Posted on 07/07/2011 12:37:20 PM PDT by tips up
Amen! Under NO circumstances can these people be trusted with our Constitution.
If nothing else, the balanced budget amendment puts an upper limit on spending, which we currently do not have. Spending, including debt service, could never exceed GDP, and the closer to GDP they get, the more restless the natives, because the requisit tax increases would drop further down the food chain. States with the highest cost of living (i.e, blue states) would be hit the hardest first, which could actually swing those states red.
There is a difference between a Consitutional Amendment and a Constitutional Convention. An Amendment is started in Congress, then goes to States for ratification. A Constitutional Convention starts with a blank sheet of paper and nothing that existed previously is guaranteed to show up in the new one. This is about an Amendment, not a Convention.
if congress needs an amendment to the constitution to balance the budget, the solution is a new congress
Maybe along with the amendment, add a required supermajority to raise taxes.
Most of our elected officials don't abide by it now, many don't even know what's in it or what it means. I don't see how this type of amendment will do anything except be a ruse to cover for the increase in the debt ceiling.
If written correctly, that can’t happen... but what an IF!
LLS
Amendments are written passed then sent to the states for ratification, no surprise there. You may be referring to a Constitutional Convention which is called by the States, then everything is on the table.
“Maybe along with the amendment, add a required supermajority to raise taxes.”
ding ding ding. How about super majority in BOTH the House and Senate. Further, it needs to be written such that fees, duties, “required purchases”, etc are covered. Basically, anything that requires someone to write a check to the government.
“Maybe along with the amendment, add a required supermajority to raise taxes.”
ding ding ding. How about super majority in BOTH the House and Senate. Further, it needs to be written such that fees, duties, “required purchases”, etc are covered. Basically, anything that requires someone to write a check to the government.
Anything coming out of a constitutional convention would have to be ratified by 3/4s of the states also. So how is it so much scarier than Congressionally-passed amendments? At least with a convention, there’d be a chance of conservatives having some say.
i agree. Unless they can author enough clauses that would stop or allow certain types of “balance” to the budget, it will be worthless.
If debts + taxes = spending, isnt the budget balanced? The problem we have, is we dont like the way it is currently balanced and we dont like how big the numbers are on either side of the equation. An amendment wont guarantee that we get either thing we want.
Whats to say we get spending, taxes, and debt down, but then have a major crisis like a war, which would force us to borrow more than Constitutionally allowed?
Yeah, I hear ya. Tough call. I mean I’m with it on the balanced budget, it’s just tough to force it by law or amendment because it’s not like they will cut spending to balance it. And, there are those few times when Gov’t needs to run a deficit (war being the prime example).
I wish I had the answer. I didn’t use to be a term limit fan but am a HUGE one now. One term for Senate, 3 terms for House, leave the two for President, and Federal Judges are appointed for twenty years (per level) max.
It definitely seems to have worked as intended at the state level. It could on the federal level, but I have my concerns. For one, states have direct competitive situations with other states...especially on business taxes. We’ve seen this element play well in the midwest and in NJ this year. The feds have less competition, and more government parasites. I am open to the idea, I just fear the unintended consequences.
Well at this point in our history, it may be a good thing, but the fact that they would have unlimited discretion, is a little scary.
They may collectively have the wisdom of the founders, but I doubt it, unless we had an intervention by God.
The default will be to raise taxes. Ole ma Snow knows this and DeMint is playing the stupid wing of the Republican party.
They've already maxxed out what they can squeeze out of us. Believe you me it's not a conscience that restrains them, it's the certain knowledge that they will end up with less in the net if they do (see: tobacco taxes).
So the bottom line is that a balanced budget amendment will force the cut of spending of 43%, and any attempt to raise taxes instead of cutting spending will destroy the economy and thus the ability to raise tax revenue at all.
dirty little secret .gov doesn't want you to know: Tax revenues are already cratering and they are not looking to recover anytime soon no matter what tax rates are.
Yes. He's talking about the most recent version that also limits spending to 18% of GDP and forces a 2/3 vote to raise taxes.
Liberals do not care about revenue!!!
Has revenue ever limited their spending? To a liberal, taxes are about social engineering. Period.
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.