Become a digitalPLUS subscriber. 99¢ for 4 weeks.
NewsOpinionReaders Respond

Cut, cap and balance: Van Hollen should read the bill

Budgets and BudgetingEconomic IndicatorChristopher Van Hollen Jr.

For six straight hours on July 19, Maryland Rep. Chris Van Hollen forcefully led the Democratic floor debate against passage of House Resolution 2560 — the "Cut, Cap, and Balance Act." His biggest problem with the legislation was its requirement for a seemingly onerous balanced budget amendment.

Mr. Van Hollen claimed he wasn't against "garden variety" balanced budget amendments — just this one, because it required limiting annual government spending to an insufficient 18 percent of the U.S. gross domestic product.

Well, maybe 18 percent of GDP is too low; that's worth debating. Here's the thing though: HR 2560 does not mandate an18 percent limit. Rep. Van Hollen didn't read the bill all the way through.

If he had — and if he's truly OK with garden variety balanced budget amendments — he'd be proposing one right now so we could end this debt ceiling crisis. Here's what HR 2560 actually says:

"Effective on the date the Archivist of the United States transmits to the States [one of three recent balanced budget amendment proposals] or a similar amendment if it requires that total outlays not exceed total receipts, contains a spending limitation as a percentage of GDP, and requires tax increases be approved by a two-thirds vote in both houses of Congress for their ratification, [the debt ceiling will be raised $2.4 trillion]."

One should read a bill completely before deciding to oppose it.

Larry Smith, Timonium

Copyright © 2014, The Baltimore Sun
Related Content
Budgets and BudgetingEconomic IndicatorChristopher Van Hollen Jr.
  • Schaller fails to see danger of U.S. debt

    Columnist Thomas F. Schaller's analysis is incredibly myopic ("Avoiding Europe's austerity nightmare," April 18). To compare the economic condition of the U.S. to those of Greece or Spain at the beginning of the economic crisis is comparing apples and oranges.

  • Military spending is misplaced U.S. priority

    On April 17, I will be protesting war taxes at Baltimore's main post office. I realize that taxes fund many good programs — education, environment and diplomacy. But sadly when 57 percent of the federal budget goes to the Pentagon, the government's priorities are out of touch...

  • A better budget remedy than the Buffett rule

    You end your editorial on the Buffett Rule ("The Buffett Rule backlash," April 13) with the question, "Where will the $50 billion come from to balance the budget, if not from this minimum tax plan?"

  • Skeptical of Buffett and need for higher taxes

    First, I'm an 80-year-old living on Social Security, and I know all the tax loopholes need to be closed ("The Buffett Rule backlash," April 13). But isn't it correct that Warren Buffett owes the IRS a great deal of taxes for a number of years? Let's have a true...

  • The Buffett Rule backlash
    The Buffett Rule backlash

    Our view: Taxing the wealthy at rates others already face wouldn't solve the nation's deficit, but it would restore a modicum of fairness to the tax code

  • Godless Republicans turn back on poor and sick

    Some churchmen take exception to some of President Barack Obama's positions on matters of faith. I suggest these men of faith take a closer look at the true meaning of religion. All three Abrahamic religions — Christianity, Judaism and Islam — have as their central theme the...

Comments
Loading