It was just a few weeks ago that Congress decided the legal “limit” on federal government debt — $12.1 trillion — was “too low.” So, lawmakers voted to increase the amount of debt the federal government could have — to a new “limit” of $12.4 trillion.
Only now, it seems many Democrats in Congress do not believe that new limit is high enough, either — and this time they’re pulling out all the stops. They have proposed letting the federal government borrow an additional $1.9 trillion. That record jump would boost our total national debt to a staggering $14.3 trillion!
That number is, of course, alarming all by itself. But what makes it even worse is that our nation must pay hundreds of billions of dollars per year in interest on that debt. That is money we cannot use for constitutional purposes such as national defense or to let our people keep and invest more of their income in enterprises that create jobs and economic growth.
Did Democrats (and some big-spending Republicans) not get the message from the election of a conservative Republican, Scott Brown, to the U.S. Senate in extremely liberal Massachusetts that Americans are tired of unconstitutional, out-of-control spending?
Apparently they didn’t. In fact, they are trying to rush the passage of the $1.9 trillion increase in the so-called “debt limit” before Sen. Brown can be seated, when his vote might be enough to thwart the increase.
Sen. Max Baucus, D-Mont., tried to defend the increase.
“We have gone to the restaurant. We have eaten the meal. Now the only question is whether we will pay the check,” he told The Associated Press.
Yes, the United States must pay its current bills. But must we then keep going to “restaurants” we cannot afford, ordering “entrees” (such as the non-stimulating “stimulus” and ObamaCare socialized medicine) that are far out of our price range, and handing the bill to our children, grandchildren and great-grandchildren?
And while we’re at it, must we continue this federal “debt limit” charade when the Democrat majority in Washington has no intention of limiting spending?