In the April 8, 2011 Virginian Pilot (Letters to the Editor, “Devastating Cuts,” April 8, 2011), Joe Cook (Hampton Roads Coordinator, MoveOn.org) asserts that Rep. Scott Rigell’s (R-2VA) support of Congressional Bill HR 1 to cut $100 billion from the budget was a “blazing trail of destruction” leading to a loss of 19,500 jobs in Virginia. He further asserts “This is a moral issue; the budget is a moral document.” In between these two statements, he inserts his favorite social programs, which may face cuts, and then sounds the clarion alarm to eliminate corporate subsidies and cut defense. While this is great political theatre, it misses two points.
First, whether the cuts are “moral” or not, stealing money from the next generation by spending money that we do not have is clearly immoral. Because the government borrows forty-three cents on each dollar of its $3.8T budget, Mr. Cook’s argument over the $100B cut is similar (in rough numbers) to our family having a monthly credit card bill of $10,000, but we can only pay $6,000 so my wife and I argue heatedly and incessantly about how to cut $26 of spending.
Second, I agree with Mr. Cook that all cost should be on the table; however, the determination of what should be cut is not just a moral decision, it is also a Constitutional decision. It is not clear to me that all of his priorities (i.e., job training grants) are Constitutional, whereas defense, for example, is clearly a Constitutional priority.
So let’s agree on this: we need to find a way to cut another $3,974 from our “home” budget. If we can’t agree, then let’s carve out those things that are clearly Constitutional expenditures and reduce everything else on a pro rata basis. That will force us to discuss what this political battle is really about: what is the purpose and scope of government and where does government’s responsibility end and the individual’s begin. In this regard, Rep. Rigell is on the right track.
Subscribe To
Posts
Comments
