In concept she is obviously for balancing the budget. Even a law, if it were properly drafted. (Many versions are bad ones, and that is what Dems would go for.)
She was opposed to that bill because she opposed raising the debt ceiling. (She has the American people on her side on that one. The ignoramuses. /s)
Yes, it is extreme what would result. At the same time, she used that fact to point out how extreme our spending and borrowing are. After we pay a few “musts pay”, we are then having to borrow to pay for everything else. And it gets worse every day, not better.
Revenues and expenditures for people on government programs are a big part of it, too.
She is actually on to something...it wouldn’t take too long to begin to free up businesses to hire people and invest because everywhere she goes people in business tell her what is wrong and why they are frozen in place. The worst is Obamacare, then Dodd Frank, then taxes.
She said it will take a House, a 60 vote Senate, and a President to really go to town on the problems, quickly.
She’s right about that.
Unless you raise the debt limit, you would have to cut immediately 60% out of the current budget. That would spell disaster. Here is the problem. What would you cut immediately to live within our revenue? Notice that Medicare, Medicaid, SS, and debt servicing costs amount to about 50% of the total expenditures or $1.7 trillion. Add to that other mandatories like food stamps, unemployment benefits and you are talking about 2.2 trillion or the total revenue received. This leaves defense and the rest of the government to fund. The difficulty in immediately balancing the budget would be enormous and essentially impossible. When you borrow 42 cents out of every dollar spent, you can't balance the budget overnight.
And don't forget that the Medicare and SS costs will continue to increase as the 10,000 baby boomers retire every day raising the costs of the entitlement programs no matter what is done to reform them.