Skip to comments.Support shifts as Boehner adds balanced-budget amendment
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 Boehners (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 ...
Cant argue with that.
Then every newspaper, magazine, and TV outlet in the land devote the entire sports coverage to what a lousy player you are, how you endangered the crowd by hitting it so hard, and how you cheated to even get there. You are nothing but a terrorist of the tennis court and you must be banned until learn to bow and curtsey to your betters.
The Boehner ammendment specifically states that monies from borrowings do NOT count as revenue.
You should maybe check it out.
Heres the full text of the House version (the text of the Senate version is here):
Section 1. Total outlays for any fiscal year shall not exceed total receipts for that fiscal year, unless three-fifths of the whole number of each House of Congress shall provide by law for a specific excess of outlays over receipts by a rollcall vote.
So 3/5's of congress must approve any time expenditures exceed expenses.
Section 2. The limit on the debt of the United States held by the public shall not be increased, unless three-fifths of the whole number of each House shall provide by law for such an increase by a rollcall vote.
So 3/5's of congress must approve a debt ceiling increase.
Section 3. Prior to each fiscal year, the President shall transmit to the Congress a proposed budget for the United States Government for that fiscal year in which total outlays do not exceed total receipts.
Seems pretty cut and dry to me.
Section 4. No bill to increase revenue shall become law unless approved by a majority of the whole number of each House by a rollcall vote.
Simple majority for tax increases....pretty standard.
Section 5. The Congress may waive the provisions of this article for any fiscal year in which a declaration of war is in effect. The provisions of this article may be waived for any fiscal year in which the United States is engaged in military conflict which causes an imminent and serious military threat to national security and is so declared by a joint resolution, adopted by a majority of the whole number of each House, which becomes law.
So okay, wars and military conflicts are problems. It's hard to budget for a war that you can't predict will happen. 9-11, for example, would have blown a budget that year. Well why can't exceptions be made for wards? As the above is written, it's like they throw the baby out with the bath water and say in the event of a military threat, conflict....the balanced budget goes out the door. Why not just remove all costs of a war from a presented and approved balanced budget? This is how they handle this sort of thing in the business world. You'd have presidents starting wars or declaring Canada a danger just to blow the budget.
Section 6. The Congress shall enforce and implement this article by appropriate legislation, which may rely on estimates of outlays and receipts.
says congress will make all laws needed to make the balanced budget work. In other words they can't say they couldn't collect monies for new fly traps because no law allowed it. They can't put it in the budget if there's legal way to do it.
Section 7. Total receipts shall include all receipts of the United States Government except those derived from borrowing. Total outlays shall include all outlays of the United States Government except for those for repayment of debt principal.
This is where it stipulates that receipts do NOT include money from borrowing.
Section 8. This article shall take effect beginning with the later of the second fiscal year beginning after its ratification or the first fiscal year beginning after December 31, 2016..
If this is ratified as a constitutional ammendment than it shall begin as stipulated OR by 2016. You gotta start somewhere. The pubs and Tea Party types will have to keep an eyeball on this that they don't forget all about it.
The Senate version differs as follows:
■Provides that total outlays in any given fiscal year shall not exceed 18% of Gross Domestic Product for the immediately proceeding year
It is what it says. I think this is a sneaky way for the dems to keep the pubs from capping expenditures at 10% of gdp or some such.
■Passing an unbalanced budget or increasing the debt ceiling requires a two-thirds vote rather than a three-fifths vote
reducing amount required to approve some things.
■Requires that any bill that levies a new tax or raises an existing tax rate have a two-thirds vote in each chamber
The big deal is that this economy is trashed and the repercussions will be felt by those who didn’t try to sound the alarm.
Exactly. This is where I think a Constitutional Convention needs to be talked about. We have enough governors and control enough upper and lower chambers in the states that a convention called solely on two amendments, balanced budget and term limits, might have a shot at passage but anything else radical like 2nd amendment revoking will never make the 3/4 states approval now.
If there's every been a time for the Governors to sit down and spank the Feds asses by bypassing them then this might be the chance.
House is now voting on the amendment.
......... "The States need to amend the Constitution to extend the gold and silver clause in Article I section 10 to the Federal government, and a balanced budget will be the result.
And in order to get THAT to pass, you will need 2,000 loopholes and dole out 10 million earmarks to state legislators.
if the senate votes this down, then they are responsible...
the house passed what they think will save our country... voting it down will not save the country.
go tea party.
to the boiling point.
More Kabuki theater. Ho-hum. Really Washington, we’re so over you. Come out here to Reality Heights. You are all the laughing stock of the nation.
Not sure where you’re going in KY, but I’m here with access to 2k + acres surrounded by hills. Nice vantage point to see the bastids coming.
Be ready, KY is one of the most over-taxed welfare burdened states in the Union. Your taxes won’t be much lower than WA state, but it is easier to defend.
Welcome to the Blue Grass State!
Americans are fed up.
Beohner can eat sh*t and die (spelling is stupid). I’m so over the GOP. They have to come to us.
Final vote is underway now!
What can they do? We don't have the numbers yet. If we did, we wouldn't be witnessing this soap opera, and our eat-their-own behavior.
Does is matter? They can vote on Frodo winning. I don’t care. I am a hobbit. What ever they do won’t matter. This process is a freaking joke. No one believes what they say. The only thing we’ll believe in is removing the commies in 2012.
Does anyone know the name of the House Dem who has alredy introduced “The Reid plan” in the House?
I heard this in discussion today. I didn’t recognize the name.
Bill has passed 218 to 210.
If you hear who it is on the Dem side of the House that supposedly introduced the “GReed” plan, let me know.
Sens Brown and Murkowski are “open to talk” to Reid. Now the Cow gets her revenge. At least Miller survived the “crash” the night of his primary.
Thanks for posting that with your notes too—very informative and helpful.
Storm knocked out my power. Came back on just in time to see the end of the House vote. What did we get? I see that 22 Pubs voted nay. What ended up being the final version??????
I agree. You’re right on target there.
Just yesterday I was mentioning to someone that I thought there were 240 Republicans in the House. On FoxNews this morning, they confirmed that I hit it right on the nose.
Right now there are 60 Tea Party Caucus members. Unless I’m mistaken those sixty came on board during the 2010 elections.
My point is, that it would only take 120+1 to wrestle control from the old party elites. And then...
Each of those 60 Tea Party members are Republicans. I’d sure love to see a 2012 sweep of the House, to clean up the mess there.
Sixty one or two more should do it. That’s an important goal IMO.
>>KY is one of the most over-taxed welfare burdened states...<<
Yeah, I love my neighbors except for one. He lives in a single wide with his wife and two kids that is like a garbage dump inside. Literally.
He’s very proud that, although his doctor would not vouch for him, he hired a lawyer and after a first denial, was finally awarded disability pay for the rest of his life. and his friend had a five year battle before he got his disability. They live in abject poverty because it’s free.
“The Boehner ammendment specifically states that monies from borrowings do NOT count as revenue.”
“You should maybe check it out.”
Thank You.... That is the best news I have heard in a long time.
Yes sir I know a lot around here like that. I’m in the eastern side of the state. I had to live in trailer for 2 years when we first moved back here, and I have never been so embarrassed in my life. I could get full disability, but I would rather try to work if possible. We are back in a house, and moving back up.
Overall it’s a decent place to live. I miss NC but the tax burden there is worse, and the cost of living is twice as high.
I’ve only gone as far east as somerset. I’ve heard that east of there, if you hear banjo music, you should paddle faster.
A balanced budget amemdment is useless. Fat lot of good it did for California.
Right on brother! I’m from the worst neighborhood in Charlotte. Most white folk couldn’t walk through there at night. But I’ve been to places here in E KY that I didn’t want to be in after dark. “Them boys said I had a purty mouth. What does that mean?”
Balanced budgets for 20 years won’t reduce the National Debt ONE RED CENT.
The S word.
Surplus. We need Surplus budgets.
none of these tools have an ounce of *principle* in their bones...well except for the socialist/commies in BOTH parties...
this perpetual adding and changing things to suit a demographic percentage point is CYA at its finest...NOT *service* or *representation*...
dog-N-pony-kabuki to keep their own gravy train rollin, nothing more...oH WAIT !!! 'the numbers' say i can flip my vote today, yeah, now i can *say* i voted a certain direction to help my perpetual re-election campaign...
gutless and annoying...
Two months ago it had the makings of a serious defeat for The Usurping Marxist Onada. But Boehner blew it by including raising the debt ceiling and no meaningful spending reductions in his bill. Then he embarked on the comedy of negotiating with himself for two months. All those secret and late night meetings with Pelosi, Reid and Onada were BS from beginning to end.
For some reason I cannot fathom Boehner really thought he was lookin’ good. All he did was disgust and embarrass reasonably intelligent conservative and GOP voters.
I think the light bulb finally went on when he called a closed door meeting with Tea Party Conservatives and the to “get their asses in line”. Didn’t work.
So after two months of the circle jerk Boehner has accomplished nothing. He can do some good by working with Tea Party Conservatives and non-RINO pubbies in the House and Senate to insure any vote on a budget is put off until after Aug 2—the demrat proclaimed Armageddon. When nothing significant happens—it will not—and Americans are going about a normal life the jig will be up.
Why won’t the sky fall? America is too big to fail—even for the Marxist Onada.
Think about it. Except for a bunch of world-wide bloviating what will materially change on Aug 3rd as far as America is concerned? Nothing.
One hopes the demrats may have engineered one manufactured crisis too many and it will hurt them severely in 2012. Same goes for GOP RINOs.
On reflection, I think Tea Party Conservatives established themselves as a force to be reckoned with. Note to GOP: Come to us we’re not coming to you.
Maybe I’m just too cynical, but this is what jumps out at me:
“If you can cobble together a supermajority, you can blow through this amendment like a cannonball through wet toilet paper. The Democrats managed that for a couple years not all that long ago all by themselves and even got a few controversial votes through with some Republican assistance.”
“The supermajority also poses a problem in the other direction, though, to the extent that it gives too much power to minorities in both Houses of Congress to block measures that are either popular or, just plain necessary. “
I also think equating running a business, small or large, with running the federal government is too simplistic. We can see from experience that politicians don’t get “fired” for irresponsible financial decisions - the opposite occurs. Currently 40 - 50% of their “employers” want to spend, spend, spend. And of course, politicians have safety in numbers (”bi-partisan votes, bi-partisan committees, blah, blah, blah”).
And I’m also uneasy with the notion of types like Obama, Harry Reid, Barney Frank, Nancy Pelosi, et al using this as a weapon to play politics with our national security, in a situation where a balanced budget might be secondary to more immediate concerns.
If a BBA won’t prevent the problems we’re dealing with already (and it can’t, because it wouldn’t be difficult to do an end run around the numbers through political wheeling and dealing, accounting tricks, shifting items on and off the budget, etc.) then what’s the purpose of pushing it now, when it won’t pass anyway? I think it’s because it provides political cover for republicans.
At this point, energy would be well-spent cleaning house: Defeating Obama, holding the house, and taking the senate. But not with “compassionate conservatives” this time!
Well you give it a good argument, let me say. And, I’ll say softly, you could be right.
But why not try it? Don’t give me all the reaons why is CAN’T be done, the pitfalls inherent, the enormous obstacle.
BTW, the Boehner BBA has a section dealing with war wherein if a war breaks out the entire budget is removed from the table for discussion. I must suppose it’s a way to keep politics from stopping our defense, as you, probably rightfully, suggest the far left dems would do.
You say the politicos never get “fired” for not adhering to a budget....hey, you gotta start somewhere. Further, I’d disagree. Here in Delaware, a liberal state if ever was one, our state guys are always getting into hot water over budget issues. Don’t dismiss it out of hand I argue. Given time those that keep putting silly stuff into a budget will begin to pay the price. The public will be keen to it...it’s not 1995 anymore, Dorothy. And do not make the mistake of diminuating the influence of the Tea Party. For the more they mock them, the stronger they’ll get. Of this I’m sure.
As for putting all effort into winning the 2012 senate and prez....this concerns me. Because the Blue Blood GOP have been telling us to wait until we land a man on the moon, wait until we have half the House, wait until we have 3/4 of the House, wait until we have the majority in the senate....WAIT...we now need 60 for the filibusters! As for the prez, let’s wait just another term so we don’t hurt his or her re-election.
We’ve been hearing this for about ever, we dutifully voted for Juan McCain who last week spit upon us. Dear Lord, Mike Castle....well hey, Chris Coons is probably voting for all the communist stuff but AT LEAST HE’S A DEMOCRAT! If Castle was sitting in that Senate we’d be fuming at yet another Blue Blood Ruling Class betrayal.
At this point, while it’s been a good discussion, civil, no reduction to name calling, I’ll have to throw out the most peaceful words every combined, words I learned back yea years ago when I was a Union Rep....we’ll just have to agree to disagree.
If I had to bet I’d bet those Tea Party guys got a mission and they’re moving on.
I hear ya!
I agree with Steve Forbes, that Nixon’s decision to break away from gold was the start of all this. On the other hand, LBJ’s bread and bullets policies caused a big mess. The liquidity crisis in the spring of ‘68 led to his decision to cut and run.
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.