Senate: Balancing Spending Is Myopic

As we all have been told, we are facing a “fiscal cliff.” This is a mis-named event. The fiscal cliff, when it hits, will not be preventable. In fact, what is now being called “the fiscal cliff” is actually the most fiscally responsible possibility ahead of us. Everything being discussed in Congress is a promise of a worse fiscal cliff ahead.

So, realizing we need to reduce the debt, and thus end the deficit by balancing the budget, you would think that some Senators might have gotten the message that we should not increase spending. I’m not demanding an immediate budget solution. But our representatives should show us that they know the seriousness of our situation and that they are willing to deal with fiscal realities.

But such expectations are baseless. Thanks to the commonsense proposal of Senator Rand Paul, we get to observe just how arrogant and deluded our Senate is, with only a three exceptions.

The Senate was faced with the additional spending needed to provide emergency services and rebuilding to the damaged areas from hurricane Sandy. Under FEMA Congress needs to spend many billions of dollars above and beyond the government’s already bloated and underfunded budget.

“Paul introduced Amendment 3410, which would force Hurricane Sandy recovery to be paid out one year at a time and offset by cutting spending elsewhere. Paul said that only $9 billion is needed this year for Sandy recovery and that his amendment would pay for that by cutting the foreign aid fund by $9 billion.”

Does this sound hard? The amendment was defeated 97-3. Rand’s view that money should go to help American’s rather than foreign dictators “represents a myopic misunderstanding of the world we live in,” according to Democrat Senator Patrick Leahy of Vermont.

Rand isn’t myopic, but Leahy is totally blind to the world as it really is. If you needed more evidence, here it is: our ruling regime has but one understanding of the role of government in response to everything: spend more, borrow more, and perhaps also tax more. But always spend more. They honestly don’t believe that there are economic limits. They don’t believe that they are subject to any reality beyond their own will and perhaps some polls.

What this means is that there is no possibility that they will act in a way to try to lessen the damage we are going to experience in an economic meltdown. There is no chance they will try to replace our present self-destructive system with a system that operates on a balanced budget that only spends the money it has actually collected.

The hypocrisy is overwhelming. Whenever anyone suggests a tax cut, the response is always that the cut must be “revenue neutral”—that a reduction in taxes in one area must be balanced with a tax increase somewhere else. But when Rand tries to use the same principle for spending—saying that an increase in spending in one area requires a decrease elsewhere—the majority of the Senate think he is crazy.

We are headed for a wreck. Our government is in the driver’s seat, acting like the pedal on the right is their only option no matter what’s ahead.

[js-disqus]