Question of the week: Should the federal government have a spending cap that prevents it from spending more than it takes in during a given year?
- Bert Berson: No. The government needs more flexibility than that to run efficiently. What the government needs right now is a vibrant economy with many more jobs. That will require stimulus spending. The deficit is not our number one problem; jobs are.
- Jeff Nunes: Yes. It might force our politicians to make the hard choices that are required of them as our leaders and to actually respect the fact that they are the stewards of the people’s money.
- David Cohen: No. As a goal, it is a great idea, but in reality it wouldn’t work. Would you tell the people affected by Hurricane Sandy, that “sorry, the government is out of money and you’re out of luck.” Or to tell a senior citizen that the government will stop paying Medicare bills in September because the government’s income is less. This is another dream scenario that some people have that has no grounding in reality.
- Dennis Kennedy: No! The economy ebbs and flows. There needs to be flexibility in the federal budget and in management of its income and expenditures.
- Jeff Smith: Yes, of course. Most rational people have to live by this, why shouldn’t our government. Had we followed this then we wouldn’t be in the terrible financial mess we’re in now. The problem is that too many people and hence too many elected officials have this idea that the government is to meet all our needs and solve all our problems, and thus they can’t stop spending, because everything is a necessity or an emergency, and of course they need to get re-elected, so they never vote against some new program or new spending. Gradually this socialist mentality sets in, wherein the government now thinks our money is their money and they beneficially let us keep a portion of our OWN money. This twisted mindset then evolves into the perverted logic that we have a revenue problem, and thus people need to pay more taxes. We have a spending problem, and we need to drastically shrink our government if we ever hope to survive.
- Hank Miller: Disagree. Like any enterprise, the books do not always balance at the end of a given period. A balanced budget is desirable but, like most families and businesses, there are surplus years and deficit years. Obviously, surplus years are better, but not always possible.
- Chris Bryant: Yes, even with all the drama and fighting that results, there just appears to be no other way to keep the need to limit spending in the minds of our elected officials.
- Julian Mancias: Agree. But can it be done? That’s the tough part.
- Karen Anderson: No. That is too inflexible a strategy. We would not have been able to use the stimulus package under that provision and most agree it was what kept us from a Great Depression.
- Kathy Sullivan: Disagree. While it is always a great idea to spend only what you have available to spend, the size and complexity of the government requires flexibility. While decisions should always be made with fiscal responsibility, we elect men and women to look at current situations and make the hard choices, taking into account the future needs to be worked into the equation.
- Dave Appling: Disagree. At the macroeconomic/geopolitical level there is no way to forecast unexpected critical needs, nor, with sufficient precision, revenues. We must plan and budget realistically, provide adequate and transparent management reserves, and yes, use both debt and surplus wisely. We must not tie our leaders’ hands with arbitrary caps largely based — inevitably — on guesstimates.
- Lisa Pampuch: No. The power to borrow is enumerated in the Constitution and it is important to the safety, security, and economy of the United States, as the founding fathers understood.
