U.S. Rep. Rob Woodall's praise for the defeated "Cut, Cap and Balance" bill is most troubling. The proposed House bill would have cut total spending by $111 billion for fiscal year 2012 which represents 1 percent of the U.S. economy. The timing of these cuts when the U.S. economy is severely weakened might have pushed us back into a full blown recession.
The Balanced Budget Amendment, at first blush, sounds appealing. But wait ... the House Republicans proposed a Balanced Budget Amendment that would cap spending at 18 percent of gross domestic product, although the term GDP is not defined consistently under this proposal.
Furthermore, to maintain a spending cap at 18 percent when there are 10,000 baby boomers reaching 65 years of age every day and increasing health care costs is problematic and unrealistic.
By 2035, spending on Medicare, Social Security and interest on the debt will account for 14 percent of the GDP. This would leave 4 percent to pay for everything else in the national budget, including 4.7 percent that we currently spend on defense alone.
Finally, the Cut, Cap, and Balance bill would require a supermajority -- two-thirds votes in both the House and Senate -- to raise any revenue.
The majority of Americans believe in a balanced approach to cutting the budget deficit and not by cutting federal spending alone.
Before you praise Woodall for his support of Cut, Cap and Balance please consider what adverse effect this would have on real people -- seniors, people with disabilities, and people living week-to-week on their paychecks. It would also have had a devastating effect on Medicare and Social Security recipients.
In actuality, it is not a hard choice, Rep. Woodall, that the Cut, Cap and Balance bill was defeated. Ordinary citizens like myself would greatly suffer and the millionaires and greedy corporate interests you represent would not.
-- Torin Togut