Op-Ed: We Now Have Proof - It's Impossible for the US Government to Balance Its Books
The comedian Nipsy Russell once joked, “If progress means to move forward, what does Congress mean?”
The nearly concluded debt ceiling debacle suggests Congress means always doing less than expected or necessary.
The Biden-McCarthy debt ceiling deal, formally known as the Fiscal Responsibility Act of 2023, passed the House of Representatives on Wednesday by a vote of 314-177. Seventy-one GOP members and 46 Democrats voted “no.”
Republican Chip Roy of Texas and Democrat Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez of New York both opposed the bill, but, as you might imagine, for different reasons.
Roy referred to the bill as a “turd sandwich.”
Ocasio-Cortez’s take was surprisingly less blunt: “I mean, where do we start? [No] clean debt ceiling. Work requirements. Cuts to programs. I would never — I would never — vote for that.”
On one hand, Ocasio-Cortez and her platoon of progressive pinheads think the bill goes too far in cutting spending, while on the other Roy and his band of budget-bashers think the spending cuts don’t go far enough.
So who’s right?
It’s ridiculous to call a bill that lifts the lid on a $31.4 trillion debt limit the “Fiscal Responsibility Act.”
Lifting the debt ceiling, by definition, is fiscally irresponsible. By the same logic, a bill reducing spending and forcing the federal government to live within its means would be called the Fiscal Insanity Act.
How these two legislators came to be on the same side illustrates how Congress’ polluted process brings opposites together.
Roy believes the government should be scaled back in cost and scope because it’s exceeded its constitutionally prescribed boundaries and has become a burden on the nation’s beleaguered citizens. Ocasio-Cortez sees no limits to the size and reach of government. For her, the government can never be too big or cost too much.
The process that led to the bipartisan passage of the horribly misnamed bill is where many of our nation’s problems begin.
Both sides, from the start, stated that default — letting the debt limit expire — was not an option. Why not?
Because Grandpa Joe would close a few national parks, suspend White House tours, and blather through his pacifier that Republicans hate everyone? Because the media would hold Republicans responsible and thus injure their chances in 2024?
If allowed to expire, the debt limit would (gasp) stay at an exasperatingly high $31.4 trillion. Once expired, current law requires the government to revert to (bigger gasp) a balanced budget!
No one holding American debt would be unpaid. The debt and its payment would be restructured, and hard decisions would be required to reduce the cost of government so that it did not exceed the debt ceiling.
This bill is further proof that it’s impossible for the U.S. government to balance its books.
The process of agreeing to an outcome before the first discussion ever occurred and then creating a bill that does nothing more than extend the debt limit is illogical and shows the lightless depths of the swamp.
The outcome was known before McCarthy and Biden ever sat down. The details of the bill are so subject to interpretation, or beyond understanding, that two diametrically opposed legislators voted “no” for two entirely different reasons.
Assuming its passage in the Senate, the government will continue to happily careen toward the fiscal cliff — a cliff whose height increases along with each hike in our debt limit.
If we don’t change the way government works, we’ll all suffer as both Republicans and Democrats steer us toward a bipartisan act of national budgetary suicide.
The views expressed in this opinion article are those of their author and are not necessarily either shared or endorsed by the owners of this website. If you are interested in contributing an Op-Ed to The Western Journal, you can learn about our submission guidelines and process here.
Truth and Accuracy
We are committed to truth and accuracy in all of our journalism. Read our editorial standards.
