Posted on 04/24/2014 7:08:07 AM PDT by ReleaseTheHounds
n Washington, it is never too early to discuss who will next reside in the White House. But the real question is not who; it's what he will do there. Could even a President Paul, Lee, or Cruz accomplish the dramatic downsizing of government that we need? How would he push a Tea Party agenda, given what I call the Big Conundrum?
The Big Conundrum is that those of us who believe in limited government abhor how much power has been appropriated to the executive branch. It would seem a type of hypocrisy to use those same powers to radically reduce the scope of government. But then, to foreswear the tools that were used to grow government is to adopt a self-defeating strategy. Is there a way to pursue an aggressive agenda as president, while leaving a legacy of reduced executive authority?
(Excerpt) Read more at spectator.org ...
I should have included this excerpt from the article:
“How? The best idea I know of is a new approach to a Balanced Budget Amendment as put forward by Nick Dranias of the Arizona-based Goldwater Institute. He begins by identifying the problem: “Unlimited debt is the fairy dust that makes unlimited government possible.” We can only pretend to live in this fairy tale for so long, because our debt has climbed to epic proportions. The federal government’s explicit debt liabilities now exceed our national GDP, and that doesn’t even include an estimated $100 trillion of unfunded liabilities that are baked into our entitlement programs. It seems a mathematical certainty that a course correction will come in the next twenty years. The question is whether the correction will arrive as a sudden crisis or a challenge we meet with a plan.
The Goldwater Institute has such a plan. Its “Compact for a Balanced Budget” calls for a Balanced Budget Amendment to the Constitution that gives the states the authority to rein in federal spending. The strategy is to move the amendment forward via a to-date-unused provision in Article V of the Constitution, which would circumvent Congress with a (carefully limited) constitutional convention, organized via a compact among two-thirds of the states. George Will has taken to the pages of the Washington Post to encourage the emerging movement of “Fivers” rallying behind the Article V strategy.”
I was lucky enough to observe the debate in the Senate Judiciary committee when this was proposed in the ‘80s. It was frustrating to watch the democrats trash the idea of a balance budget amendment. It was clear their party dogma is “tax and spend” to achieve prosperity. They refuse to believe anything else.
I am stumped that anyone assumes the government would abide by that amendment after ignoring the others
A Balanced Budget Amendment has to be bullet proof:
1) There cannot be “off budget” expenditures or black budgets. If at the end of the fiscal year an agency has surplus funds, they revert to the Treasury.
2) Debt reduction must be included until there is no debt, then from that point, debt must be resolved within the current term of congress. This means the government can no longer issue long term debt, but can use existing funds to *buy* commercial, long term bonds.
3) Any “emergency clause” must be very carefully outlined and limited, or some POTUS will just declare either a “permanent war” (even like the War On Drugs) emergency; or worse, a “permanent disaster” emergency, based on nonsense like a “carbon dioxide crisis”.
Article V ping.
Along with a Balanced Budget Amendment, you also have to have a legal limit to the ability to raise taxes (including fees) on individuals & on corporations to cover increasing government expenditures. Otherwise, the government will simply tax more & more to cover higher expenditures.
yefragetuwrabrumuy wrote:
A Balanced Budget Amendment has to be bullet proof:
1) There cannot be “off budget” expenditures or black budgets. If at the end of the fiscal year an agency has surplus funds, they revert to the Treasury.
2) Debt reduction must be included until there is no debt, then from that point, debt must be resolved within the current term of congress. This means the government can no longer issue long term debt, but can use existing funds to *buy* commercial, long term bonds.
3) Any “emergency clause” must be very carefully outlined and limited, or some POTUS will just declare either a “permanent war” (even like the War On Drugs) emergency; or worse, a “permanent disaster” emergency, based on nonsense like a “carbon dioxide crisis”.
That's going down the wrong path. The deficit issue is secondary to government spending. Targeting limits on government spending and taxation is hitting the bulls eye. Target limits on spending, and the deficit problem will automatically be minimized. After you have forced limits on government spending and taxation, then simply make it politically profitable for politicians to do the right thing. In other words, if they stay within the limits, maybe we'll keep them around. If they line their pockets and spend too much, THROW THE BUMS OUT.
A "balanced budget amendment" misses the mark, and one way or the other infers a rise in taxes. THAT would be a disaster. The problem of the deficit does nto compare to the financial disaster of high taxes.
Keep your eye on the ball: massively cutting the $4 TRILLION GOVERNMENT. The issue and reason I support CoC by CSG is to hope to cut the $4 TRILLION GOVERNMENT by at least 80% (=$800 billion - still too big, but it's a start).
“The executive has slipped off many of the constraints of separation of powers. The president makes and unmakes laws without the consent of Congress and spends trillions of government dollars; and the greatest of decisions – whether to commit his country to war – is made by him alone. His ability to reward friends and punish enemies exceeds anything seen in the past. He is Rex quondam, rex futurus - the once and future king.”
“And all of this irreversible.”
Toss in IRS, NSA, FBI, BATF, FEC abuse, and DOJ lawfare against political enemies.
Frank Buckley is right. All of this irreversible if the structure of government isn’t restored to pre-17th days.
Unless the states return to the senate, there will never again be a non-rat President. The Left holds the reins of power, will use them to destroy whomever needs it in 2016, and will not put the “progress” they’ve made under Obama at risk.
FWIW, I don’t recommend the book.
You have to be careful not to cram too much in the amendment. In this case, a tax amendment would effectively have to repeal or significantly modify the 16th amendment, so while it might be a companion amendment, I doubt you could fit the two together into one.
Fair Tax or Flat Tax,
We all end up poor.
We deny that we have,
What all can see:
We are spending, and spending,
Well beyond our means!
As National Pooring continues,
And decay sets in,
Our Debt Funding will stop,
For the Permanent Welfare Debt Bin.
So what do we do?
Says I to you,
Keep paying ourselves Welfare,
And not pay the Debt?
With no Welfare checks,
Comes the pain of withdrawl,
Oh! What shall we do?
With no Social Security, Medicare and such,
The pain will be awful,
Just awful I say!
With the present dual system,
Of Debt Funded Welfare,
And true governing costs,
We must end Welfare to ourselves,
Or all will be lost.
Taxing and funding is fine as it is,
The problem is the narcotic of Welfare,
That has almost done us in - - - - .
So ask yourself,
Can you get by,
With current high taxes,
And no Mailbox Eagle flying by?
The Convention of States strategy is the way to go. Balanced budget amendment, term limits, repeal of the 17th Amendment, and any other sensible approach to restoring the Constitution as written, require a coordinated strategy. The reason that previous attempts have not worked is that not enough states have ever agreed on the specific amendment.
COS QUOTE:
Plan: COS’s plan is twofold
1. We want to call a convention for a particular subject rather than a particular amendment. Instead of calling a convention for a balanced budget amendment (though we are entirely supportive of such an amendment), we want to call a convention for the following purpose: Limiting the power and jurisdiction of the federal government.
2. We believe the grassroots is the key to calling a successful convention. We would like to build a political operation in a minimum of 40 states, getting 100 people to volunteer in at least 75% of the state legislative districts. Only through the support of the American people will this project have a chance to succeed.
http://conventionofstates.com/welcome/
Couple weeks, done deal.
Or buy more ammo and dial in for the long haul.
True.
They’ll just raise taxes to balance it.
The tax is insidious and is called inflation.
The only problem is that wages are stagnant. Once wages get off the dime, inflation will be off to the races.
Wages absolutely must rise to pay for Obamacare and to inflate away the debt
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.