One week ago, Eric Cantor, the Republican House whip, launched the YouCut initiative, a program designed to allow voters to decide via the internet which government expenses they would like cut from the budget. This weekly online program is the first of its kind, and its supporters promise that it will help eliminate runaway government spending. This is a bold move by Republicans in Congress to tackle overspending and the budget deficit. Even so, the YouCut initiative will likely fall short of its intended goal of a meaningful reduction in government spending.

The first spending cut chosen by the 280,000 online voters is the “New Non-Reformed Welfare Program,” as Republicans call it. With less than 30 percent of the vote, Republicans will move to eliminate this program aimed at providing additional funding to low income citizens. While Cantor argues that this decision reflects the will of the people, this is a prime example of how the YouCut program is fundamentally flawed. The majority of Americans that receive direct benefits from welfare programs cannot be expected to vote online because these low-income families generally have less access to the Internet. In this way, the YouCut program disenfranchises low-income citizens from participating in the formation of budgetary policies.

Furthermore, the YouCut program trusts that voters will vote with the good of the country in mind, when in reality most voters will make their decisions based on what directly benefits–or does not benefit–themselves. This is precisely why, as a representative democracy, we elect officials who can gather the diverging interests of their constituents and make informed decisions. This program is a shallow attempt to create the illusion of direct voter input under a completely partisan presentation of the proposed cuts. The only way the budget deficit is going to be reduced is by Congress working to make concerted, long-term changes in government spending and revenue policies. The YouCut program cannot be counted on to provide any lasting solutions for our nation’s spending problems, and will probably amount to little more than a distraction in the long-run.

Presenting taxpayers with a list of menial costs to cut on a weekly basis is no step toward fixing the country’s current spending problems. Comprehensive change is needed and this program does not even come close to achieving that change. By reducing our country’s serious budget deficit to an American Idol-like weekly vote, Cantor is not promoting reduced spending, but providing small minorities (two-tenths of one percent of the US population voted for the welfare cut) an opportunity to eliminate potentially vital programs. If Representative Cantor considers this spending reform, he is really thinking small. He would be doing the American people a much greater service by dedicating his time to working with other members of Congress to make significant reductions to the federal budget.