At the start of the new congress, President Obama faced a
choice: use the next two years working with Congress to enact
meaningful spending reduction, or continue the status quo and focus
on reelection. If there was any doubt which path he has chosen, the
president’s unrealistic and irresponsible budget proposal now makes
it clear.
Though our economic problems are serious, the president’s budget
proposal is not. Instead of moving the country toward greater
prosperity, his budget increases the national debt, dramatically
raises taxes, and ignores entitlement spending. It is a proposal
short on substance, aimed at political safety rather than economic
progress.
Even the president’s own advisors acknowledge his budget is more
theatre than a realistic roadmap. Presidential aides recently told
the Washington Post that proposing meaningful reform, such
as restructuring entitlements, would be politically “foolish.”
Regrettably, the president has abdicated responsible leadership for
the country’s finances.
Further, his public statements have been highly deceptive, if
not outright false. The president’s claim that “by the middle of
this decade our annual spending will match our annual revenues” is
directly contradicted by the data contained in his budget. By his
own estimates, in 2015, revenue will reach only $3.5 trillion while
outlays will exceed $4 trillion. In 2020, receipts will eclipse
$4.5 trillion with outlays at more than $5.6 trillion. With no
accountability built in to the process, the president can
comfortably make these unrealistic claims.
The only answer is to impose structural constraints on the
budget process that would force the president to address our real
challenges head on. The president and Congress should be required
by the Constitution to pass a balanced budget every year.
Republicans and Democrats would have to work together to prioritize
our constitutional obligations. We would debate less about the
proper size of our deficit and debt, and more about the proper role
of the federal government.
A Balanced Budget Amendment would end the partisan exercise our
budget debate has become and demand a genuine discussion about
basic constitutional responsibilities. A structural limitation that
spends only what we take in would introduce much-needed
accountability into our budget process. It is the only path to
putting our nation’s fiscal house in order.
Along with Senator Jon Kyl of Arizona, I have proposed a serious
and effective Balanced Budget Amendment to the Constitution. It is
the only current Balanced Budget Amendment that will put us on the
road to a real, lasting economic recovery.
My proposal requires a balanced budget every fiscal year, and
limits federal spending to 18 percent of gross domestic product. If
we face an emergency and government needs to spend more, two-thirds
of Congress must vote to increase taxes, raise the debt limit, or
run a specific deficit. The current budget process encourages
Congress to overspend. My amendment would hold the federal
government to a much higher standard.
As of this writing, Congress is deciding whether or not to
increase, yet again, the amount of debt with which we burden our
children and future generations, the so-called debt ceiling. I
oppose raising the ceiling, and will vote against it.
In addition, I am prepared to filibuster any increase to the
national debt without first voting on a meaningful Balanced Budget
Amendment.
My amendment is tough, enforceable, and will apply each year
regardless of which party is in power. A meaningful Balanced Budget
Amendment is the only way to ensure the president and Congress act
responsibly in confronting our nation’s fiscal challenges in the
years to come.
