With many families around the country facing financial hardship, fiscal hawks on Capitol Hill have begun ramping up their rhetoric: If America's families are forced to make hard decisions and cut back, they argue, why shouldn't their elected leaders do the same? During the week of March 15, Sens. Jeff Sessions (R-AL) and Claire McCaskill (D-MO) introduced an amendment to H.R. 1586 that aimed to give teeth to that rhetoric. The amendment's effects on the nation's long-term debt would have been minimal, while its impacts on millions of Americans would have been severe. The amendment ultimately failed on the Senate floor.

The Sessions-McCaskill amendment would have capped discretionary spending for three fiscal years in an effort to reduce federal spending and lower the federal budget deficit. While the amendment would have had minimal effect on the country's long-term debt, it would have cut funding for programs that are helping millions of Americans weather poor economic conditions and would have put a drag on the economic recovery. Though the amendment failed, the vote was very close; this will likely encourage its supporters to bring the amendment back at a later date.

The amendment would have enforced spending limits on both defense and non-defense discretionary spending. For fiscal year 2011, the amendment would have set a discretionary cap of $1.1 trillion – $564 billion for defense spending and $530 billion for non-defense. This limit would inch up to $1.125 trillion by FY 2013 – almost $150 billion lower than the budget President Obama proposed in February, which was criticized for failing to fully fund the public structures that are vital to the well-being of millions of Americans.

The caps would have severely limited the ability of Congress to pass any bill that would increase spending beyond the amount specified by the caps. If such a bill came to the floor, any member of Congress could object to it and effectively kill the bill. To override the cap, supporters in the Senate (and presumably the House, if it were to pass a similar bill) would need to muster an astonishing two-thirds supermajority, or 67 votes, virtually guaranteeing that the caps would stay unbroken. Alternatively, if a bill was declared "emergency" legislation, only three-fifths of each chamber would have to agree to the spending increase.

Although the caps were introduced in the name of "fiscal responsibility," they actually are the exact opposite. There is no economic or budgetary reason to limit spending at the levels called for in the bill, save the expressed desire by supporters to reduce the federal budget deficit. The caps grow at an average yearly rate of 1.8 percent, an amount not guided by economic growth, inflation, or program growth. This sort of arbitrary reduction in program funding limits the ability of Congress to respond to the constantly changing needs of the nation.

Program cuts are warranted in some cases. For example, if repeated attempts to improve an ineffective program fail, or if lawmakers deem the targeted problem solved, then funding reductions are viable budget options. Arbitrary spending limits disregard the many factors that congressional appropriators should consider when allocating funding to federal programs and agencies. By restricting the ability of Congress to fully fund all of the nation’s priorities, budget caps leave lawmakers faced with trading the welfare of one population for the good graces of supporters of another program, all the while ignoring the effectiveness of the programs under consideration.

The caps would also adversely affect the nation's economic recovery. Many economists agree that immediately reducing the federal budget deficit would result in slowing – or even reversing – the recent trend in economic growth and reduction of the unemployment rate. A number of estimates, in fact, suggest that spending that raises the short-term deficit, such as the stimulus law, has raised the nation's gross domestic product (GDP) by several points. Had discretionary budget caps been in place, the Recovery Act would likely not have passed, and the nation would be significantly worse off than it is today. And if budget caps were enacted now, the nascent recovery would be strangled before it could take hold, as federal spending would be slowed to a trickle.

Nor would the Sessions-McCaskill amendment address the long-term fiscal imbalances caused by the rapid growth of health care costs. As these costs outpace the growth of the economy, Medicare and Medicaid will continue to consume ever-larger portions of the federal budget. In 2013, Medicare and Medicaid spending will be about 5.1 percent of the size of the economy – a manageable sum. But in 2050, that number is projected to more than double to 12.7 percent. The massive growth of these programs (along with other factors) will cause the amount of debt held by the public to explode from 68 percent of GDP to 457 percent. By comparison, the Sessions-McCaskill amendment would reduce federal spending by an average of 1.2 percent of GDP annually over its three-year lifespan and would have a negligible impact on long-term debt.

There are many ways to address growing long-term fiscal imbalances, solutions which do not disproportionally affect the well-being of tens of thousands of families, the safety of our food supply, or the environment. While there may be a case for cuts in discretionary spending, increases in revenue will significantly improve the short- and medium-term fiscal outlooks. Two of the largest budget issues, according to the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office and the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, are the Bush-era tax cuts and the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Ending the wars and enacting progressive tax reform to make the tax code fairer would help balance the budget while protecting the nation's citizens.

Fortunately for the millions of Americans impacted by the weak economy, the amendment failed to pass the Senate, 56-40 (the amendment needed 60 votes for procedural reasons). However, discretionary caps will likely come up again, as supporters recognize that that the amendment failed by such a small margin. While the growing budget deficit may eventually threaten economic prosperity, arbitrary discretionary caps are not the answer, especially now.