Gang of 6? How about the bipartisan gang of 234 that actually voted to avert the debt ceiling crisis. There have been a lot of speeches and press releases about the looming Aug. 2 deadline, but the only plan that has been formally considered by and passed the House is cut, cap and balance.
This proposal forces the federal government to live within its means. Before the debt limit is increased, Congress and the President must agree on three actions contained in this bill.
First, this bill cuts spending in 2012 by $111 billion. Second, the bill gradually restores and caps spending as a percent of gross domestic product to 19.9 percent, which is consistent with historic levels. Third, this bill requires that Congress passes a balanced budget amendment. The amendment would then be submitted for approval to the states. The balanced budget amendment would stipulate that outlays cannot exceed revenues, spending cannot exceed a set percent of GDP and two-thirds majority is needed to raise taxes.
HR2560 is necessary because no matter who is in charge, spending and debt continue to increase. We are now more than $14 trillion in debt. Of the $9.7 trillion owed to the public, nearly half is owed to foreigners. Every day, we pay nearly $600 million in interest. In ten years, we'll be paying nearly $1 trillion in interest per year. In recent years, we've been borrowing 40 percent of what we spend. This is not sustainable. That's why spending needs to be capped.
We have a spending problem, not a revenue problem. Until recently, federal spending has averaged about 20 percent of gross domestic product, but over the past three years, federal spending has averaged nearly 25 percent of GDP and projections show that spending will reach even higher levels in coming decades.
Critics have falsely argued that this bill gives preferential treatment to existing corporate tax loopholes since a two-thirds majority would be required to raise taxes. If Congress wanted to eliminate loopholes and offset that with a tax cut somewhere else, a supermajority would not be needed. In fact, I support eliminating loopholes, lowering tax rates on everyone and broadening the base in a revenue-neutral manner.
This can be done with a simple majority vote. A tax system with a lower rate and fewer loopholes would be fairer and would allow the market to more efficiently allocate economic resources.
If every loophole were eliminated, including deductions for mortgage interest and charitable contributions, our total tax burden would increase by 50 percent which would reduce economic growth and create higher unemployment. That's a good reason to require all loophole closures to be offset with tax cuts elsewhere unless they are approved by a two-thirds vote in each house of Congress.
In the past, we've automatically and unconditionally raised debt limits without seriously addressing the problems that have been forcing us to raise the debt limit in the first place. To avoid an economic collapse due to excessive debt, we must rein in spending.
Nearly every state has a requirement to balance the budget. So should the federal government. The Cut, Cap and Balance Act responsibly addresses our short-term debt limit issue and our long-term fiscal challenges.
Congressman Jason Chaffetz represents the 3rd Congressional District of Utah and is the primary sponsor of the Cut, Cap and Balance Act.