Just a quick note to any ideologues who believe that a balanced budget amendment makes any sense: it doesn't. And here is why:
Requiring a balanced budget attempts to defy the reality that shit happens. What do you balanced budget enthusiasts propose to do when there is a major natural disaster? An earthquake a la Japan that cripples a region, affects local and regional economics, etc? How about if the US is attacked again? How about another major oil spill?
Assuming that you are willing to help, willing to earmark special funds and programs to help those communities recover and rebuild (and unfortunately that might be pretty far-fetched for many teatowelheads), where do you get that money? Do you propose maintaining massive rainy day funds? Or will you make a dollar-for-dollar tradeoff? Say, $1 billion to help out the victims of an earthquake in southern California, but $1 billion stripped from education funding?
The reality is that a truly balanced approach will take into account revenues as well as cuts and/or streamlining. Just so we are clear, "revenue" means "tax increases" and/or "closing of loopholes".
It amazes me that polls show that the citizens are tired of watching Congress work SO hard to keep irresponsible, unneeded, and regressive tax cuts in place while simultaneously threatening social safety net, quality of education, infrastructure, and a whole host of other projects which truly are investments in the future.
No comments:
Post a Comment