John Boehner, the Republican Speaker of the House from Ohio, is proposing a balanced budget amendment as a way to control the U.S. debt, saying “that spending restraints are set in stone, and the certainty it provides will help create a better environment for job creation across the country.” This seems to be gaining traction among some Republicans. And although it seems like it may be a good idea, it is misguided policy because it limits the government's ability to act in an emergency, and it hurts the poorest members of society.
To begin with, the role of the United States government is to act when it needs to act, whether it is everyday operations where it ensures food is safe to eat or if there is an emergency, such as occurred with Hurricane Katrina. Imagine for a moment if the government had 50 billion in revenue coming in every year. And this covered all of the bills, but only barely. Then imagine a recession hit and revenue was reduced to 40 billion. This means that there would need to be IMMEDIATE cuts to government spending in order to balance the budget. Furthermore, Hurricane Katrina would still be occurring and causing damage to New Orelans. How could the government possibly deal with this catastrophe when it's hands were tied so heavily? It would mean that the United States government could not act at all, or that it would have to cut EVEN MORE to be able to free up funds to deal with the emergency. This is an inefficient way to run a government, and also would hurt the poorest members of society, because the programs they rely on would be the first to be cut to free up funds. Supporters of this idea should think through the consequences before spouting something that sounds good politically.
No comments:
Post a Comment