Sunday Morning Talk Show Thread 17 July 2011

Various driveby media television networks ^ | 17 July 2011 | Various Self-Serving Politicians and Big Media Screaming Faces

[kabar]

I was just responding to what you said: Programmatic hikes won’t require any majority. They would just kick in as a method of abiding by the balanced budget law. A simple generic law would be passed long before anything specific occurred. Then, when it did, presto, tax hike. Then, the courts are asked to interpret the amendment. How do you think they will go?

Does this proposed amendment allow programmatic hikes that won't require any majority? Not from my reading of the amendment that defines and limits outlays and receipts.

[PaleoBob]

It would take an iteration or two, and some court cases, but it would work the way it does in localities and states with programmtic tax and fee hikes.

Does this proposed amendment allow programmatic hikes that won’t require any majority? Not from my reading of the amendment that defines and limits outlays and receipts.

---

When the amendment conflicted with a major program like Odumbocare or something a court deemed vital, a liberal court would simply uphold the programmatic hikes. The courts have persistently overruled constitutional amendments for a century and more. It’s no big deal—to those who LOVE legislating from the bench.

But none of this cut, cap and balance stuff will EVER see the light of day. If the Repukes had any brains they would have simply accommodated the Obo’s desire for a “clean” vote on the debt limit and voted NO. That would, of itself, force spending reductions. Isn’t that what we want?

And how many major Repuke plans that can’t ever pass the full congress and withstand veto are out there? Why are the Repukes able to deliver grand design waterfall plans but unable to just vote NO? What’s wrong with these people?

Just for the record, I also think the amendment conflicts with the body of the constitution, which affords each congress power over the pursestrings. In the past, legislation that attempts to inform future congresses they can’t repeal what a previous congress did have been deemed unconstitutional.

But it’s all academic because there’s no way in hell this amendment will ever pass.

[kabar]

Pure speculation on your part re how SCOTUS would rule. The amendment process allows both Congress and the states to weigh in on the change. And nothing is engraved in stone. Amendments can be repealed or modified and they have been. No future Congress is really bound by the amendment given its ability to use the amendment process to change it.

Congress seems incapable of the discipline needed to keep our financial house in order. A constitutional amendment will provide the needed structure and discipline to prevent whimscial and imprudent actions that have marked our recent adoption and expansion of the welfare state. The states have imposed such restraint on their legislative bodies and executives. Passing such an amendment would send strong signals to the rest of the world that we are serious about our financial problems. And it doesn't hurt that 80% of the American people favor such an approach.

If the Repukes had any brains they would have simply accommodated the Obo’s desire for a “clean” vote on the debt limit and voted NO.

In case you missed it, they already did have such a vote. It was voted down in the House by a 318-97 vote. And Reps in the Senate have been demanding a similar vote.

House Rejects Clean Vote to Raise Debt Ceiling

[PaleoBob]

In case you missed it, they already did have such a vote. It was voted down in the House by a 318-97 vote. And Reps in the Senate have been demanding a similar vote.

—

I vaguely am aware of it. But if they were sincere about this vote, they’d stand pat instead of coming up with yet more plans and proposals and worthless stuff to vote on that contradicts the earlier vote.

Raise the debt “ceiling”—?? Up or down. One man, one vote, one time. Move on.

The “plan” they should be working on is how to deal with the deficit now that the limit has FINALLY and at LONG LAST been reached.

Instead, they are gonna amend the constitution!

/ as if

[kabar]

I vaguely am aware of it. But if they were sincere about this vote, they’d stand pat instead of coming up with yet more plans and proposals and worthless stuff to vote on that contradicts the earlier vote.

No need to be vague about it now. The vote was taken. Today, the House passed the cut, cap, and balance bill that clearly puts the ball in the Dems court. The Reps have passed an increase in the debt ceiling along with cuts and a constitutional amendment.

The “plan” they should be working on is how to deal with the deficit now that the limit has FINALLY and at LONG LAST been reached.

I suggest you get better informed.