Gingrichs phony balanced budget amendment (H.J.RES.1) of 1995

Discussion in 'Politics' started by johnwk, Dec 3, 2011.

  1. johnwk
    Offline

    johnwk VIP Member

    Joined:
    May 24, 2009
    Messages:
    1,565
    Thanks Received:
    151
    Trophy Points:
    85
    Ratings:
    +377
    Why do so many “conservative” talk show hosts call Gingrich a “conservative”? Let us look at Gingrich’s phony balanced budget amendment which passed the House in 1995 and see if he is really a “conservative”, or tries to pull the wool over the American People’s eyes.

    104th CONGRESS
    1st Session
    H. J. RES. 1
    Article--

    `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.

    Translation: Gingrich proposes to allow Congress to override the amendment whenever it so desires when a mere 261 House members and 60 Senators agree to continue down its path of destroying America from within.

    `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.


    Under this provision Gingrich would avoid requiring a balanced budget by cleverly omitting a requirement for specific increases in taxes to equal any proposed increase in the national debt!


    `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.


    This provision of the Gingrich balanced budget amendment was totally meaningless and mere window dressing to confuse the people, especially when figures can be made to mean whatever our folks in government want them to project as we have learned with Obamacare


    `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.


    Under this provision of the Gingrich balanced budget amendment a mere 217 votes in the House and 51 in the Senate was all that was needed to allow Congress to squeeze more blood out of the America People and continue down a path to financial suicide. This particular provision makes one wonder why Gingrich was ever called a fiscal “conservative”

    `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.


    After the words “declaration of war is in effect” Gingrich’s weasel wording which follows would be laughable if America’s national debt, including un-funded liabilities, was not so grave, not to mention a mere majority vote would be needed to give the finger to balancing the budget.. The flimflamery under this section of Gingrich’s balanced budget amendment was outright disgusting. Each House may ignore the requirement to balance the budget 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? Has been used to send BILLIONS upon BILLIONS of American taxpayer dollars to foreign banks, and used to increase the national debt beyond human comprehension? And people dare to call Gingrich a “conservative“ when promoting this kind of crap?


    `SECTION 6. The Congress shall enforce and implement this article by appropriate legislation, which may rely on estimates of outlays and receipts.


    Estimates of outlays and receipts? This is one of those Gingrich, cleverly worded provisions, which really boil down to an in-your-face, screw the America People, that Congress will do what they want and what they want is to use mathematical illusions to enforce balancing the budget!


    `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.

    And what would happen under Gingrich’s proposal when total receipts derived from borrowing far exceed those for repayment of debt principal?

    `SECTION 8. This article shall take effect beginning with fiscal year 2002 or with the second fiscal year beginning after its ratification, whichever is later.'.


    Gingrich’s phony balanced budget amendment passed the House of Representatives January 26, 1995!

    Bottom line is, why do our “conservative” talk show hosts call Gingrich a “conservative”?


    JWK
     
  2. johnwk
    Offline

    johnwk VIP Member

    Joined:
    May 24, 2009
    Messages:
    1,565
    Thanks Received:
    151
    Trophy Points:
    85
    Ratings:
    +377
    Aside from our “conservative” talk show hosts failing to call Gingrich on the carpet for his phony balanced budget amendment which would actually make in constitutional for Congress to not balance the annual budget, I wonder why none of our “conservative” talk show hosts question Gingrich on his proposal to grant line item veto power to the president. This proposal is of course not only unconstitutional, but an attempt to undermine our Constitution’s separation of powers and weaken our representative system of government by creating a blackmailing power in the hands of the president who will essentially have power to choose which pork barrel projects will be funded and which will not, regardless of their constitutionality. But let one of our founding fathers instruct us on this matter which our “conservative” talk show hosts fail to do.

    Benjamin Franklin, on [color=4blue]June 4th[/color] of the Constitutional Convention reminded the delegates how the veto power had been exercised by royal governors and why the convention should not grant such power to the president:

    “The negative of the governor was constantly made use of to extort money. No good law whatever could be passed without a private bargain with him. An increase of salary or some donation, was always made a condition; till at last, it became the regular practice to have orders in his favor on the treasury presented along with the bills to be signed, so that he might actually receive the former before he should sign the latter. When the Indians were scalping the Western people, and notice of it arrived, the concurrence of the governor in the means of self-defense could not be got, until it was agreed that the people were to fight for the security of his property, whilst he was to have no share of the burdens of taxation.''

    While line-item veto power may have a perceived benefit as now used in various States, advocating that power to be placed in the hands of the President of the united States is a clever attempt to subjugate the important separation of powers between the Executive and Legislative branches of our federal government, and consolidate a very dangerous blackmailing power in the hands of the President. And that is why our founding fathers granted a limited veto power to the president:


    Article 1, Section 7 of the Constitution contains a precise procedure for the president to follow regarding a bill having passed both houses of Congress ''__if he approve, he shall sign it, but if not he shall return it, with his Objections to that House in which it shall have originated__'' No allowance has been granted to the president by the Constitution to alter a bill to his own liking by striking some parts and leaving others, and returning a bill so amended to the House in which it originated.


    Likewise, no provision can be pointed to in our Constitution granting power to Congress to overrule the precise procedure stated in Article 1, Section 7 and vest in the president a power as proposed by Mr. Gingrich or various other line item veto gimmicks. Make no mistake, these attempts are nothing more than another type of attack upon our constitutionally limited system of government and are intentionally designed to dissolve its separation of powers and consolidate a dictatorial and blackmailing power in the hands of the president.

    Have faith in our founding fathers! Their plan created the political environment for America to become the most powerful and wealthiest nation on the planet, but is now in decline because we allow those we elect to spit upon our Constitution and dissolve the very protections our founding fathers wrote into it.

    JWK

    Is it not time to return to our Constitution’s ORIGINAL TAX PLAN and end the progressive’s occupation of America which began in 1913 with the 16th Amendment and taxes laid and collected calculated from profits, gains, salaries and other “incomes”?
     
    Last edited: Dec 4, 2011
  3. johnwk
    Offline

    johnwk VIP Member

    Joined:
    May 24, 2009
    Messages:
    1,565
    Thanks Received:
    151
    Trophy Points:
    85
    Ratings:
    +377
    Yup, that’s right! Gingrich favored for the “Fairness in Broadcasting Act of 1987” to allow the federal government to meddle in our media when our Constitution forbids Congress from abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble... And yet, our State Attorney Generals failed to ask Gingrich what part of the Constitution allows the federal government to meddle in the media as outlined in the “Fairness in Broadcasting Act of 1987” which he supported?

    And, Gingrich was in good company on this one, RINOs, snakes and a PUBLIC BATHROOM FREAK!

    Fairness in Broadcasting Act of 1987

    COSPONSORS(71), ALPHABETICAL [followed by Cosponsors withdrawn]: (Sort: by date)
    Rep Akaka, Daniel K. [HI-2] - 5/7/1987
    Rep Bliley, Tom [VA-3] - 4/2/1987
    Rep Bonior, David E. [MI-12] - 4/2/1987
    Rep Boucher, Rick [VA-9] - 4/2/1987
    Rep Boxer, Barbara [CA-6] - 4/2/1987
    Rep Brooks, Jack B. [TX-9] - 4/2/1987
    Rep Bryant, John W. [TX-5] - 4/2/1987
    Rep Buechner, Jack [MO-2] - 5/7/1987
    Rep Bustamante, Albert G. [TX-23] - 5/7/1987
    Rep Callahan, Sonny [AL-1] - 5/7/1987
    Rep Coelho, Anthony Lee [CA-15] - 4/2/1987
    Rep Coleman, E. Thomas [MO-6] - 5/7/1987
    Rep Collins, Cardiss [IL-7] - 4/2/1987
    Rep Conte, Silvio O. [MA-1] - 5/27/1987
    Rep Cooper, Jim [TN-4] - 5/7/1987
    Rep Craig, Larry E. [ID-1] - 4/2/1987
    Rep Crane, Philip M. [IL-12] - 5/27/1987
    Rep Dannemeyer, William E. [CA-39] - 4/2/1987
    Rep Daub, Hal [NE-2] - 5/7/1987
    Rep de Lugo, Ron [VI] - 5/27/1987
    Rep DeFazio, Peter A. [OR-4] - 5/7/1987
    Rep Dellums, Ronald V. [CA-8] - 4/2/1987
    Rep Dixon, Julian C. [CA-28] - 4/2/1987
    Rep Dornan, Robert K. [CA-38] - 4/2/1987
    Rep Dyson, Roy [MD-1] - 5/7/1987
    Rep Eckart, Dennis E. [OH-11] - 4/2/1987
    Rep Fascell, Dante B. [FL-19] - 4/2/1987
    Rep Fields, Jack [TX-8] - 4/2/1987
    Rep Ford, William D. [MI-15] - 4/2/1987
    Rep Gingrich, Newt [GA-6] - 4/2/1987
    Rep Gray, William H., III [PA-2] - 4/2/1987
    Rep Hayes, Charles A. [IL-1] - 5/7/1987
    Rep Hochbrueckner, George J. [NY-1] - 5/7/1987
    Rep Hughes, William J. [NJ-2] - 5/7/1987
    Rep Hyde, Henry J. [IL-6] - 4/2/1987
    Rep Lagomarsino, Robert J. [CA-19] - 4/2/1987
    Rep Leach, James A. [IA-1] - 4/2/1987
    Rep Leland, Mickey [TX-18] - 4/2/1987
    Rep Levine, Mel [CA-27] - 5/7/1987
    Rep Lipinski, William O. [IL-5] - 5/7/1987
    Rep Lott, Trent [MS-5] - 4/2/1987
    Rep Madigan, Edward R. [IL-15] - 5/7/1987
    Rep Markey, Edward J. [MA-7] - 4/2/1987
    Rep Marlenee, Ron [MT-2] - 4/2/1987
    Rep Martinez, Matthew G. [CA-30] - 5/7/1987
    Rep Murtha, John P. [PA-12] - 4/2/1987
    Rep Nielson, Howard C. [UT-3] - 4/2/1987
    Rep Oberstar, James L. [MN-8] - 4/2/1987
    Rep Owens, Major R. [NY-12] - 5/7/1987
    Rep Pepper, Claude [FL-18] - 4/2/1987
    Rep Rangel, Charles B. [NY-16] - 4/2/1987
    Rep Scheuer, James H. [NY-8] - 5/7/1987
    Rep Schroeder, Patricia [CO-1] - 4/2/1987
    Rep Schuette, Bill [MI-10] - 5/7/1987
    Rep Schumer, Charles E. [NY-10] - 4/2/1987
    Rep Solarz, Stephen J. [NY-13] - 5/7/1987
    Rep Stenholm, Charles W. [TX-17] - 4/2/1987
    Rep Stokes, Louis [OH-21] - 4/2/1987
    Rep Sundquist, Don [TN-7] - 5/7/1987
    Rep Synar, Mike [OK-2] - 5/7/1987
    Rep Torres, Estaban Edward [CA-34] - 5/7/1987
    Rep Udall, Morris K. [AZ-2] - 4/2/1987
    Rep Vento, Bruce F. [MN-4] - 5/7/1987
    Rep Walgren, Doug [PA-18] - 4/2/1987
    Rep Waxman, Henry A. [CA-24] - 4/2/1987
    Rep Weber, Vin [MN-2] - 4/2/1987
    Rep Weiss, Ted [NY-17] - 5/7/1987
    Rep Wise, Robert E., Jr. [WV-3] - 5/7/1987
    Rep Wolpe, Howard E. [MI-3] - 5/7/1987
    Rep Wyden, Ron [OR-3] - 4/2/1987
    Rep Yates, Sidney R. [IL-9] - 4/2/1987

    So why do our “conservative” talk show hosts give Gingrich a pass?

    JWK


    Is it not time to return to our Constitution’s ORIGINAL TAX PLAN and end the progressive’s occupation of America which began in 1913 with the 16th Amendment and taxes laid and collected calculated from profits, gains, salaries and other “incomes”?
     
    Last edited: Dec 4, 2011

Share This Page

Search tags for this page

1995 gingrich balanced budget amendment