Posted on 02/04/2004 7:18:49 AM PST by jmstein7
Kerry Votes Against Balanced Budget
Abstract of material: Kerry had the chance to ensure that every Congress would be bound to fiscal responsibility, constitutionally required to pass balance budgets. Kerry was against such a balanced budget proposal.
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD -- Senate
Friday, February 24, 1995
(Legislative day of Wednesday, February 22, 1995)
104th Congress 1st Session
141 Cong Rec S 3081
(Kerry says we don't need a balanced budget amendment)
Mr. Kerry. Mr. President, the amendment before us purports to be that summoning of will. I think it is not. Let us be absolutely clear at the outset. We do not need an amendment to the Constitution in order to balance the budget, and everything about this debate has to begin at that point. The truth is-acknowledged in the committee report itself, acknowledged in the course of debate-technically, we do not need this amendment in order to balance the budget. We do not need an amendment to the Constitution. If the more than 60 Senators who are now committed to voting for this amendment would simply agree among themselves that they will not allow a filibuster, that they would vote for cloture and that 51 votes, majority Government that our Founding Fathers established to do the job, would be allowed to vote on each measure, up or down, then, Mr. President, we could balance the budget today.
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD -- Senate
Thursday, June 6, 1996
104th Congress 2nd Session
142 Cong Rec S 5873
(Kerry Calls a Balanced Budget Amendment a "partisan gimmick")
Mr. Kerry. Mr. President, this amendment goes further than balancing the budget-it goes to the heart of our democratic process.
It carries with it a fundamental shift in the exercise of decisionmaking in America.
Those who are using this amendment as a weapon in an ideological war do not want the votes of those who think differently to count as much as theirs. It's that simple.
If there is a possibility you may ever reach a different conclusion than they have, they want to make certain that your vote will not count equally by requiring that you must find a super-majority to fight back.
This is wrong, Mr. President, it is undemocratic, and fundamentally revolutionary in the worst sense of the word. [*S5888]
But, Mr. President, that is not all that is wrong with this amendment as drafted-though it would certainly seem to be enough.
This amendment as drafted will encourage budget gimmickry. It invites the worst type of cynicism. The experience of States with balanced budget requirements only bears this out. The proponents of this amendment have argued that the experience of States with balanced budget requirements makes a constitutional amendment obvious-but realities in budgeting demonstrate the exact opposite to be true.
I take to heart the testimony of the former comptroller of one State: Edward Regan of New York told the Congress that many States with balanced budget requirements achieve compliance only with ''dubious practices and financial gimmicks.'' These gimmicks include shifting expenditures to off-budget accounts or the financing of certain functions to so-called independent agencies. These States have been creative with tricks and ploys to mask their deficits.
My distinguished colleague from Vermont, Senator Leahy, has illustrated some of the shenanigans in his lucid critique of this amendment-he talks of States using ''accelerated revenue receipts such as tax payments, postponing payments to localities and school district suppliers, delaying refunds to taxpayers and salary and expense payments to employees until the next fiscal year, deferring contributions to pension funds or forcing changes in actuarial assumptions, and selling States' assets.'' And this amendment does nothing to stop the Federal Government from employing the same tactics and dozens of others.
Mr. President, consider the effects of these gimmicks on the people in this country. Postponing payments? Withholding funding for schools? Delaying refunds to taxpayers? Deferring pension contributions? Selling our national assets?
That will be the result of this amendment, Mr. President.
I oppose this gimmick. And I do so principally because I have come to believe this is an ill-advised attempt to memorialize, in the fundamental governing document of this democracy, budget gimmicks and one political party's fiscal agenda.
This amendment as drafted, Mr. President, is political dogma disguised as economic policy. It is the continuation of an ongoing effort to demonize national interests by demonizing those who promote any kind of national programs to protect the American concept of community.
The gimmicks engendered by this amendment will assist the victory of stagnant partisan politics over sound public policy, doing what's smart politically rather than what's good for the American people.
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD -- Senate
Thursday, March 23, 1995
104th Congress 1st Session
141 Cong Rec S 4409
Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, several weeks ago I voted ''no'' when this body voted on the proposal to send to the States for ratification an amendment to the Constitution to require a balanced budget. I enumerated the reasons for my opposition. Principal among them was that the constitutional amendment proposal was a fraud; its proponents claimed that it was essential to achieving a balanced Federal budget-a goal to which I fervently subscribe-when, in reality, the amendment would not cut so much as a thin dime from the deficit. In addition, the amendment, had it been approved by Congress and ratified by the requisite number of States, would have created a dangerous situation and a disturbing precedent of sinking not only into standard procedure but into the U.S. Constitution requirements that several key types of Congressional fiscal policy decisions would have to be made by supermajorities. I was persuaded than and remain persuaded now that the Founding Fathers-rightly-would be spinning in their graves in anxiety for our Union if they knew what was then being proposed and debated.
This sounds to me what the dems are doing with judicial nominees. Has Kerry spoken out against that?
"If the more than 60 Senators who are now committed to voting for this amendment would simply agree among themselves that they will not allow a filibuster, that they would vote for cloture and that 51 votes, majority Government that our Founding Fathers established to do the job, would be allowed to vote on each measure, up or down, then, Mr. President, we could balance the budget today."
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.