Eric Cantor to schedule vote sending fake BBA to States.

Discussion in 'Politics' started by johnwk, Jul 9, 2011.

  1. johnwk
    Offline

    johnwk Active Member

    Joined:
    May 24, 2009
    Messages:
    643
    Likes Received:
    54
    Trophy Points:
    28
    Ratings:
    +59 / 3 / -0
    .

    SEE: Leader Cantor: House to Consider Balanced Budget Amendment



    WASHINGTON, D.C. – House Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-VA) today issued the following statement regarding House consideration of a balanced budget amendment, H.J. Res. 1, sponsored by Congressman Bob Goodlatte:


    “We are being asked by the Obama Administration to approve a debt limit increase. While President Obama inherited a bad economy, his overspending and failure to enact pro-growth policies have made it worse and now our national debt is currently more than $14 trillion. House Republicans have made clear that we will not agree to raise the debt limit without real spending cuts and binding budget process reforms to ensure that we don’t continue to max out the credit card. One option to ensure that we begin to get our fiscal house in order is a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution, and I expect to schedule such a measure for the House to consider during the week of July 25th. I have no doubt that my Republican colleagues will overwhelmingly support this common sense measure and I urge Democrats to as well in order to get our fiscal house in order."



    What Eric Cantor seems to hide is, H.J.RES 1 does not contain any section requiring Congress to extinguish an annual deficit created by Congress’s borrowing during the course of a fiscal year. Such a provision would be needed to actually balance the annual budget. But H.J.RES.1 is riddled with loopholes, escape clauses and weasel wording and would actually make it constitutional for Congress to not balance the annual budget!


    It seems apparent that our RINOs in Congress have a plan. They intend to vote to send a “balanced budget amendment” to the States so they may then claim victory in the budget negotiations even though the amendment is totally ineffective in compelling Congress to balance the annual budget. But having sent a “balanced budget amendment” to States they will then “compromise” in agreeing to increase the national debt, which then allows Congress Republicans and Democrats alike, to continue with their current suicidal deficit borrowing and spending.


    For the text of the amendment and its supporters see H.J.RES.1


    Now, let us take a look at Eric Cantor’s RINO, Alice-in-Wonderland balance budget amendment.


    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, Congress may override the amendment whenever it so desires when 261 House members and 60 Senators agree to continue down an economic path destroying America from within.


    `Section 2. Total outlays for any fiscal year shall not exceed 18 percent of economic output of the United States, unless two-thirds of each House of Congress shall provide for a specific increase of outlays above this amount.


    Why should the united States be stuck with giving the federal government 18 percent of their “economic output“? This section is designed to lock into place the revenue needed for Congress to continue funding its current unconstitutional expenditures! If Congress were limited to its constitutionally authorized functions, the outrageous 18 percent would not be needed. And why is the definition of “economic output” not defined with the Section? Have we not learned that figures mean nothing to our folks in Washington? Have we not learned how the Congressional Budget Office was used to give phony figures to get Obamacare passed? This section makes it constitutional for Congress to make the section mean whatever it wishes it to mean while picking our pockets. And how many of our Constitutional provisions have been trashed using 290 votes in the house and 67votes in the Senate agreeing to do so?


    `Section 3. 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.


    Another provision to break the chains requiring a balanced budget, and one which cleverly omits a requirement for a specific increase in taxes to equal any proposed increase in the national debt!


    `Section 4. 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.


    This provision is totally meaningless and mere window dressing, especially when figures can be made to mean whatever our folks in government want them to project.


    `Section 5. A bill to increase revenue shall not become law unless two-thirds of the whole number of each House shall provide by law for such an increase by a rollcall vote.


    So, under this provision all that is needed is 290 votes in the house and 67votes in the Senate to allow Congress to continue on its path to financially destroy the United States.


    `Section 6. 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.


    After the words “declaration of war is in effect” the weasel wording which follows would be laughable if America’s national debt were not so grave, not to mention a mere majority vote is needed by our RINOs in Congress to give the finger to the entire balanced budget amendment. Each House may ignore the provisions of the amendment by simply declaring an existing military conflict has caused an “imminent and serious military threat to national security“. Have we not just seen how this “crisis” scare tactic mentality has been used to plunder our federal treasury under TARP? How it has been used to bail out auto companies which have blood sucking unions and has been used to send BILLIONS upon BILLIONS of American taxpayer dollars to foreign banks under Congress’ money laundering operations?


    NOTE:
    Brussells and Paris based Dexia SA received 33 billion dollars
    Dublin based Depfa Bank Plc received 24.5 billion dollars.
    The Bank of China borrowed 198 million dolllars.
    Arab Banking Corp, 29% owned by the Libyan central bank at the time, received 73 different loans.


    And we, the American People are left on the hook for this money laundering scheme our folks in Washington have cooked up.



    `Section 7. The Congress shall enforce and implement this article by appropriate legislation, which may rely on estimates of outlays and receipts.


    And here is the amendment’s crown jewel! It becomes constitutional for Congress, the fox, to apply Alice-in-Wonderland estimates of outlays and receipts in the enforcement of the amendment!


    `Section 8. 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.


    And what happens when total receipts derived from borrowing far exceed those for repayment of debt principal?



    `Section 9. 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.'


    _________



    Hey Eric, what provision in your balanced budget amendment actually compels Congress to extinguish an annual deficit created by Congress’ borrowing during the course of a fiscal year? And if no provision of your amendment compels Congress to actually balance the budget when Congress borrows, how can you truthfully call it a balanced budget amendment?

    Balancing the annual budget is very simple when following our founding fathers intentions.


    When Congress borrows to meet its expenses during the course of a fiscal year, at the close of the fiscal year each State’s Congressional Delegation must return home with a bill in hand for their State to pay an apportioned share in extinguishing the deficit created by Congress.


    JWK


    Our tyrants in Washington force the productive to pay income taxes so they can spread their wealth and buy votes, but the Washington Establishment does not force their beloved 50 % who pay no income taxes to work for the taxes they get
  2. Sarah G
    Offline

    Sarah G Find the Joy Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2009
    Messages:
    25,844
    Likes Received:
    6,121
    Trophy Points:
    133
    Location:
    NW Ohio
    Ratings:
    +6,122 / 2 / -0
    Eric Cantor is good at sending fake signals like when he waved that fake Repub Healthcare plan above his head in a meeting with the president.

    Not sure who Cantor has blown to get a leadership position in the Republican party but he is an idiot.. Truly..
    • Like Like x 1
  3. johnwk
    Offline

    johnwk Active Member

    Joined:
    May 24, 2009
    Messages:
    643
    Likes Received:
    54
    Trophy Points:
    28
    Ratings:
    +59 / 3 / -0
    Actually, this is a Republican Party Leadership rope-a-dope plan to send a phony balanced budget amendment to the states, so our so-called “conservative Republicans” can then say part of the “compromise” in getting the amendment sent to the states is to allow an increase in the national debt limit, which in turn allows the Washington Establishment to continue its reckless spending and borrowing.


    I’m still waiting for Eric Cantor or one of our “conservatives“ in Congress who promote H.R.RES 1, to point to that section of the proposed amendment which actually compels Congress to extinguish an annual deficit created by Congress’ borrowing during the course of a fiscal year. Keep in mind that without such a provision the proposed “balanced budget amendment” does not compel Congress to balance the annual budget!


    JWK


    "In matters of Power, let no more be heard of confidence in men, but bind him down from mischief by the chains of the Constitution"--- Jefferson
    • Like Like x 1
  4. johnwk
    Offline

    johnwk Active Member

    Joined:
    May 24, 2009
    Messages:
    643
    Likes Received:
    54
    Trophy Points:
    28
    Ratings:
    +59 / 3 / -0
    Is Eric Cantor investing in America’s financial destruction?

    See: Eric Cantor’s Investment


    If this is true, it could explain why Cantor is in favor of a fake balanced budget amendment which would allow Congress to continue its reckless spending and borrowing which in turn is leading to a financial suicidal for America.

    If anyone has more information on this please post it.


    JWK
    Last edited: Jul 10, 2011
  5. johnwk
    Offline

    johnwk Active Member

    Joined:
    May 24, 2009
    Messages:
    643
    Likes Received:
    54
    Trophy Points:
    28
    Ratings:
    +59 / 3 / -0
    .

    SEE: House To Vote On Debt-Ceiling Plan Hinged On Balanced-Budget Amendment


    You bet the debt limit increase is hinged on the “balanced budget amendment“. I have been saying that for weeks!


    It seems only too obvious the Republican Party Leadership has been secretly working with Democrats to increase the national debt and maintain the ability to avoid balancing the budget on an annual basis! But, to pacify the American People who are finally concerned over Congress continually increasing the national debt, both Party Leaderships have decided to use the good-cop bad-cop con game, and the good cops (the Republican Party Leadership) is about to tell us fiscal responsibility is on the horizon with a balanced budget amendment!


    The plan is to allow Congress to increase the national debt, but only if Congress sends a “balanced budget amendment” to the States for ratification. But the good-cops and bad-cops in this game have a dirty little secret! The “balanced budget amendment” they have cooked up (H.J.RES.1) has absolutely no provision requiring Congress to actually balance the budget on an annual basis. As a matter of fact, when studying the proposed amendment it becomes shockingly clear that it is filled with various loopholes and weasel wording, and altering our Constitution as proposed under H.J.RES.1 would actually make it constitutional for Congress to not balance the annul budget! For example see SECTION 6 which allows Congress to set the amendment aside with a mere majority vote claiming an “imminent and serious military threat to national security“!


    The question is, under what section of H.J.RES 1 is Congress actually require to extinguish an annual deficit created by Congress’ borrowing during the course of a fiscal year? And the answer is, there is no such provision because H.J.RES.1 is not a "balanced budget amendment" as pretended by the Republican Party Leadership. It simply is not intended to deal with annual deficits should Congress borrow to meet its expenses. And the Republican Party Leadership is well aware of their carefully crafted and phony balanced budget amendment.





    But let me assure you our founding fathers did provide a method in our Constitution, specifically intended to deal with deficits, and it is not very “complicated”!


    See, Ratification of the Constitution by the State of New Hampshire; June 21, 1788


    Fourthly That Congress do not lay direct Taxes but when the money arising from Impost, Excise and their other resources are insufficient for the Publick Exigencies; nor then, untill Congress shall have first made a Requisition upon the States, to Assess, Levy, & pay their respective proportions, of such requisitions agreeably to the Census fixed in the said Constitution in such way & manner as the Legislature of the State shall think best and in such Case if any State shall neglect, then Congress may Assess & Levy such States proportion together with the Interest thereon at the rate of six per Cent per Annum from the Time of payment prescribed in such requisition-



    When Congress borrows to fund expenditures because incoming revenues are insufficient for the Publick Exigencies, an apportioned tax is to then be laid among the States using the following constitutionally authorized fair share formula:



    States’ population

    ---------------------------- X DEFICIT = STATE’S SHARE

    Total U.S. Population




    And here is the Fair Share Formula as used by our founding fathers to raise $ 3 MILLION see: an Act laying a direct tax for $3 million in which each State’s Congressional Delegation returned home with a bill in hand for their State’s apportioned share to extinguish a deficit.



    Also see Section 7 of the direct tax of 1813 allowing States to raise and pay their respective quotas in their own chosen way and be entitled to certain deductions in meeting their payment on time.



    Bottom line is, our founding fathers’ intended method to deal with deficits is not “complicated”, and would, if applied, balance the annual budget in a no-nonsense way, create a very real moment of accountability when each State’s Congressional Delegation returns home with a bill in hand for the deficit they helped to create, which is far different from the fraudulent balanced budget amendment titled H.J.RES 1 and is nothing more then a clever scheme to allow the Washington Establishment to continue plundering what America’s businesses and labor have produced.


    JWK


    “The apportionment of representation and taxation by the same scale is just; it removes the objection, that, while Virginia paid one sixth part of the expenses of the Union [under the Articles of Confederation], she had no more weight in public counsels than Delaware, which paid but a very small portion”3 Elliot’s 41
  6. johnwk
    Offline

    johnwk Active Member

    Joined:
    May 24, 2009
    Messages:
    643
    Likes Received:
    54
    Trophy Points:
    28
    Ratings:
    +59 / 3 / -0
    The reason why there is no section in H.J.RES.1 to require Congress to balance the annual budget is because Congress uses its power to borrow so it may then launder the borrowed money by sending it to the IMF and to foreign nations, and to domestic conspirators via grants, loans etc, who then give kickbacks to members of Congress for receiving American Taxpayer dollars.

    Congress’ borrowing power is being used to plunder what America’s businesses and labor have produced. If Congress were forced to balanced the budget on an annual basis, its golden goose would be cooked and members of Congress would no longer be able to “sell borrowed money” for the kickbacks they now get.

    How do you think Nancy Pelosi’s wealth has grown by 62% in just one year, now at $43.4 million in assets with about $8.2 million in liabilities?

    There is big money to be made on Capitol Hill as long as the American People remain asleep at the switch! And to pacify the American People who are beginning to wake up, they are offering a “balanced budget amendment” which cleverly allows Congress to avoid balancing the annual budget when it borrows during the course of a fiscal year.

    Hey, Mark Levin, why is there no wording in the balanced budget amendment you support (H.J.RES.1) which requires Congress to extinguish an annual deficit created by Congress’ borrowing during the course of a fiscal year? Eh Pal? Is any of that borrowed money coming your way? Tell us Mark, are you really a “good cop” or just playing the role of a good cop in the good-cop bad-cop game?


    JWK

    Our federal government personifies a living creature, a predator: it grows, it multiplies, it protects itself, it feeds on those it can defeat, and does everything to expand its powers and flourish, even at the expense of enslaving a nation’s entire population.
  7. johnwk
    Offline

    johnwk Active Member

    Joined:
    May 24, 2009
    Messages:
    643
    Likes Received:
    54
    Trophy Points:
    28
    Ratings:
    +59 / 3 / -0
  8. johnwk
    Offline

    johnwk Active Member

    Joined:
    May 24, 2009
    Messages:
    643
    Likes Received:
    54
    Trophy Points:
    28
    Ratings:
    +59 / 3 / -0
    I see that others are acknowledging the Republican Party Leadership’s “balanced budget amendment” is a fraud being perpetrated upon the American People.


    SEE: We Don't Need No Stinking Amendment


    “First, the issue is not whether any given federal budget is balanced, but whether it is constitutional. When the President, Senators and Representatives are sworn into office, they swear an oath to uphold the Constitution, which severely limits the scope of the federal government. No reference is made in the balanced budget amendment regarding the constitutionality of the budget items. It will simply legalize what is now unconstitutional as long as they stay within certain financial limits.”



    As I have been pointing out for years, the “balanced budget amendment” as written and promoted by the Washington Establishment would make Congress’ current misappropriations of federal revenue constitutional, and effectively repeal our Constitution’s existing method of dealing with deficits via the apportioned tax.

    JWK
    • Like Like x 1
  9. C_Clayton_Jones
    Offline

    C_Clayton_Jones Lex dabit remedium

    Joined:
    Apr 28, 2011
    Messages:
    19,725
    Likes Received:
    3,839
    Trophy Points:
    155
    Location:
    In a Republic, actually
    Ratings:
    +3,994 / 93 / -0
    Any proposal would be a fake amendment – the entire concept is idiotic.

    Um, it’s already Constitutional for Congress to not have a balanced budget.

    Otherwise this is yet another example of House republicans wasting time on pointless partisan politics that don’t address the Nation’s serious issues.
  10. Quantum Windbag
    Offline

    Quantum Windbag Silver Member

    Joined:
    May 9, 2010
    Messages:
    57,457
    Likes Received:
    4,932
    Trophy Points:
    90
    Ratings:
    +5,010 / 27 / -0
    Why is the concept idiotic?
  11. johnwk
    Offline

    johnwk Active Member

    Joined:
    May 24, 2009
    Messages:
    643
    Likes Received:
    54
    Trophy Points:
    28
    Ratings:
    +59 / 3 / -0
    Your political partisanship is clouding your thinking and you are somewhat misinformed. One of the most fundamental rules of constitutional law is to carry out the documented intentions and beliefs under which a constitution is adopted. With that in mind, the founders intentions regarding deficits is articulated in several of our State Ratification documents which gave life to our Constitution. For example see: Ratification of the Constitution by the State of New Hampshire; June 21, 1788

    Fourthly That Congress do not lay direct Taxes but when the money arising from Impost, Excise and their other resources are insufficient for the Publick Exigencies; nor then, untill Congress shall have first made a Requisition upon the States, to Assess, Levy, & pay their respective proportions, of such requisitions agreeably to the Census fixed in the said Constitution in such way & manner as the Legislature of the State shall think best and in such Case if any State shall neglect, then Congress may Assess & Levy such States proportion together with the Interest thereon at the rate of six per Cent per Annum from the Time of payment prescribed in such requisition-


    The very purpose of the apportioned tax was to be used to extinguish deficits in a timely manner!

    But were the founders joking when writing the above words? I think not because the founders applied the apportioned tax on various occasions. For example see: see an Act laying a direct tax for $3 million in which the rule of apportionment is applied and each State’s Congressional Delegation returned home with a bill in hand for their State’s Governor and Legislature to deal with in extinguishing the deficit.

    And see Section 7 of direct tax of 1813 allowing states to raise and pay their respective quotas in their own chosen way and be entitled to certain deductions in meeting their payment on time.

    Of course, the Washington Establishment fears our founder’s no-nonsense method to deal with deficits as each State Congressional delegation would have to return home with a bill in hand for the pork they purchased while in Washington and suffer the immediate consequences for depleting their State’s Treasury.

    Perhaps some day you will realize the leadership of both political parties work in concert to plunder what America’s businesses and labor have produced.

    And as to Obama talking about everyone having to pay their “fairs share”, our founders agreed and here is our constitutionally authorized “fair share formula”:

    States’ population

    ---------------------------- X DEFICIT = STATE’S SHARE

    Total U.S. Population


    But let our founder fathers speak for themselves:


    Pinckney addressing the S.C. ratification convention with regard to the rule of apportionment :

    “With regard to the general government imposing internal taxes upon us, he contended that it was absolutely necessary they should have such a power: requisitions had been in vain tried every year since the ratification of the old Confederation, and not a single state had paid the quota required of her. The general government could not abuse this power, and favor one state and oppress another, as each state was to be taxed only in proportion to its representation.” 4 Elliot‘s, S.C., 305-6

    And see:
    “The proportion of taxes are fixed by the number of inhabitants, and not regulated by the extent of the territory, or fertility of soil”3 Elliot’s, 243,“Each state will know, from its population, its proportion of any general tax” 3 Elliot’s, 244 ___ Mr. George Nicholas, during the ratification debates of our Constitution.

    Mr. Madison goes on to remark about Congress’s “general power of taxation” that, "they will be limited to fix the proportion of each State, and they must raise it in the most convenient and satisfactory manner to the public."3 Elliot, 255

    And if there is any confusion about the rule of apportionment intentionally designed to insure that those states contributing the lion’s share to fund the federal government are guaranteed a proportional vote in Congress equal to their contribution, Mr. PENDLETON says:

    “The apportionment of representation and taxation by the same scale is just; it removes the objection, that, while Virginia paid one sixth part of the expenses of the Union, she had no more weight in public counsels than Delaware, which paid but a very small portion”3 Elliot’s 41


    JWK

    Those who reject abiding by the intentions and beliefs under which our Constitution was agree to, as those intentions and beliefs may be documented from historical records, wish to remove the anchor and rudder of our constitutional system so they may then be free to “interpret” the Constitution to mean whatever they wish it to mean.
  12. johnwk
    Offline

    johnwk Active Member

    Joined:
    May 24, 2009
    Messages:
    643
    Likes Received:
    54
    Trophy Points:
    28
    Ratings:
    +59 / 3 / -0
    .
    I wonder why none of our “conservative” radio talk show hosts are promoting The Fair Share Balanced Budget Amendment which would not only require an annual balanced federal budget, create a very real moment of accountability for members of Congress if the should borrow during the course of a fiscal year, but would end the slavish tax calculated from profits, gains, salaries and other incomes, and in so doing would greatly restore America’s free enterprise system.

    Hey Mark Levin, would you support the following?


    Proposing a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution of the United States.


    “SECTION 1. The Sixteenth Amendment is hereby repealed and Congress is henceforth forbidden to lay ``any`` tax or burden calculated from profits, gains, interest, salaries, wages, tips, inheritances or any other lawfully realized money


    NOTE: these words would return us to our founding father’s ORIGINAL TAX PLAN as they intended it to operate! And, they would remove the existing chains of taxation which now oppresses America‘s free enterprise system and robs the bread which working people have earned when selling their labor! The words also end the class warfare game which Congress just loves as it divides the people


    "SECTION 2. Congress ought not raise money by borrowing, but when the money arising from imposts duties and excise taxes are insufficient to meet the public exigencies, and Congress has raised money by borrowing during the course of a fiscal year, Congress shall then lay a direct tax at the beginning of the next fiscal year for an amount sufficient to extinguish the preceding fiscal year's deficit, and apply the revenue so raised to extinguishing said deficit."


    NOTE: Congress is to raise its primary revenue from imposts and duties, [taxes at our water’s edge], and may also lay miscellaneous internal excise taxes on specifically chosen articles of consumption. But if Congress borrows and spends more than is brought in from imposts, duties and miscellaneous excise taxes during the course of a fiscal year, then, and only then, is the apportioned tax to be laid.


    "SECTION 3. When Congress is required to lay a direct tax in accordance with Section 2 of this Article, the Secretary of the United States Treasury shall, in a timely manner, calculate each State's apportioned share of the total sum being raised as agreeable to the Census fixed in the Constitution, and then provide the various State Congressional Delegations with a Bill notifying their State’s Executive and Legislature of its share of the total tax being collected and a final date by which said tax shall be paid into the United States Treasury."


    NOTE: our founder’s fair share formula to extinguish a deficit would be:


    States’ population

    ---------------------------- X DEFICIT = STATE’S SHARE

    Total U.S. Population


    This formula, as intended by our founding fathers, is to insure that those states who contribute the lion’s share of the tax are guaranteed a representation in Congress proportionately equal to their contribution, i.e., representation with proportional obligation!




    "SECTION 4. Each State shall be free to assume and pay its quota of the direct tax into the United States Treasury by a final date set by Congress, but if any State shall refuse or neglect to pay its quota, then Congress shall send forth its officers to assess and levy such State's proportion against the real property within the State with interest thereon at the rate of ((?)) per cent per annum, and against the individual owners of the taxable property. Provision shall be made for a 15% discount for those States paying their share by ((?))of the fiscal year in which the tax is laid, and a 10% discount for States paying by the final date set by Congress, such discount being to defray the States' cost of collection."


    NOTE: This section respects the Tenth Amendment and allows each state to raise its share in its own chosen way in a time period set by Congress, but also allows the federal government to enter a state and collect the tax if a state is delinquent in meeting its obligation.



    "SECTION 5. This Amendment to the Constitution, when ratified by the required number of States, shall take effect no later than (?) years after the required number of States have approved it.


    JWK

Share This Page