Posted on 07/29/2011 9:33:47 AM PDT by Tulsa Ramjet
House Republicans will link passage of a balanced-budget amendment to Speaker John Boehner’s (R-Ohio) last-ditch debt-ceiling plan, which GOP lawmakers said would move the measure to passage in a high-stakes vote later on Friday.
Republican lawmakers voiced confidence the enhanced bill would pass muster with conservatives, as Rep. Mo Brooks (R-Ala.) predicted the balanced-budget amendment change would bring 10 to 20 more GOP members on board.
(Excerpt) Read more at thehill.com ...
RUN, SARAH, RUN! :)
“This BBA is smoke and mirrors and it gives the Tea Party folks cover.”
That’s why I called it out as a stupid trick.
Re: The Upshot
July 29, 2011 1:10 P.M.
By Daniel Foster
In other words, a debt-ceiling increase that is weaker on enforceable cuts than either version of the Boehner plan will become law, and the House conservatives who were so crucial to ensuring the failure of the old Boehner plan will be entirely irrelevant to the vote on the weak Senate compromise. Hooray?
We're SCREWED!
Re: GOP Calls an Audible
July 29, 2011 1:04 P.M.
By Robert Costa
Leaving this morning’s conference meeting, freshman Rep. Mike Kelly (R., Pa.), known for his Fighting Irish spirit, told reporters that House Republicans are “pretty fired up and ready” to back the Boehner plan, which should hit the floor this afternoon. Rep. Steve Chabot (R., Ohio) agreed. “It will have the votes to pass,” he said. “I would like to go further but this is the best we could do under the circumstances. I was ready to vote for the plan yesterday, but this [change] just makes it better.”
Freshman Rep. Raul Labrador (R., Idaho), however, was not as enthusiastic. A firm “no,” Labrador told me he has “no comment” about Boehner’s balanced-budget maneuver. Rep. Joe Walsh (R., Ill.), another freshman who has vocally opposed Boehner’s plan, acknowledged that the tides have turned. Boehner’s changes, he said, are what “a lot of folks needed” to vote “aye.” Still, he noted, “if it were up to me, we’d resend ‘Cut, Cap and Balance’ back to the Senate.”
For what it’s worth, as of 1 p.m., leadership sources say Boehner has all but wrapped this up.
Requesting your forgiveness, for the trap snared me.
Role call vote in the house rules committee has passed the amendment 8-4.
THERE you go!!!
The democrats first tabled then voted against a Balanced Budget Amendment!
Daily ads on TV. . .
CUT, CAP and BALANCE. Accept nothing less.
We have ALL know - ALL along how this would end. It won’t be a win for the American public.
In 5 to 8 years we will likely be around 18-20+ trillion in debt. Who will be surprised? We KNOW this.
Only way to change this is a shift in power. More Tea Party candidates run and win.
The establishment is not going to change.
Now it appears we are absolutely still in a recession.
This is going to get ugly and get ugly fast. America is on a path of civil war or slavery to debt. One or the other.
It will be up to the people.
We are already in a Civil War. It just hasn’t come to bullets yet.
I missed something, forgiveness for ?
IF we lose in 2012, there WILL be bullets.
Then it ain’t over. Just heard TP wants hard language. Still balking. say it’s too weak.
Oh brother, please stop trying to pin the blame on Hussein.
:::::::::
Yeah, he has done nothing to create our financial mess. He is really clean and innocent here (/sarc).....you need to rethink that comment completely.
Sorry about your attitude. There are some heavy adjustments that need to made in Washington, and I will leave it there.
Let’s hope for the best. Fate works in strage ways.
I share your concern about the BBA.
The fact is, for the first time I can remember as a conservative, *we’ve won if we don’t do anything*. Keep the debt ceiling in place and the government gets an INSTANT haircut.
I bought the hook, line and sinker of BBA. Now I understand there is no language for a BBA. I jumped the shark and believed Congress was about to do the right thing. After praying, listening, and reading, I realized how wrong I was.
Bachmann: Obama Should Get on the Phone Himself
July 29, 2011 1:35 P.M.
By Katrina Trinko
Even with the Balanced Budget Amendment thrown in the Boehner plan, Michele Bachmann is giving no sign that there is any possibility she will switch her vote to ‘yes.’
“The President isn’t fooling anyone. He wants this increase so he can continue to waste taxpayer dollars on his failed economic policies,” Bachmann said in a statement released this afternoon. “Someone has to say stop. Someone has to say no to all of the massive spending and debt this President continues to give us. I will.”
She did not mention Boehner in the statement, focusing entirely on President Obama’s remarks this morning.
“His definition of compromise is to have everyone agree with him that we should raise the debt limit, increase spending and increase taxes, but he is unwilling to provide the leadership to reach any agreement. The President asked the American people to call their members of Congress, he should be the one on the phone calling them to make a deal,” Bachmann said.
Problem is... for the Fed Gov’t, proceeds from debt issued is considered revenue. I know....
The Republican Party Elites know that balance budget amendment isn’t going anywhere. It allows the Tea Party members to vote for the bill, but that language will be stripped out before returning to the House. If it wasn’t, the bill would be vetoed by Obambi.
I support the Tea Party members reluctance to vote for this bill. I don’t think they’re being realistic if they think this amendment will ever see the light of day.
House is now in session to consider the bill.
Rand Paul holding firm against anything in the senate accept the CCB original bill. Says a second bill is unnecessary.
Thanks for the mention.
So how does this bill differ from the first bill.
No. As Reagan proved, symbolism is important.
Absolutely agree; as is integrity.
NO to Obama and everything he stands for!
@RepDennisRoss Is the BBA real? Or is the play to keep the debt ceiling in place and force an INSTANT Government haircut?
His reply just came in...
It will be real. Spending cannot exceed % of GDP. Prevents tax increases to match bloated budgets.
“The two big differences between Cut, Cap, and Balance and the Boehner bill”
By: Conn Carroll
07/29/11 12:36 PM
Everyone in my twitter feed seems to be saying that there is no difference between the new debt hike bill Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, unveiled today and the Cut, Cap, and Balance Act that was passed earlier this month. This is wrong. There are two big differences between the two bills:
1) The Boehner bill would raise the debt limit before the August 2nd deadline without the need for a Balanced Budget Amendment to be passed first. Yes, a Balanced Budget Amendment would have to be passed for the second debt limit hike sometime in the spring, but a completely new deal could be worked out before then.
2) The Boehner bill does not require that the Balanced Budget Amendment sent to the states to trigger the second traunch have a two-thirds super-majority requirment for raising taxes. This makes the BBA much more likely to win Democrat votes.
The White House has been asking the Tea Party to compromise. The Boehner bill includes two big ones.”
If the federal government is truly incapable of increasing the indebtedness of the U.S. without Congressional approval, then the result is BALANCED. That is, every single month the government must decide which of several possible payments get made but the total of the payments cannot exceed the total of the monthly revenue.
It's certainly going to be painful. Just like a junky experiencing "cold turkey" withdrawal symptoms. Unfortunately, the communists running our government have no intention of ever willfully backing away from their addiction to spending.
The public are now properly educated as to the debt clock...And it’s going to look just as ugly this time next year as it does now.
I see. Even if there was a good language and excellent Congressional approval, the actual ratification would be years away if ever (like the equal rights amendment).
Plenty of time to raise the debt limit by another 50 trillion and assure that we’d become slaves to whoever holds the worthless bonds.
Any real BBA would require the end of baseline budgeting
Congressman so and so voted to cut pell grants....voted to...blah blah blah
Its very stupid. It weakens him and he doesn't need to do it.
House has completed a 1 hour debate and is now voting.
And by those figures the debt would equal the trade deficit.
Great RINO talking points.
The newest members in Congresss were elected to make the hard decisions, and nothing is harder than finding a means to force the "we can spend our way out of this" Cloward-Piven Soros crowd to stop spending the citizens' money today for income over the next 40 years.
It should be a no-brainer.
Increased spending limit today?
Meaningful cuts today.
No compromise, dammit!!
Well, D"UH!
The 'Rats have told us as much. But a formal permanent record of their position will live forever.
The "we would have saved another "20 million jobs if the GOP had not been intransigent" argument is beyond a dead horse by now.
If it fails in the Senate or the President vetoes it,then it is no longer the House’s responsibility.
Forgetting about the vaunted 4th estate are we? No matter what happens the right will get the blame and the sheeple shall believe.
Here is a great prediction of what's happening now from 31 years ago.
Plus a few numbers that ought to make any rational person stay awake nights...
The following was written in the late 70s, and published in 1980, 31 years ago. More than a generation now.
See if any of it sounds familiar today, only worse than then. Multiply everything by 7 and if you can stay away from the vodka, you are a better man than I am.
One chink in the armor of any democracy is that, when the Plebs discover that they can vote themselves Bread & Circuses, they usually do . . . right up to the day there is neither bread nor circuses. At that point they often start lynching the senators, congressmen, bankers, tax collectors, Jews, grocers, foreigners, any minority-take your choice. For they know that they [themselves] didn’t do it. The citizen is sovereign until it comes to accepting blame for his sovereign acts then he demands a scapegoat.
...
Social Security taxes go into the general fund and are spent. If Social Security were in fact insurance (the basis on which the gimmick was sold to us by FDR’s “New Deal”), the receipts would be segregated and invested and not shown as income . . . OR a competent insurance actuary with staff would calculate the commitment and it would show in the National Public Debt.
The fact that a debt is amortized over the years doesn’t stop it from being a debt. It was an amortized mortgage that got me into this racket. The prospect of years and years of future monthly payments spoiled my sleep.
The only way the Government can go on paying Social “Security” to my generation is by taxing you young people more and more heavily. . . and each year there are more and more old people and fewer and fewer young people. It won’t help to run the printing presses faster; that causes food to rise in price, rents to go up, etc. - and people over 65 start putting pressure on Congress... and there’s an election coming up. (There’s always an election coming up.)
I use the term “Federal Public Debt” because what is usually termed the “Public Debt” is by no means our total public debt. There are also state, county, city, and special-district debts. It is difficult to get accurate figures on these public debts but the total appears to be larger than the Federal Public Debt. I can’t make even a wild guess at the Social Security commitment but our total public promises-to-pay have to exceed two trillion dollars.
How much is a trillion? Well, it means that a baby born today owes at least $4,347.83 to the Federal Government alone before his eyes open. (No wonder he yells). It means that the Zero Population Growth family (who was going to save us all-remember?) of father, mother, and 2.1 children owes $17,826 in addition to private debts (mortgage, automobile, college for 2.1 children).
Of course papa won’t pay it off; that debt will grow larger. But it will cost him $2000 a year (and rising) just to “service” his pro-rata; any taxes for which he getsanything at all-even more laws-is on top of that.
A trillion seconds is 31,688 years, 9 months, 5 days, 8 hours, 6 minutes, and 42 seconds - long enough for the precession of the equinoxes to make Vega the Pole Star, swing back again to Polaris, and go on past to Alpha Cephei. Or counting the other way it would take us to 29,708 B.C.. . . or more than 25 thousand years before Creation by Bishop Usher’s chronology for creationism.
I don’t understand a trillion dollars any better than I do a trillion seconds. I simply know that we had better stop spending money we don’t have if we want to avoid that Man on Horseback.
But I don’t think we will stop “deficit financing,” the euphemism that sounds so much better than “kiting checks.” You may have noticed that 1970 figure for public employees (not my extrapolation for 1980, but the official 1970 figures straight from theUnited States Bureau of the Census).
That figure does not include the Armed Forces. It does not include some special categories. It is easier to learn the number of slaves imported in 1769 (6,736) than it is to find out exactly how many people are on public payrolls in this country. And it is not simply difficult but impossible to determine how many people receive Federal checks for which they perform no services. (Or food stamps. Are food stamps money?) But one thing is certain: the number of people eligible to vote who do receive money from some unit of government (aid to dependent children, Supreme Court justices, not growing wheat, removing garbage, governors of states, whoever) exceeds the number eligible to vote but receiving no pay or subsidy of any sort from any unit of government.
Have you read the Federal Register lately? Have you ever read the Federal Register? Under powers delegated by Congress certain appointed officials can publish a new regulation in the Federal Register and, if Congress does not stop it, after a prescribed waiting time, that regulation has the force of law-it is law, [usually forever,] to you and to me, although a lawyer sees nuances. I have vastly oversimplified this description, but my only purpose is to point out that “administrative law” reaches into every corner of our lives, and is the major factor in the enormous and strangling invasion of the Federal Government into our private affairs.
I can’t see anything in the Constitution that permits the Congress to delegate its power to pass laws.. . but the Supreme Court says it’s okay and that makes my opinion worthless.
I’m stopping. There are endless other gloomy things to discuss-the oil shortage, the power shortage (not the same thing), pollution, population pressure, a projected change in climate that can and probably will turn the problems of population and food into sudden and extreme crisis, crime in the streets and bankrupt cities, our incredible plunge from the most respected nation on Earth to the most despised (but we are nonetheless expected to pick up the tab). Bill Gresham was right but he told only half of it: you not only don’t get rich peddling gloom; it isn’t any fun.
So now come with me- “OVER THE RAINBOW-“
Over The Rainbow is a section of the Chapter, The Happy Days Ahead from the Robert Heinlein book, Expanded Universe, which discusses, among other things, predictions made in 1950 and revisited in 1980. Heinlein got a lot wrong, but a few, like the excerpt in this thread, was (is) spot on.
I used to promote the BBA idea here and would get occasional arguments here against it. You are 100% right about the loopholes they would put in, plus it doesnt take effect for 10 years (I think) so it doesnt force them to do anything themselves..
The idea of demanding that a Democrat President/Senate pass a BBA with anti-spending conditions makes as much sense as Democrats waiting till Republicans take over the Hosue to demand that they raise taxes for them, when they (dems) wouldnt do it themselves. Did you see Pelosi try to force GWB to sign obama-care in 2007?
Hmm
How will this end
How do we end this?
We are either going to see a total collapse of society as we know it today or we are going to have to end up fighting for what we believe in.
It is painfully obvious that Americans are not going to vote the right way. Too many on the dole. Just wait until they allow all of the illegal citizens to vote by making them citizens.
Just doesn’t seem like this is going to end well. Perhaps I am just gloom and doom. I just am not seeing the answers before my eyes. Not right now, at least.
How can this end better?
House is beginning another 1 hour of debate.
Adding a BBA guarantees failure in the Senate.
If the House and the Senate each approved an amendment to the Constitution by 2/3 vote, then it goes to the States, and no Veto is possible.
But this is just a law requiring a BBA as a prerequisite to a further increase in the debt limit. Hussein could veto it, but, of course, he will never have to.
I had a nice response to the article in your link ready to go. Then I got company and had to stop. Had a blockquote and everything.
Lookit, the things this guy says are problematic with a balanced budget requirement are simply the same things that happen to all companies, individuals and governments that must balance the budget.
Mostly he says what option would we have if the budget turns out to have been woefully out of balance at the end of the fiscal year beyond the proposal?
Well what in the hell is new under the sun? All budgets go kerplooey and go with me here, the solution is NOT to AVOID a balance budget requirement but to come up with an action to be taken after the fiscal year ends and budget projections are shrewdly looked over.
If you work for a company in any capacity responsible for approving budgets you probably have to explain wild variances and plenty times, here’s a concept, YOU GET FIRED!
Taking a stand against a BB because it might be wrong is like saying don’t bother making the bed cause it’ll just get messed up again.
The article also says that there will be issues with such as wars and their impact on the budget.
Hey, you can be a Blue Blood GOP Ruling Class and put hands on hips and purse lips that daring to start somewhere, to iron it out, to make the mistakes and correct them...well we don’t want all the bother. Be sure to lisp and sound hissy when taking this childish position.
Forcing the feds to balance the budget, however wrong they may get it, however much work they must do, poor babies....will put the spending of this gubmint in front of the people out of whose pockets the funds are absconded.
You gotta start somewhere.
The guy that wrote this article does NOT want to start anywhere.
Been checking and monitoring budgets all my life. It can be done, adjustments made, allowances for unanticipated events allocated.
Saying it can’t be done is to pee upon my feet and tell me it is raining.
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.