Monday, July 25, 2011

Why did Senate not pass the the cut, cap, and balance bill?

Something amazing happened. Well....almost. According to Eyder Perlata, the cut, cap, and balance bill proposes a fews things: the debt ceiling is not allowed to be raised unless Congress first sends a balanced budget amendment to the states for ratification, calls for for a 1.5 trillion cut in this years deficit, and caps federal spending to 24% GDP (Peralta, "House Passes 'Cut, Cap, and Balance' Bill." NPR). The House passed the bill with a 234-190 vote. The Democrat-controlled Senate, however, refused to pass the bill. Why did they refuse to pass it? The Democrats believe that such a bill would force cuts in Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security while Republicans believe that such cuts will inevitably happen even if the bill is not passed (Peralta, "House passes 'Cut, Cap, and balance' Act").

This is tragic. Our country's prudent and frugal foundation has been obliterated by statism. If one compares the presidents of the past few decades to Washington through Coolidge, he will be surprised by the drastically different economic perspectives. This tragedy cannot simply be blamed on one party; it is the fault of both major parties. Currently, however, the Democratic party is refusing to budge on lowering the debt ceiling or reducing spending in Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security.

Although I could list several Federal departments that need to be reduced or eliminated altogether, our focus needs to be on Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security. These are Statist concepts that should have never been implemented in a laissez faire, capitalist country. Did you know that these three entitties account for half of our budget? Liberals tend to blame the military for eating up our taxes, but the military only accounts for 18.74% of our budget while Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, account for 56% (Anonymous, File:Fy2010 spending by category.jpg).

Thus, while the Democrats complain that the cut, cap, and balance bill will reduce Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid, I argue that these three entities need to be eliminated altogether. Allow the states to vote on their own aid programs. The Federal Government has never been enumerated the power to enforce such a system.

The influx of GOP Tea Partiers is a breath of fresh air. This group has been instrumental in finally proposing substantial changes in our ridiculous spending habits (Recall that Reagon once said that "government spending is like a baby's alimentary canal, a happy appetite on one end and no responsibility at the other"). Our bloated deficits can only inflate so much. If we cannot develop the same prudence that our founders had, we may soon have to default on our loans and face the aftermath.


Anonymous, File:Fy2010 spending by category.jpg. 07/25/2011

Eyder Peralta. "House Passes "Cut, Cap, and Balance' Bill." NPR. 07/25/2011

1 comment:

  1. It would be ideal to eliminate all the entitlement programs, however people have paid into them for years and do have a reasonable expectation of a return on those payments. It's not right or fair for the government to fail to meet its obligations to them. So we should step down those programs until they are eliminated. No intelligent person my age or younger honestly expects we will ever see a social security check, so why not do away with that foolish program gradually until it is no more?