Time for balanced
budget amendment is now
|
|
July 24, 2011 |
 As
a Congressman, I witness a seemingly endless
stream of special interest groups seeking
funding for their pet programs and I listen to
testimony from countless bureaucrats whose only
goal seems to be seeking a larger budget.
Spending by the federal government is absolutely
out of control, and it has been for a long time.
I have arrived at the same conclusion that the
majority of Americans have: the time for a
balanced budget amendment to the Constitution is
now.
Congress and the federal bureaucracy cannot be
trusted to show fiscal restraint on their own
and say no to reckless spending of taxpayer
dollars. A balanced budget amendment to the
Constitution would legally force the federal
government to spend no more than the amount of
money that it brings in.
Forty-nine states abide by a balanced budget
requirement – including Idaho – and many
families balance their checkbooks regularly. As
individuals, we understand that we have a
limited ability to borrow and spend money, it's
time the federal government followed suit. While
any bills this Congress passes which cut
spending can be changed by this or future
Congresses, a constitutional amendment is
permanent.
Our country currently owes $14.3 trillion in
debt and borrows roughly 40 cents of every
dollar we spend. Admiral Mike Mullen—the
Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff—has called
our debt “the single greatest threat to national
security.”
Our government simply cannot control itself when
it comes to spending. Members of both political
parties have a history of not being able to say
no. Since President Obama took office in January
of 2009, the national debt has increased by $3.7
trillion. For reference, it took the United
States from its founding in 1776 to 1992 to
accumulate the same amount of debt that this
administration has accumulated in only two and a
half years. And previous Congresses and
Presidents have not been much better. Under
President George W. Bush spending increased by
nearly 33% - adding nearly $5 trillion in debt.
Raising taxes is not the solution -particularly
at a time with such high unemployment. Higher
taxes on anyone would simply damage the economy
more and hurt individuals and employers and
wouldn’t balance the budget at all. In order to
balance the budget, the Congressional Budget
Office estimates that tax rates would have to
more than double and some estimate that a
60-percent across-the-board tax increase would
be necessary. I do not believe many families or
business could endure a 60-percent increase.
Even if you taxed the top 10-percent of income
earners at 100-percent, you could not come close
to balancing the budget. Spending is the
problem.
This past November, voters made it clear that
they were tired of business as usual in
Washington and voted for a change in direction.
They elected folks like me who ran on a mantle
of reform and they expect us to fulfill those
promises. They wanted their voices to be heard.
I came here to change the way Washington works
and I won’t back down from that challenge.
I believe failing to raise the debt ceiling
carries consequences, but I believe that failing
to permanently change the structure of the way
the government budgets and spends taxpayer money
carries much more dire consequences. Credit
rating agency Moody’s has stated that even if
the debt ceiling is raised, it could lower the
U.S. credit rating if we do not find a way to
improve our overall debt situation.
A balanced budget amendment is neither a gimmick
nor a new concept. Congress nearly passed one in
the 1990s with then-Senator Joe Biden supporting
it as well as Democrat Whip Steny Hoyer. In 1982
Ronald Reagan also called for one, “most
Americans understand the need for a balanced
budget, and most Americans have seen how
difficult it is for the Congress to withstand
the pressures for more spending. This amendment
will force government to stay within the limit
of its revenues. Government will have to do what
each of us does with our own family budgets –
spend no more than we can afford.”
I understand there are concerns with both the
procedural hurdles to passing a balanced budget
amendment and the impact of such a move on our
fiscal outlook, but I wholeheartedly reject the
notion of the passage of a balanced budget
amendment as a gimmick. In fact, it may be the
only way to save our Country from fiscal ruin. |
|
U.S. Congressman Raul Labrador |
|
Questions or comments? Click
here to
email! |
|
|
