First, it purports to
eventually balance the
budget without cutting
military spending, Social
Security, or Medicare. This
is impossible. These three
budget items already cost
nearly $1 trillion apiece
annually. This means we
can cut every other area of
federal spending to zero and
still have a $3 trillion
budget. Since annual federal
tax revenues almost
certainly will not exceed $
2.5 trillion for several years,
this Act cannot balance the
budget under any plausible
scenario.
Second, it further
entrenches the ludicrous
beltway concept of
discretionary vs.
nondiscretionary spending.
America faces a fiscal crisis,
and we must seize the
opportunity once and for all
to slay Washington's sacred
cows – including defense
contractors and
entitlements. All spending
must be deemed
discretionary and
reexamined by Congress
each year. To allow
otherwise is pure cowardice.
Third, the Act applies the
nonsensical narrative about
a "Global War on Terror" to
justify exceptions to its
spending caps. Since this
war is undeclared, has no
definite enemies, no clear
objectives, and no metric to
determine victory, it is by
definition endless. Congress
will never balance the
budget until we reject the
concept of endless wars.
Finally, and most
egregiously, this Act ignores
the real issue: total spending
by government. As Milton
Friedman famously argued,
what we really need is a
constitutional amendment to
limit taxes and spending,
not simply to balance the
budget. What we need is a
dramatically smaller federal
government; if we achieve
this a balanced budget will
take care of itself.
We do need to cut spending,
and by a significant amount.
Going back to 2008 levels of
spending is not enough. We
need to cut back at least to
where spending was a
decade ago. A recent news
article stated that we pay 35
percent more for our
military today than we did
10 years ago, for the exact
same capabilities. The same
could be said for the rest of
the government. Why has
our budget doubled in 10
years? This country doesn't
have double the population,
or double the land area, or
double anything that would
require the federal
government to grow by such
an obscene amount.
We need to cap spending,
and then continue
decreasing that cap so that
the federal government
grows smaller and smaller.
Allowing government to
spend up to a certain
percentage of GDP is
insufficient. It doesn't
matter that the recent
historical average of
government outlays is 18
percent of GDP, because in
recent history the
government has way
overstepped its
constitutional mandates. All
we need to know about
spending caps is that they
need to decrease year after
year.
We need to balance the
budget, but a balanced
budget amendment by itself
will not do the trick. A $4
trillion balanced budget is
most certainly worse than a
$2 trillion unbalanced
budget. Again, we should
focus on the total size of the
budget more than outlays vs.
revenues.
What we have been asked to
do here is support a budget
that only cuts relative to the
President's proposed budget.
It still maintains a $1 trillion
budget deficit for FY 2012,
and spends even more
money over the next 10
years than the Paul Ryan
budget which already
passed the House.
By capping spending at a
certain constant percentage
of GDP, it allows for federal
spending to continue to
grow. Tying spending to
GDP creates an incentive to
manipulate the GDP figure,
especially since the bill
delegates the calculation of
this figure to the Office of
Management and Budget, an
agency which is responsible
to the President and not to
Congress. In the worst case,
it would even reward
further inflation of the
money supply, as increases
in nominal GDP through
pure inflation would allow
for larger federal budgets.
Finally, this bill authorizes a
$2 .4 trillion rise in the debt
limit. I have never voted for
a debt ceiling increase and I
never will. Increasing the
debt ceiling is an
endorsement of business as
usual in Washington. It
delays the inevitable, the
day that one day will come
when we cannot continue to
run up enormous deficits
and will be forced to pay
our bills.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker,
while I sympathize with the
aims of this bill's sponsors, I
must vote against HR 2560.
It is my hope, however, that
the looming debt ceiling
deadline and the discussion
surrounding the budget will
further motivate us to
consider legislation in the
near future that will make
meaningful cuts and long-
lasting reforms.
