Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

looking for feedback - my constitutional amendment
vanity | 29 may 2010 | sten

Posted on 05/29/2010 4:19:47 PM PDT by sten

over the passed couple of years, i have become more and more worried about the state of our country. in particular, the size of the debt and the speed at which it has been increasing. and that speed has been increasing most recently with no end in sight. if this continues, as it did with the USSR, there is no doubt the country will cease to exist in its current form.

here are the basic facts as of 2009:

gross domestic product: $14,000 b
national debt as of today: $13,000 b
annual federal receipts: $2,105 b
congressional budget: $3,518 b

these numbers are out of whack. the budget of the US exceeds all monies brought in by $1,413b or 167% of all receipts. this would be similar to making $50k/yr and spending $84k on your credit cards... which are already at $40k.

to fix this situation, congress and the federal government needs to be reigned in. unfortunately, there are NO controls that currently exist within the framework of the Constitution to restrain congress from committing financial suicide.

as such, i would propose the following amendment to the US Constitution in order to save the country and insure its future.

"During years where the national debt exceeds 25% of the GDP, the budget of the Congress shall be restricted to no more than 75% of federal receipts brought in the year before. The remaining 25% shall go to repay the national debt in an effort to reduce the debt below 10% of the GDP.

During years when the debt exceeds 5% of the GDP, but is less than 25%, the budget of the Congress shall be restricted to no more than 85% of the federal receipts.

At no time shall the budget of the Congress exceed 125% of the federal receipts."

if this amendment were in place today, the congressional budget would be forced to stay within $1,579 b, while paying off the debt @ $526 b per year. this would continue until the debt reached $3,500 b, which would take about 18 years. at that point, the federal budget would be allowed to grow from 75 to 85% of the federal receipts, which would be $1,789 b, while paying $316 b to the remaining debt. it would take roughly 9 years until the debt is reduced to $700 b, or 5% of the GDP. once that occurs, Congress would be able to increase their budget to no more than $2,630 b on receipts of $2,105b, or 125% of all federal receipts. in roughly 27 years the country will have climbed out of the hole.

i believe this plan would resolve the impending financial crisis, reassure our debtors that we are serious about repaying the debt, while also insuring we never return to such a situation.


TOPICS: Business/Economy; Constitution/Conservatism; Government; Your Opinion/Questions
KEYWORDS: constitution; nationaldebt; taxes; vanity
looking for comments / suggestions. i'm trying to rectify the situation before it hits the fan.
1 posted on 05/29/2010 4:19:47 PM PDT by sten
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: sten
At no time shall the budget of the Congress exceed 125% of the federal receipts

Should another global conflict occur, you'd have to allow for whatever it costs to keep the country independent.

2 posted on 05/29/2010 4:23:00 PM PDT by Glenn (iamtheresistance.org)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: sten

I see them using it to raise taxes to confiscatory levels.


3 posted on 05/29/2010 4:23:45 PM PDT by GeronL (Political Correctness Kills)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GeronL

What do they want? BRD ?


4 posted on 05/29/2010 4:24:45 PM PDT by al baby (Hi Mom sarc ;))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: sten

Do you realize how much federal spending is “off-budget”?

Do you realize that mandating the states to spend money would happen under those rules?


5 posted on 05/29/2010 4:24:47 PM PDT by GeronL (Political Correctness Kills)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: al baby

A BRD pipeline straight to DC


6 posted on 05/29/2010 4:25:17 PM PDT by GeronL (Political Correctness Kills)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: GeronL

taxes and how they are apportioned also needs to be addressed as having 1 in 10 pay for everything is a sure fire way to start a revolt.

one step at a time.


7 posted on 05/29/2010 4:26:04 PM PDT by sten
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: sten

I think it is too late to turn back. You’ll probably see the bankers get some sort of global governance to save their skins. Expect to hear “The world is too big to fail.” as a global government of the bankers’ selections, by the bankers’ decree, and for the bankers takes effect. They built the house of cards that has allowed the current mess. They’ll do whatever they can to push off the day of reckoning that will come when their system crumbles.

Even if your amendment passed, do you think congress would abide by it? Congress is criminal and out of control.


8 posted on 05/29/2010 4:26:28 PM PDT by MichiganConservative (A government big enough to do unto the people you don't like will get to doing unto you soon enough.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GeronL

if it helps shift some power back to the states, that would be a good thing.

reigning them in is the point.

please help by suggesting updates / tweaks


9 posted on 05/29/2010 4:28:26 PM PDT by sten
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: sten

I also have a Constitutional Amendment proposal:

The federal government shall expend all revenues raised on the Constitutional duties of the federal government and no other entity, institution, persons or organization.

No more welfare, no more subsidies, no more giving grant money to leftwing groups like ACORN, Planned Parenthood, NPR, PBS etc etc.


10 posted on 05/29/2010 4:28:27 PM PDT by GeronL (Political Correctness Kills)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: sten

The states won’t get more power, they will get federal mandates.


11 posted on 05/29/2010 4:29:22 PM PDT by GeronL (Political Correctness Kills)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: sten

Do you really expect this to pass both houses of Congress by two-thirds majorities? There is no way Congress will limit their ability to drive us into insolvency.


12 posted on 05/29/2010 4:29:29 PM PDT by Hoodat (.For the weapons of our warfare are mighty in God for pulling down strongholds.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: sten

How about “Congress shall make no law.”?


13 posted on 05/29/2010 4:29:35 PM PDT by MichiganConservative (A government big enough to do unto the people you don't like will get to doing unto you soon enough.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: MichiganConservative

agreed. so... the amendment needs teeth to force congress to abide by it?


14 posted on 05/29/2010 4:29:35 PM PDT by sten
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: sten

Supposedly, those people take an oath of office which, if broken, is supposed to have some sort of penalty.

It probably would not make any difference.


15 posted on 05/29/2010 4:31:35 PM PDT by MichiganConservative (A government big enough to do unto the people you don't like will get to doing unto you soon enough.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Hoodat

if something like this doesn’t pass... there will be a revolt by the citizens of the country (which i believe they want) and would result in tearing the country apart (another thing the progressives want)

tweak the language... help mold it.


16 posted on 05/29/2010 4:31:59 PM PDT by sten
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: sten
We have a constitutional requirement to balance the budget in Cal. Hasn't been balanced for I dodn't know how long. When it comes to spending laws do not stop them. They will find a way, ike a heroin addict who needs to chip.

The only solution is to cut federal activities which are not allowed by the constitution and elect a majority of responsible people. Up hill fight.

17 posted on 05/29/2010 4:32:12 PM PDT by whence911 (Here illegally? Go home. Get in line!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GeronL

I don’t want the idiots in DC from either side of the aisle to do anything more than abide by the constitution.


18 posted on 05/29/2010 4:32:40 PM PDT by cripplecreek (Remember the River Raisin! (look it up))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: whence911

so there needs to be some form of citizen recall capability if Congress is in violation of spending more than Constitutionally allowed... something that would be black & white @ the end of the year by a financial oversight committee (not run by congress)

i’d be good with that


19 posted on 05/29/2010 4:35:12 PM PDT by sten
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: cripplecreek

so how do we keep them in check? they do what they want, which many times is not under their Constitutional powers.

limiting their funding under threat of recall isn’t too bad. it’d keep them from funding programs that are wasteful


20 posted on 05/29/2010 4:36:37 PM PDT by sten
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: Glenn

so... emergency provisions? the congress should run at or just below 100% of the federal receipts. in times of crisis, they would be able to bring it up an additional 25% or roughly $500b on receipts of $2,105b

of course, there could also be the concept of a ‘savings account’ were the congress, having only spent 95% of the receipts and the debt was below 5%, could have saved the 5% for a rainy day... like the rest of us do.


21 posted on 05/29/2010 4:40:17 PM PDT by sten
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: sten
so how do we keep them in check?

You ignore people who tell you they don't exist and you vote for people with integrity. The man I'm voting for in my congressional district never once voted for a new tax or tax increase in 14 years as a state legislator. He refuses to promise pork for the district because its irresponsible.
22 posted on 05/29/2010 4:40:46 PM PDT by cripplecreek (Remember the River Raisin! (look it up))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: sten

We need a federal recall amendment, also term limits for congress.


23 posted on 05/29/2010 4:41:11 PM PDT by whence911 (Here illegally? Go home. Get in line!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: cripplecreek

they have found a way around the voting booth by stuffing the ballot boxes in a massive way... then shutting down the investigations once they take office.

0bama set a very dangerous precedent when he did that


24 posted on 05/29/2010 4:44:58 PM PDT by sten
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: sten

Who gets to decide what a “time of crisis” is? Is the war on drugs a crisis? swine flu epidemic? war on terrorism? war on fat kids? war on poverty?


25 posted on 05/29/2010 4:46:13 PM PDT by GeronL (Political Correctness Kills)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: whence911

how about a recall capability within the language of this amendment? if they blow the budget, they are immediately gone. no hearings required. special election held within the month for all districts effected

but i think term limits are outside the scope of where i’m trying to go with this one


26 posted on 05/29/2010 4:47:12 PM PDT by sten
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: sten
they have found a way around the voting booth by stuffing the ballot boxes in a massive way... then shutting down the investigations once they take office.

Kinda takes the whole constitutional amendment fantasy off the table doesn't it?
27 posted on 05/29/2010 4:47:59 PM PDT by cripplecreek (Remember the River Raisin! (look it up))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: sten

An amendment that bans government from spending any money on anything but itself would be a good idea. That would send all welfare programs and education spending to the states.

I think it’d be a good start anyway.


28 posted on 05/29/2010 4:48:18 PM PDT by GeronL (Political Correctness Kills)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: GeronL

a war is not a war unless congress declares it officially.

and the extra money/credit that Congress would have available, the extra $500b, would be all there is... thereby making them stingy on handing it out for frivolous projects


29 posted on 05/29/2010 4:49:11 PM PDT by sten
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: cripplecreek

kind of hoping the people would almost demand such an amendment and the government might not have a choice but to amend the Constitution.

thinking if the tea parties could get behind something like this... that would be a driving force


30 posted on 05/29/2010 4:50:40 PM PDT by sten
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: sten

I think they should be banned for handing it out period. If it is not a Constitutional part of government it shouldn’t get a penny.

If the project is worthwhile, the private sector or the states should fund it.


31 posted on 05/29/2010 4:50:40 PM PDT by GeronL (Political Correctness Kills)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: GeronL

true... but i’m thinking we’d want to leave a little leeway... some slush money... so they can do their government thing.

keep in mind, once they break the 5% GDP line... the congressional budget would be put on a diet and dropped down to 85% of the federal receipts


32 posted on 05/29/2010 4:52:35 PM PDT by sten
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: GeronL

yes... we’d prolly carry that 4 to 5% balance for the life of the country... as congress would rather play with the slush money than square away all debts... but at least it’d be manageable and we’d be nowhere near the 90% GDP we are now.


33 posted on 05/29/2010 4:54:29 PM PDT by sten
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: sten

Fortunately most of us are smart enough to know better than allow the idiots in DC start tweaking the constitution.

Open up the constitution to change and the dealmaking between parties will begin and we’ll be screwed.


34 posted on 05/29/2010 4:55:24 PM PDT by cripplecreek (Remember the River Raisin! (look it up))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: cripplecreek

happened in 1913 .. which is how we got here.

i don’t see amendments that limit government as being a bad thing.


35 posted on 05/29/2010 4:56:56 PM PDT by sten
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: sten

OK sure whatever.


36 posted on 05/29/2010 4:58:07 PM PDT by cripplecreek (Remember the River Raisin! (look it up))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: sten
The problem is that most of what is already in the Constitution is ignored and overtly violated on a day to day basis by government at all levels. How will a few more words added to a piece of paper that is already ignored help at all?

If we gutted all the unconstitutional spending programs, including, but not limited to, Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, farm subsidies and the like the budget would be balanced.

37 posted on 05/29/2010 5:14:13 PM PDT by pnh102 (Regarding liberalism, always attribute to malice what you think can be explained by stupidity. - Me)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: pnh102

which.. if you put a set of teeth in this thing (recall congressional types when the budget is blown)... which force congress to trim off the items that are not supported by the Constitution

and if something happens... and the GDP is reduced... then congress will be forced to reduce their budget. it’s in their best interest to pass laws that would increase the GDP as well as salaries (since federal receipts rely heavily on personal income taxes)


38 posted on 05/29/2010 5:18:35 PM PDT by sten
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: sten

You are such a patriot! I think this link will help explain why this is so important.

http://www.businessinsider.com/federal-debt-as-a-percent-of-gdp-by-president-2010-5


39 posted on 05/29/2010 5:42:13 PM PDT by IheartGlenn
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: sten

You had best check http://pushbackuntil.com. The amount of money the government spends should be pegged to a set percentage of our cumulative adjusted gross income. Period. End of story. We, the people, should be deciding how much government we “want,” and that is about the fairest and best solution.


40 posted on 05/29/2010 5:43:36 PM PDT by DennisR (Look around - God gives countless, indisputable clues that He does, indeed, exist.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: sten

I’m afraid you’re approaching the problem from the wrong direction. I don’t know whether you remember the financial crisis in New York City in the 70’s, but there was thought that the city might go bankrupt, it needed a federal bailout, and there was a big flap about it.

The entire time New York was digging itself into that hole, the city was required by law to have a ballanced budget every year. And New York had a balanced budget every year. On paper.

Welcome to the wonderful world of creative accounting.

I doubt that any law will restrain congressional spending. We’ll just put this on the budget, take that off the budget, and “deem” last year’s tax receipts to include the last three months of receipts from the previous year. If we can’t build a serious budget when we can at least acknowledge the problem, it’s likely to be even harder when Congress has to pretend that the budget is ballanced.

The only solution to government overspending is to elect members of congress who don’t want to.

This deends, ultimately, on the voters. The reason the members of congress spend money we don’t have, is because they believe that people will vote for them if they do, and vote them out if they don’t. It’s not because those guys can’t add—they do this to stay in office. If enough people vote for fiscal responsibility, even congressmen who don’t believe in it, will start voting for it. The TEA parties are a start in this direction.


41 posted on 05/29/2010 5:52:17 PM PDT by Keb
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: sten

There are at least a half-dozen amendments I’d like to see made to the Constitution — but right now, I don’t want ANYTHING or anyone meddling with it! Until we RESTORE the government to the original understanding and intent of the Constitution, NO MORE changes. PERIOD.


42 posted on 05/29/2010 5:54:28 PM PDT by patriot preacher (To be a good American Citizen and a Christian IS NOT a contradiction. (www.mygration.blogspot.com))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: sten

How about any legislator presiding over any legislative term that runs up a deficit in excess of 2.5% of GDP in a single year must step down at the end of that Congressional term and is not eliglble to run for office for four years.


43 posted on 05/29/2010 6:05:08 PM PDT by Hoodat (.For the weapons of our warfare are mighty in God for pulling down strongholds.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: sten
1. The seventeenth article of amendment to the Constitution of the United States is hereby repealed.

2. The power to regulate commerce among the several States shall be used as a negative and preventive provision against injustice among the States themselves, and not for any positive purpose of the Federal Government.

44 posted on 05/29/2010 6:25:55 PM PDT by Ken H
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: sten
which.. if you put a set of teeth in this thing ...

Therein lays the rub. The Constitution (and any law for that matter) only means anything if the people in charge actually obey it. Currently they don't. There's plenty of places where the Constitution forces a particular branch of government to do something and the branch in question refuses to act.

The massive debt our government has run up is due entirely to purposeful ignorance of the restrictions imposed by the Constitution.

45 posted on 05/29/2010 7:29:42 PM PDT by pnh102 (Regarding liberalism, always attribute to malice what you think can be explained by stupidity. - Me)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: Ken H
You're right A17 is a big factor in the dysfunction of the federal government. I also like your clarification of the commerce clause. Good job!
46 posted on 05/29/2010 11:38:06 PM PDT by AlienCrossfirePlayer (No representation without taxation)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: AlienCrossfirePlayer
Thank you! I must give credit to James Madison, who said that the power to regulate commerce among the several States "...was intended as a negative and preventive provision against injustice among the States themselves, rather than as a power to be used for the positive purposes of the General Government,".¹

__________________________________________

¹James Madison

13 Feb. 1829 Letters 4:14--15

http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/a1_8_3_commerces19.html

47 posted on 05/30/2010 12:02:07 AM PDT by Ken H
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: sten
I'd rather have something to amplify Article VI:

Section One: Except as provided in Section Two, any action by the government, or its agents or employees, which is in violation of this Constitution or laws as described in Article VI is illegitimate, and all citizens have a right and duty to regard it as such. The Supreme Court has no authority to issue any ruling which contradicts the Supreme Law of the Land; such rulings are illegitimate and should be disregarded.

Section Two: The only time it may be necessary and appropriate for a government agent to go beyond the clearly-delineated scope of the Constitution would be when effecting a remedy for previous illegitimate activities by government agents. Such actions, to be legitimate, must be done overtly, with the nature of the previous illegitimate actions and the proposed remedy plainly spelled out. Citizens have a right and duty to scrutinize all such claims and actions.

48 posted on 06/07/2010 3:44:28 PM PDT by supercat (Barry Soetoro == Bravo Sierra)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson