A Tea Party Worthy Constitutional Amendment

[Foxfyre]

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:

Some of you may have already seen their op-ed in the Wall Street Journal, but three conservatives in the House, Congressmen Jeb Hensarling (TX), Mike Pence (IN), and John Campbell (CA) introduced a constitutional amendment today to control spending by limiting it to one-fifth of the economy. The Spending Limit Amendment would keep spending as a percentage of GDP at the historical average since World War II, as it is set to more than double in the years ahead. There is an in-depth look here. (big PDF file)
A Real Tea Party Worthy Amendment to the Constitution | Erick's blog

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.

 

[boedicca]

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.

 

[Foxfyre]

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.

 

[California Girl]

Hmmm. I need to give this one some thought.

 

[Foxfyre]

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.

 

[boedicca]

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

 

[Vanquish]

He wants universal access to healtcare AND a responsible budget/spending. I like this guy.

 

[goldcatt]

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.

 

[Ragnar]

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.

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.

 

[AvgGuyIA]

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.

 

[SpidermanTuba]

The teabaggers are a bunch of hypocrites. The first thing they should do is put forth an amendment to end the years of TAXATION WITHOUT REPRESENTATION in Washington, D.C.

 

[BasicGreatGuy]

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.

You never know who you will run into on the Al Gore internet. Lol Hiyas AvgGuy.

 

[BasicGreatGuy]

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:

Some of you may have already seen their op-ed in the Wall Street Journal, but three conservatives in the House, Congressmen Jeb Hensarling (TX), Mike Pence (IN), and John Campbell (CA) introduced a constitutional amendment today to control spending by limiting it to one-fifth of the economy. The Spending Limit Amendment would keep spending as a percentage of GDP at the historical average since World War II, as it is set to more than double in the years ahead. There is an in-depth look here. (big PDF file)
A Real Tea Party Worthy Amendment to the Constitution | Erick's blog

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.

In my opinion, the idea is nothing more than politician doublespeak. For one, the Constitution already spells out what Congress can and can't spend money on per Article 1, Section 8. The problem is, the employers aren't doing their jobs. As such, the employees are basically doing whatever they want to do. And for another, the amendment doesn't actually reduce unnecessary spending.

"The Spending Limit Amendment (SLA) to the Constitution of the United States would ensure that federal spending cannot grow faster than a family’s ability to pay for it. The Amendment would limit spending to one-fifth of the economy—the historical average for spending since World War II. The limit could only be waived if a declaration of war was in effect or by a two-thirds vote of Congress."

 

[ihopehefails]

I think this is a bad idea. It has the right intentions but the minute you put a number on the governmetn will never go below that number.