration "don't have a clue how this work works."

"We very much have a clue how our city government should work and how our money should be spent," Wittenbraker countered. "And we know that that money is not being put into public safety. The public safety budget has decreased year over year over year."

She also challenged a statement from Police Chief Kasmar, who suggested that people not involved in criminal activities face a low risk of violent crime. "I disagree wholeheartedly," Wittenbraker said. "The crime is on a sprawl and they don't have enough officers and he should know that better than anybody."

Drawing from personal experience, Wittenbraker shared: "I live a life far removed from any criminal activity. And I have had two encounters in my local park of threats of violence and unprovoked."

She also noted unsafe conditions in previously secure recreational areas: "I'll only walk on the loop when it's well populated because that is no longer safe. It's no longer a safe recreation area." She recounted a conversation with fellow residents who acknowledged the changing safety situation: "Their face instantly changed in acknowledgement that even the loop is no longer a safe place to enjoy walking, running, biking, et cetera."

Proposed Solutions and Priorities

Wittenbraker outlined her approach to addressing Tucson's most pressing issues, emphasizing the need for clear priorities: "Let's have priorities and let's focus our dollars on fixing one issue, and then we move on to the next and the next."

Based on her conversations with residents while campaigning, she identified the top three concerns: "Public safety. Second issue, roads. Third issue, homelessness."

On homelessness, Wittenbraker advocated for treating it as a standalone issue: "Homelessness has two camps. Some people equate it to public safety and crime and others equate it to housing affordability. I say it has to be managed as its own individual issue and with multiple solutions, not as part of public safety or housing affordability."

Regarding public safety specifically, Wittenbraker emphasized the importance of proper staffing and compensation: "For those people who do not want to staff our police department—and there are people out there who think we need less officers—I say to you an understaffed police department is a dangerous police department. It is a stressed police department."

Her solution includes better compensation: "I say let's staff up our police department and give them the equipment they need to enforce our laws safely... But in order to do that, we have to accept the fact that we have to pay our police officers more."

The current compensation structure, according to Wittenbraker, has led to training problems: "We are training really good police officers. Do you know what? We don't keep them. We don't retain them. They go to Marana. They go to Oro Valley. They go to Sahuarita."

City Governance and Budget Issues

Wittenbraker described fundamental problems with Tucson's budget management: "I look at the city budget like trying to put water in a bucket that has holes in the bottom and then trying to fill a bathtub with that bucket. The city has all these different dollars allocated in all these different directions that they cannot effectively complete any one thing."

She pointed to the failed Proposition 414 as an example: "414 was once again a perfect model of the bucket with holes in the bottom. We're going to fund all these different things with this half-cent tax increase. But oh, by the way, we can move the funding for all those different things anyway we want."

Wittenbraker criticized the city's financial management: "They grew their budget from $1 billion to $2 billion in four years. They have plenty of money. Spend it the way you should. Spend it per our city charter. They are not. They have added in all these pet projects."

She also questioned the salaries of elected officials: "In 2023, the city narrowly voted for a salary increase of the mayor and council. And it was so close it should have undergone a recount... The mayor now makes $120,000 a year. The mayor and council office, each council member makes almost $97,000 a year. But Ward 3's office is only open 9am to 1pm Monday through Friday."

Wittenbraker promised greater accessibility: "You have my word that I will be there eight hours a day and once a month on Saturday." She also proposed tying council salaries to economic development: "I would say their salaries, mayor and council together, their jobs aren't any different together, should be equal to the median salary. Thereby incentivizing them to bring good economic development to Tucson."

Call for Voter Engagement

Wittenbraker emphasized the importance of voter participation in changing Tucson's trajectory: "If you don't vote Tucson, you can't change anything. And we have had a number of years where we've had candidates, moderate candidates, running against the, what appears to be a radicalized, in many cases, party. And we can't get our people voted in because ballots aren't being returned."

She explained the confusing voting system: "The primary is ward only. So if you live in Ward 3, I'd love to have your vote... But the general is citywide." This means voters from across Tucson can vote for council representatives in all wards.

Wittenbraker urged citizens to get involved in her campaign: "Host a meet and greet in your neighborhood, especially if you live in a gated community. We need your help to get there and talk to people... Bring your ideas to me. I need your help to turn this city around. And when we do, I guarantee you it will be us sitting at the council, not me, us."

She concluded with a reminder about local government's impact: "Your everyday life is affected by the people in your local government. More so than your Congress, more so than your governor. It is so important because they're setting the tone and the priorities."