Rob Wittman in his February 2, news release “Fighting for you: advocating for a balanced US budget” announced, “Last month, I was honored… by co-sponsoring a joint resolution (H.J. Res. 3) proposing a constitutional amendment aimed at relieving the national debt and balancing the federal budget.”

Is it incongruous he would do this, especially at this time? He voted for H.R. 1, the Tax Reform Act of 2017, which reduced taxes creating a big hole in Federal revenues. He voted for H.R. 1625: Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2018, which significantly increased government expenses. Why would this same person champion a balance budget now?

By doing so, he is failing to consider effects on Social Security. According to Paul N. Van der Water, Senior Fellow with Center for Budget and Policy Priorities, “…under the balanced budget amendment the $2.9 trillion trust fund would essentially be unconstitutional for Social Security to use… to pay promised benefits. Instead, it could have to lower benefits, because all federal spending would have to be covered by tax revenues collected during that same year.”

It would also threaten Bank Deposit Insurance. “The FDIC holds more than $90 billions of reserves… to insure depositors’ savings…The balanced budget amendment, however, could make it unconstitutional for the FDIC to use its assets to pay deposit insurance, since doing so would generally constitute ‘deficit spending.’”

Mr. Wittman, why now? Aren’t we in the throes of pandemic, which is of crippling our way of life? Doesn’t this require additional federal funds to fight the virus, support businesses, out of work people, schools, and state and local governments. How do we get back to normality by constitutionally balancing the budget at this time?

Answer, you don’t.

Mr. Wittman displays poor judgment, is inconsistent, and is out of touch with reality?

-Jim Knupp,

Hartfield