A Tea Party Worthy Constitutional Amendment

Discussion in 'Politics' started by Foxfyre, Mar 5, 2010.

  1. Foxfyre
    Offline

    Foxfyre Eternal optimist Gold Supporting Member Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Oct 11, 2007
    Messages:
    47,698
    Thanks Received:
    10,809
    Trophy Points:
    2,070
    Location:
    Desert Southwest USA
    Ratings:
    +14,414
    Reading through the various updates I receive from a couple of dozen different sources every day, I ran across this in the Redstate Morning Update:

    The cited WSJ op-ed piece:
    Jeb Hensarling and Mike Pence: Time for a Spending Cap With Teeth - WSJ.com

    So what do you think? How controversial would be a Constitutional Amendment limiting Federal Spending to no more and one-fifth of the economy?

    At first blush it looks like too much to me.

    But I'm open to being convinced.
     
  2. boedicca
    Offline

    boedicca Uppity Water Nymph Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Feb 12, 2007
    Messages:
    41,833
    Thanks Received:
    12,785
    Trophy Points:
    2,250
    Location:
    The Land of Funk
    Ratings:
    +22,857
    I'm all for limiting spending but am concerned about the 20% of the economy business. That is just the Federal Government. It's too easy for politicians to game that by making unfunded mandates to states to expand government over all.

    I'd rather see a balanced budget budget amendment and automatic sunsetting of programs.

    20% is not Limited Government.
     
  3. Foxfyre
    Offline

    Foxfyre Eternal optimist Gold Supporting Member Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Oct 11, 2007
    Messages:
    47,698
    Thanks Received:
    10,809
    Trophy Points:
    2,070
    Location:
    Desert Southwest USA
    Ratings:
    +14,414
    Good point Boedicca.

    It sure appeals to me to rein in bigger and more authoritarian and more intrusive government somehow--and this amendment would mean that the healthcare boondoggle would never have even been proposed. But as you have observed, a 20% spending limit might have too many loopholes. Would a balanced budget amendment?

    I'm pondering and want you and more intelligent types to keep chiming in here.
     
  4. California Girl
    Offline

    California Girl BANNED

    Joined:
    Oct 8, 2009
    Messages:
    50,337
    Thanks Received:
    8,960
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Ratings:
    +8,965
    Hmmm. I need to give this one some thought.
     
  5. Foxfyre
    Offline

    Foxfyre Eternal optimist Gold Supporting Member Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Oct 11, 2007
    Messages:
    47,698
    Thanks Received:
    10,809
    Trophy Points:
    2,070
    Location:
    Desert Southwest USA
    Ratings:
    +14,414
    Me too CG. It seems like it should be so simple and supportable, but I have learned to pay attention to those little warning flags that pop up in my head. And I have some on this.
     
  6. boedicca
    Offline

    boedicca Uppity Water Nymph Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Feb 12, 2007
    Messages:
    41,833
    Thanks Received:
    12,785
    Trophy Points:
    2,250
    Location:
    The Land of Funk
    Ratings:
    +22,857
    I'd posit that the first question to ask is: what is the proper scope of government? Funding programs that are not part of that scope within some legally approved not to exceed budget is wasteful. It would be better to lower amount spent on government and free up funds for the private sector to deploy in profit making and job creating ventures.

    Personally, I'm impressed by Paul Ryan's Roadmap:

    A Roadmap for America's Future | The Budget Committee Republicans
     
  7. Vanquish
    Offline

    Vanquish Vanquisher of shills

    Joined:
    Aug 14, 2009
    Messages:
    2,659
    Thanks Received:
    354
    Trophy Points:
    98
    Ratings:
    +358
    He wants universal access to healtcare AND a responsible budget/spending. I like this guy.
     
  8. goldcatt
    Offline

    goldcatt Catch me if you can! Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Aug 4, 2009
    Messages:
    10,330
    Thanks Received:
    2,331
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    CentralPA
    Ratings:
    +2,331
    Sorry folks, but unless your amendment specifically bans unfunded mandates you'll just be pushing it off to the States. Then if you're attacking the budget, how do you address off-budget items? Some of those in recent memory had some very, very large price tags. Like Iraq. If you're looking at total spending as a percentage of GDP, how are you going to prohibit creative accounting in calculating that? And you would have to keep amending, and amending, and amending whenever a new loophole is found and exploited. And the list goes on...and on...and on. Sorry folks, I actually agree with you to some extent but a Constitutional amendment to establish a hard ceiling is unworkable. It would be rendered ineffective and exploited by the creative types long before you could ever pass it.
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
  9. Ragnar
    Offline

    Ragnar <--- Pic is not me

    Joined:
    Jan 23, 2010
    Messages:
    3,271
    Thanks Received:
    800
    Trophy Points:
    153
    Location:
    Cincinnati, OH
    Ratings:
    +843
    That's some good stuff there.

    I too need to put more thought into the OP and check out the pdf some. First thing that came to mind though was that I think I would prefer a constitutional cap on the percent of income that the government can tax an individual. Twenty percent seems high there too (that's working one day a week for the government) but it would be lower than it is now for many people so that would be my max.
     
  10. AvgGuyIA
    Offline

    AvgGuyIA Gold Member

    Joined:
    Feb 5, 2010
    Messages:
    11,922
    Thanks Received:
    2,002
    Trophy Points:
    290
    Location:
    Davenport, IA
    Ratings:
    +7,444
    Let's try something new. Just let self-proclaimed "progressives" pay for everything. Tax them for what it costs to run government. We'll help pay for Defense and the highways; they can pay for their EPA, Education Dept, etc.
     

Share This Page