My amendment is different from H.J. Res. 1 in several ways. First, my amendment distinguishes between operating costs and long-term investments. Highways, federal salaries, health benefits and foreign aid, which are all examples of federal programs that are paid for through taxes and borrowing, are currently accounted for in basically the same way. But all borrowing is not created equal. Borrowing for physical infrastructure can be justified if it pays for itself in the long-run by increasing the nation's wealth and capacity for future economic expansion.
Businesses know the difference between borrowing to consume and borrowing to invest.
Borrowing is a smart move when the money is used to finance productive investments that help a business modernize its equipment, expand and become more profitable. But borrowing money to pay salaries or executive bonuses or to send employees to expensive conferences rather than to modernize would be foolish. 1 say that the federal government should balance its budget the way every family must balance its budget. My legislation does just that. If we look at the way a family budgets, we see that monthly budgets are balanced, but long-term investments are something worth borrowing for.