- The Washington Times - Tuesday, November 29, 2011

ANALYSIS/OPINION:

Congress‘ recent defeat of the proposed balanced-budget amendment to the Constitution is a travesty imposed on hardworking taxpayers.

All states except Vermont are required to have a balanced budget, so why not the federal government? Some congressional members who voted against the amendment claim that the budget was balanced four or five times in the recent past and can be again without need for a constitutional amendment. So why haven’t those who provide that argument insisted on curtailing spending, which has spiraled out of control? The debt exceeds $15 trillion and is climbing, with much of that increase occurring in the past three years. If excessive spending is not cut substantially, the country faces a fiscal disaster such as Greece and other overseas nations have experienced.

The real reason for not approving a constitutional amendment is that those congressional members who voted “no” like to use taxpayers’ money to buy votes by allocating funds for pet projects back home.

Because history has shown that Congress doesn’t have the will to balance the budget, the only way taxpayers can be protected against spending sprees like those that have occurred over the past three years is the adoption of a constitutional balanced-budget amendment. The sooner the better for all hardworking taxpayers.

FRANK MEDICO

Mount Vernon

Copyright © 2018 The Washington Times, LLC. Click here for reprint permission.

The Washington Times Comment Policy

The Washington Times is switching its third-party commenting system from Disqus to Spot.IM. You will need to either create an account with Spot.im or if you wish to use your Disqus account look under the Conversation for the link "Have a Disqus Account?". Please read our Comment Policy before commenting.

 

Click to Read More and View Comments

Click to Hide