Skip to comments.Rep. Rakestraw Braddock's (Article V) Balanced Budget Bill Passes Georgia General Assembly
Posted on 03/22/2014 8:25:08 PM PDT by Strawberry AZ
State Rep. Paulette Rakestraw Braddock announced that on Wednesday, March 19, the Georgia Senate passed by a vote of 30-25 the Compact for a Balanced Budget Amendment. "I am thrilled to see Georgia take the lead to restore fiscal responsibility in Washington," said Rep. Rakestraw Braddock, the lead sponsor of the legislation. Our Georgia lawmakers are saying, 'Enough is enough' to the burgeoning $18 trillion federal debt. We are the first in the nation to call for an Article V constitutional convention of states to rein in out-of-control Washington spending." The Amendment now awaits Georgia Governor Nathan Deal's signature.
Read more: http://www.digitaljournal.com/pr/1805618#ixzz2wkimejqZ
(Excerpt) Read more at digitaljournal.com ...
Article V ping.
Congress is not empowered to tax for those purposes which are within the exclusive province of the States. Justice John Marshall, Gibbons v. Ogden, 1824.
Actually this one does, and the provisions have teeth!
This is the Goldwater bill, and it's not my favorite. I prefer the Convention of States legislation being advanced by the Citizens for Self-Governance, but I have to count myself as a supporter of any Article V legislation on principle, if not entirely on policy.
I haven't read through all of the bill (it's a headache!), but the anti-taxing stuff is awesome. Not only does it seriously limit how much the feds can spend, it totally limits borrowing, and makes non-compliance or attempts by the president to do an end-run around the law an impeachable offense!
Here's a link... just take a look at Section 4... it'll make your eyes water!
....and the Dems think Georgia is in play. Idiots. Good on you Georgia . The best we can do is Christie. Sorry. Plenty of patriots here in NJ but we are outnumbered badly.
I think that Section 4 should include the option for state lawmakers to impeach both president AND members of Congress if Congress doesn't act 30 days after the president doesn't act. (Speaking of which, I'd like to see a provision which repeals 16th and 17th Amendments.)
Also, for appropriation bills initiated by the House of Representatives, the proposed Balance Budget amendment need to incorporate wording from attempted enumerated powers acts into bill, requiring Congress to cite specific constitutional clauses in any appropriations bill which reasonably justify each appropriation under Congress's constitutional Article I, Section 8-limited powers.
Also, the amendment needs to make clear that Senate majority leader will tried for treason if Senate guts a House appropriations bill and replaces contents with appropriations legislation, as
Obamacare Democratcare bill allegedly was, as Clause 1 of Section 7 of Article I prohibits the Senate from initiating such bills.
My understanding is that the Goldwater BBA legislation is written in a deliberately narrow fashion so as to present one single subject, as some constitutional scholars have recommended. Besides the fear of a "runaway" convention, the most common argument against the broader CoS that I hear is this single-subject rule.
Personally, I'm not smart enough to know who's right, but I do know that the Bill of Rights sure wasn't a single subject, and all ten of those amendments were the result of a single call for a convention of states to amend the brand new Constitution.
Well, with any luck at all, we'll see soon enough!
I know the feeling. Upstate New York transplant, here in Arizona. I must have a dozen cousins scattered from Buffalo to Albany and all the way up to Plattsburgh, and every one of them is terminally depressed. No one knows what to do. They don't want to move away, because they love their state... they just hate what the politicians have done to their state government. Kinda like how I feel about the nation...
Are NJ patriots up to speed with the Constitution, aware of both the fed's constitutionally limited powers and enumerated rights, as opposed to rights legislated from the bench by activist judges?
OK, Represntative Braddock, you are now a member of Congress and your balanced budget amendment has been adopted. You’re budget is $1 trillion out of wack. Let us know what cuts you will make to bring it back into balance.
“... Your budget is $1 trillion out of whack.
Let us know what cuts you will make ...”
Oh, hey, this could be a fun game!
Here is half of it, right off the bat:
Non-Mandatory (Discretionary) Spending (in billions of dollars):
Department of Health and Human Services (not including Medicare and Medicaid) - $81
Department of Education - $68
Department of Veterans Affairs - $60
Department of Housing and Urban Development - $41
Department of State and Other International Programs - $56
Department of Homeland Security - $55
Department of Energy - $36
Department of Justice - $24
Department of Agriculture - $27
National Aeronautics and Space Administration - $18
National Intelligence Program - $53
Department of Transportation - $24
Department of the Treasury - $14
Department of the Interior - $12
Department of Labor - $13
Social Security Administration - $12
Department of Commerce - $10
Army Corps of Engineers Civil Works - $8
Environmental Protection Agency - $9
National Science Foundation - $7
Small Business Administration - $1
Corporation for National and Community Service - $1
Total of all of the above - $630 Billion Dollars
So...no court system, no federal prisons, no national parks, no air traffic control system, no VA hospitals, no interstate highways, no food inspections, no crop insurance, no veterans programs, no foreign embassies, no currency or coin, and you’re still $370 billion short.
You are wrong.
First, those are all “discretionary” dollars.
And second, most of them we would be better off with out.
What is on your list?
And everything I mentioned is "discretionary" spending. And it all goes in your scenario.
What is on your list?
I don't have one because I'm smart enough to realize that you can't balance the budget by attacking discretionary spending alone. You have to cut non-discretionary spending and there isn't a single person in Congress with the nerve to do that. If there was then there wouldn't be a need for a balanced budget amendment. Congress would just balance it.
“What is on your list?”
“I don’t have one”
Thanks for playing.
I am just guessing, but from the question you asked, it doesn't appear that you've read the amendment. The earlier link was to an overview of the proposal, so here you can see the entire text of the bill:
In a nutshell, the plan is a very organized, highly structured one that starts at the only place you can logically start when attempting to deal with such monumental debt: It stops the magic money machine. It controls borrowing.
Once that is firmly establish, it forces discipline on the lawmakers, making them do the job they were sent there to do - make the hard choices. They ran for office, now let them take the actual responsibility, and not just the perks. And they'll do so with some interesting new definitions of and prerequisites for impeachment for failure to perform hanging over everyone's head, including and especially the president.
You really should take the time to look it over for yourself. There is no way any one person here can explain to you what is there in ten or so pages of legislation, other than to promise you that therein lies all your answers.
If reading all that legalese isn't your cup of tea, let me just share one little tidbit that may entice you to take the plunge:
One of the "new" stipulations regarding raising the national debt limit involves the president submitting a budgetary rationale for the request to Congress - under penalty of impeachment for failure to do so - and then Congress referring the request to the several states for ratification by their legislatures. Now, that's a gross oversimplification of the actual terms spelled out in the bill, but that is the overall concept - to hand the reins of control to the states.
Seriously... it makes for fascinating dreams instead of terrifying nightmares.
One of the "new" stipulations regarding raising taxes or increasing the national debt limit involves the president submitting a budgetary rationale for the request to Congress - under penalty of impeachment for failure to do so - and then Congress referring the request to the several states for ratification by their legislatures.
There. Now, go toss some Jiffy Pop in the microwave and enjoy!
That's simple: anything not listed in Article I, Section 8.
Then let's start now. Where are Rep Braddock's cuts?
I'm sure there must be a point you're trying to make, but I'll be darned if I can figure it out.
Is this something personal between you and Braddock and you're just being sarcastic?
If that's the case, fine... must be an inside joke... but how about advancing our conversation?
Because saying that they want a balanced budget is the easy part. I want to know how they're going to tackle the hard part. These idiots blather about a balanced budget amendment as if it were the solution. It isn't. Requiring the budget to be balanced means that they actually have to...ta da...balance it. Which means roughly a trillion dollars in cuts. So what I want to know is where she will cut to bring things into line. Because if I honestly thought Congress had the spine to do then they wouldn't need an amendment.
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.