House votes down balanced budget ammendment

[Bern80]

The excuses of democrats for voting against this were just hilarious. One was along the lines of if we have an ammendment restricting our spending we won't be able to spend extra money. Another dem is quoted as essentially saying an ammendment meant to maintain a balanced budget will not help us balance the budget. Just shows how far out into left field the dems are on this.

 

[Wiseacre]

Steny Hoyer voted for it in 1995 but voted against it this time. One wonders why they didn't vote for it and punt it to the Senate where it woulda died with every other bill coming out of the House this year. Those House dems and the dems challenging for a gop seat could have a tough time explaining why they won't support a measure to control spending more than they have.

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

The 261-165 vote was 23 short of the two-thirds majority needed to advance a constitutional amendment. Democrats, swayed by the arguments of their leaders that a balanced budget requirement would force Congress to make devastating cuts to social programs, overwhelmingly voted against it.

House rejects balanced budget amendment

We can't be fiscally responsible because it would force us to cut back on the socialist nanny state. If we ran our households the way Congress runs the country we'd have filed bankruptcy a long, long time ago. This is reprehensible.

At least now there is no question as to who in the current Congress supports fiscal responsibility and who doesn't.

 

[old navy]

The problem with a budget, indeed a balanced budget, is that it requires fiscal discipline.

Members of congress, regardless of political party, like to spend because spending means votes.

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

The 261-165 vote was 23 short of the two-thirds majority needed to advance a constitutional amendment. Democrats, swayed by the arguments of their leaders that a balanced budget requirement would force Congress to make devastating cuts to social programs, overwhelmingly voted against it.

House rejects balanced budget amendment

We can't be fiscally responsible because it would force us to cut back on the socialist nanny state. If we ran our households the way Congress runs the country we'd have filed bankruptcy a long, long time ago. This is reprehensible.

At least now there is no question as to who in the current Congress supports fiscal responsibility and who doesn't.

Appalling and pathetic that the house would not make it constitutional to make the govt's budget balanced.

I hope every no vote gets voted out!

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

The problem with a budget, indeed a balanced budget, is that it requires fiscal discipline.

Members of congress, regardless of political party, like to spend because spending means votes.

There is no excuse for not voting for it other than to screw over the citizens of this country. We can't sepnd what we don't have to spend and you don't create wealth by borrowing money.

 

[R.C. Christian]

What is an "ammendment"?

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Depending on the wording I am opposed to a balanced budget Amendment. There ARE times the Government will need to exceed tax revenues in a budget.

 

[naturegirl]

This was a bad bill, no spending cap won't help even if we have a balanced budget. I'm glad this one didn't pass. They need to keep working on this.

Yea, some of the Dem excuses were quite humorous.

 

[waltky]

Granny thinks it was dat earthquake dey had up there a lil' while back...

Seismic shift on Hill sank amendment bid for balanced budget
Sunday, November 20, 2011 - The defeat last week of a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution showed a remarkable shift in congressional opinion in just 15 years on what had, at one point, appeared destined to become the 28th addition to the founding document.

But Friday’s 261-165 vote — 23 votes shy of the two-thirds supermajority needed to clear the House — was the latest evidence that polarization in Congress is turning what were once consensus issues into partisan battlegrounds. In 1995, a similar amendment garnered 300 votes of support, with 72 of those coming from Democrats. By contrast, just 25 Democrats voted for last week’s effort. The vote was punctuated by the nine lawmakers who voted for the amendment the last time around, in 1995, but who switched and voted “No” last week, including eight Democrats and one Republican. Not a single “no” vote from last time switched to vote for it this time.

Some switchers blamed President Clinton and congressional Republicans for balancing budgets from 1998 through 2001, proving that it can be done without needing to alter the Constitution itself. “I believed in 1995 when I cast that vote, January of 1995, in favor of the balanced budget amendment to the Constitution, that it was the only way we would be able to achieve a balanced budget. I was wrong. Two short years later, we balanced the federal budget,” said Rep. David Dreier, the lone Republican to switch from support to opposition.

Other switchers blamed President George W. Bush and the Republican Congress for squandering those balanced budgets in the ensuing years, and said they no longer believed in the kind of bipartisan cooperation they said they saw in the 1990s, and that they feel is required. “I’m convinced that in today’s supercharged partisan environment, it is nearly impossible to get a three-fifths vote for any substantial legislation, no matter how important it is,” said Rep. Mike Doyle, a Pennsylvania Democrat who switched.

Rep. James P. Moran, a Virginia Democrat who also changed from 1995 to now, also doubted a supermajority could be mustered in time of emergency, and fretted what the amendment would do to cherished programs. “The balanced budget amendment that failed to pass the House today is not a practical or responsible solution to our nation’s budget woes,” he said. “It would impose dramatic cuts when we can least afford them, cripple the economic recovery and imperil our social safety net: Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security.” A number of the other switchers simply went silent.

MORE

 

[Sirkarl101]

Reagan raised taxes on the wealthy and everyone else a total of 8 times I believe. If the government does not create jobs by just doing what are taxes are meant to do like fix our roads then revenues can not be created. Loop holes andf tax breaks for the wealthy, big banks and other elite has done what? Show me how many jobs were created during little Georges reign.

 

[jaffeh]

Interesting. Even the "money conscious" don't want to lose their wiggle room to pad their arses.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

House votes down balanced budget ammendment

That republicans even wasted time with this nonsense is evidence of their screwed up priorities.

I’m glad it failed, but it should never have been proposed in the first place.

 

[AVG-JOE]

Depending on the wording I am opposed to a balanced budget Amendment. There ARE times the Government will need to exceed tax revenues in a budget.

Good point - the requirement to balance the budget should not infringe on the governments ability to borrow, only require a plan to pay off the note before a dime is spent.

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

Depending on the wording I am opposed to a balanced budget Amendment. There ARE times the Government will need to exceed tax revenues in a budget.

Good point - the requirement to balance the budget should not infringe on the governments ability to borrow, only require a plan to pay off the note before a dime is spent.

For example, if we face a national/world crisis that requires short term borrowing to deal with. That should be acceptable as long as the government provides a detailed and transparant plan to have the debt paid back in a specified amount of time.