No More Red Ink! New Amendment Wanted by 75% American Voters

[freedombecki]

Incensed voters 'repudiate' Washington's leadership

From link:

Voters across America are fed up with Washington's behavior, don't believe representatives are getting the message and may just respond with demands for a constitutional amendment that would wrap duct tape around the profligate spending habits in government, according to a new poll. "An overwhelming percent of 75 percent said they would favor a U.S. constitutional amendment requiring an annual balanced budget from the federal government," said Fritz Wenzel, whose public-opinion research and media consulting company, Wenzel Strategies, conducted the poll. It was a telephone survey conducted May 18-20 and has a margin of error of 3.01 percentage points.

Can We the People Force Congre$$ to $top the Red Ink in $etting America'$ Future Budget$?

Would you like to see an amendment requiring an annual balanced budget from the federal government? Do you think your state's representatives and senators are holding the line on spending, or is it spending as usual? Do you favor or oppose spending? If you were to reduce spending, what would you like to see cut? Who would you vote on in the next election to support or oppose spending at its present level, and why?

In a nutshell: What say you? (It's okay if you don't agree with the link, and it's okay if you do.)

 

[freedombecki]

I have a question for the person who labeled this "old." The results just came in for the telephone survey that was concluded on May 20, and the above link was posted less than 2 hours ago.

How can this be an old topic? 75% of Americans want this Constitutional Amendment, and the asking was done less than 2 weeks ago, with results just now becoming known.

Please reply.

 

[freedombecki]

Bump.

Again, why is a topic less than 2 hours old labeled "old?"

 

[Wonky Pundit]

Incensed voters 'repudiate' Washington's leadership

From link:

Voters across America are fed up with Washington's behavior, don't believe representatives are getting the message and may just respond with demands for a constitutional amendment that would wrap duct tape around the profligate spending habits in government, according to a new poll. "An overwhelming percent of 75 percent said they would favor a U.S. constitutional amendment requiring an annual balanced budget from the federal government," said Fritz Wenzel, whose public-opinion research and media consulting company, Wenzel Strategies, conducted the poll. It was a telephone survey conducted May 18-20 and has a margin of error of 3.01 percentage points.

Can We the People Force Congre$$ to $top the Red Ink in $etting America'$ Future Budget$?

Would you like to see an amendment requiring an annual balanced budget from the federal government? Do you think your state's representatives and senators are holding the line on spending, or is it spending as usual? Do you favor or oppose spending? If you were to reduce spending, what would you like to see cut? Who would you vote on in the next election to support or oppose spending at its present level, and why?

In a nutshell: What say you? (It's okay if you don't agree with the link, and it's okay if you do.)

The budget should absolutely be balanced MOST of the time, but to constitutionally mandate that it be balanced ALL the time is too dangerous. Sometimes large amounts of emergency spending (think natural disasters) are the only option.

 

[Sallow]

Incensed voters 'repudiate' Washington's leadership

From link:

Voters across America are fed up with Washington's behavior, don't believe representatives are getting the message and may just respond with demands for a constitutional amendment that would wrap duct tape around the profligate spending habits in government, according to a new poll. "An overwhelming percent of 75 percent said they would favor a U.S. constitutional amendment requiring an annual balanced budget from the federal government," said Fritz Wenzel, whose public-opinion research and media consulting company, Wenzel Strategies, conducted the poll. It was a telephone survey conducted May 18-20 and has a margin of error of 3.01 percentage points.

Can We the People Force Congre$$ to $top the Red Ink in $etting America'$ Future Budget$?

Would you like to see an amendment requiring an annual balanced budget from the federal government? Do you think your state's representatives and senators are holding the line on spending, or is it spending as usual? Do you favor or oppose spending? If you were to reduce spending, what would you like to see cut? Who would you vote on in the next election to support or oppose spending at its present level, and why?

In a nutshell: What say you? (It's okay if you don't agree with the link, and it's okay if you do.)

The budget should absolutely be balanced MOST of the time, but to constitutionally mandate that it be balanced ALL the time is too dangerous. Sometimes large amounts of emergency spending (think natural disasters) are the only option.

And war.

 

[Sallow]

Why did Conservatives do away with Paygo?

 

[freedombecki]

Incensed voters 'repudiate' Washington's leadership

From link:

Voters across America are fed up with Washington's behavior, don't believe representatives are getting the message and may just respond with demands for a constitutional amendment that would wrap duct tape around the profligate spending habits in government, according to a new poll. "An overwhelming percent of 75 percent said they would favor a U.S. constitutional amendment requiring an annual balanced budget from the federal government," said Fritz Wenzel, whose public-opinion research and media consulting company, Wenzel Strategies, conducted the poll. It was a telephone survey conducted May 18-20 and has a margin of error of 3.01 percentage points.

Can We the People Force Congre$$ to $top the Red Ink in $etting America'$ Future Budget$?

Would you like to see an amendment requiring an annual balanced budget from the federal government? Do you think your state's representatives and senators are holding the line on spending, or is it spending as usual? Do you favor or oppose spending? If you were to reduce spending, what would you like to see cut? Who would you vote on in the next election to support or oppose spending at its present level, and why?

In a nutshell: What say you? (It's okay if you don't agree with the link, and it's okay if you do.)

The budget should absolutely be balanced MOST of the time, but to constitutionally mandate that it be balanced ALL the time is too dangerous. Sometimes large amounts of emergency spending (think natural disasters) are the only option.

That sounds reasonable, Wonky. Even so, do you think people are just in a bad mood right now because they can't plan a vacation in the car to take the kids to see a national park a thousand miles away on account of gasoline being so high? If I were the owner of a hotel or a motel, I'd be pretty unhappy about the lack of vacationer traffic along America's roads because of gas prices.

Do you think the study was fracted to get a certain result? 75% of the people questioned more or less got my attention.

 

[Wonky Pundit]

Incensed voters 'repudiate' Washington's leadership

From link:



Can We the People Force Congre$$ to $top the Red Ink in $etting America'$ Future Budget$?

Would you like to see an amendment requiring an annual balanced budget from the federal government? Do you think your state's representatives and senators are holding the line on spending, or is it spending as usual? Do you favor or oppose spending? If you were to reduce spending, what would you like to see cut? Who would you vote on in the next election to support or oppose spending at its present level, and why?

In a nutshell: What say you? (It's okay if you don't agree with the link, and it's okay if you do.)

The budget should absolutely be balanced MOST of the time, but to constitutionally mandate that it be balanced ALL the time is too dangerous. Sometimes large amounts of emergency spending (think natural disasters) are the only option.

That sounds reasonable, Wonky. Even so, do you think people are just in a bad mood right now because they can't plan a vacation in the car to take the kids to see a national park a thousand miles away on account of gasoline being so high? If I were the owner of a hotel or a motel, I'd be pretty unhappy about the lack of vacationer traffic along America's roads because of gas prices.

Oh, I'm sure they're in a bad mood these days. But whatever their mood, the electorate always wants what no government can possibly deliver. It's our perennial problem.

Do you think the study was fracted to get a certain result? 75% of the people questioned more or less got my attention.

Very likely. You're almost unlimited in how much you can skew the result if you word the questions in certain ways.

 

[freedombecki]

Why did Conservatives do away with Paygo?

Do you mean this, Sallow?

 

[dblack]

Why did Conservatives do away with Paygo?

Because they're only interested in balancing the budget when they're not allowed to write the checks.

 

[freedombecki]

The budget should absolutely be balanced MOST of the time, but to constitutionally mandate that it be balanced ALL the time is too dangerous. Sometimes large amounts of emergency spending (think natural disasters) are the only option.

That sounds reasonable, Wonky. Even so, do you think people are just in a bad mood right now because they can't plan a vacation in the car to take the kids to see a national park a thousand miles away on account of gasoline being so high? If I were the owner of a hotel or a motel, I'd be pretty unhappy about the lack of vacationer traffic along America's roads because of gas prices.

Oh, I'm sure they're in a bad mood these days. But whatever their mood, the electorate always wants what no government can possibly deliver. It's our perennial problem.

Do you think the study was fracted to get a certain result? 75% of the people questioned more or less got my attention.

Very likely. You're almost unlimited in how much you can skew the result if you word the questions in certain ways.

I think you nailed at least part of the problem--we expect more from Congress than they can deliver, then we're upset when something (like through-the-ceiling gas prices) goes out of kilter. That reinforces my thoughts on the outcome of a democratic republic--everybody gets what nobody wants. Except you lifted the curtain when you said that it's our perennial problem.

Now that you've put it in its proper perspective, maybe what we need is a new Bob Hope to make us laugh at our perennial headache. *sigh*

I truly like your perspectives. They have balance and panache.

 

[johnwk]

You bet 75 percent of Americans support a balance budget amendment. But I’m sure they do not want a fake balanced budget amendment which makes it constitutional for Congress to not balance the budget!

So what do “conservative’ members of Congress promote” Surprise! A number of fake balanced budget amendments.

Let us take a look at one of the fake balanced budget amendments S.J.RES. 5 being used to trick recently elected members of Congress who were supported by Tea Party Activists.

S. J. RES. 5

JOINT RESOLUTION

Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States requiring that the Federal budget be balanced.

Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled (two-thirds of each House concurring therein), That the following article is proposed as an amendment to the Constitution of the United States, which shall be valid to all intents and purposes as part of the Constitution when ratified by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several States:

`Article--

`Section 1. Total outlays for any fiscal year shall not exceed total receipts for that fiscal year.

Good thought. Let’s look at it closely!

`Section 2. Total outlays shall not exceed 18 percent of the gross domestic product of the United States for the calendar year ending prior to the beginning of such fiscal year.

Now wait a second. Why should we be stuck with giving the federal government 18 percent of our nation’s GDP? If Congress followed our Constitution, far less revenue would be needed.

`Section 3. The Congress may provide for suspension of the limitations imposed by section 1 or 2 of this article for any fiscal year for which two-thirds of the whole number of each House shall provide, by a roll call vote, for a specific excess of outlays over receipts or over 18 percent of the gross domestic product of the United States for the calendar year ending prior to the beginning of such fiscal year.

Well, isn’t this peachy? Congress may override the amendment whenever it so desires.

`Section 4. Any bill to levy a new tax or increase the rate of any tax shall not become law unless approved by two-thirds of the whole number of each House of Congress by a roll call vote.

Meaningless weasel wording to suggest taxes will not be raised while there is nothing in the proposed wording to establish a real moment of accountability.

`Section 5. The limit on the debt of the United States held by the public shall not be increased, unless two-thirds of the whole number of each House of Congress shall provide for such an increase by a roll call vote.

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

`Section 6. Any Member of Congress shall have standing and a cause of action to seek judicial enforcement of this article, when authorized to do so by a petition signed by one-third of the Members of either House of Congress. No court of the United States or of any State shall order any increase in revenue to enforce this article.

And this is totally pathetic ___ allowing the Court to enforce the amendment, and in the very next section Congress is entrusted to enforce the article by appropriate legislation. In other words, the fox, our federal government, on two different levels is left in charge of the hen house.

`Section 7. The Congress shall have the power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

Just what we need, the fox in charge of patrolling the hen house.


`Section 8. Total receipts shall include all receipts of the United States except those derived from borrowing. Total outlays shall include all outlays of the United States except 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 become effective beginning with the second fiscal year commencing after its ratification by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several States.'.

Bottom line is, the above amendment has been carefully worded in such a manner which neither compels an annually balanced budget, nor requires equal taxes to finance increases in the national debt, nor does it create a moment of meaningful accountability when Congress spends more than is brought in from taxes. It is nothing but a trick to pretend a desire for fiscal responsibility and would make it constitutional for Congress to not balance the budget.

Now let us look at a real balanced budget amendment!

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! These words would remove the existing chains of taxation which Congress now uses to enslave America‘s businesses, its industrial and manufacturing base, and they would end the slavish tax which now confiscates the bread which working people have earned!


"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 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 1 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 by dividing its total population size by the total population of the united states and multiplying that figure by the total being raised by Congress, 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 SUM TO BE RAISED = STATE’S SHARE

Total U.S. Population


This is to insure that those states who contribute the lion’s share of the tax are guaranteed a representation in Congress proportionately equal to 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.
.

JWK


“…a national revenue must be obtained; but the system must be such a one, that, while it secures the object of revenue it shall not be oppressive to our constituents.”___ Madison, during the creation of our Nation’s first revenue raising Act

 

[freedombecki]

Incensed voters 'repudiate' Washington's leadership

From link:



Can We the People Force Congre$$ to $top the Red Ink in $etting America'$ Future Budget$?

Would you like to see an amendment requiring an annual balanced budget from the federal government? Do you think your state's representatives and senators are holding the line on spending, or is it spending as usual? Do you favor or oppose spending? If you were to reduce spending, what would you like to see cut? Who would you vote on in the next election to support or oppose spending at its present level, and why?

In a nutshell: What say you? (It's okay if you don't agree with the link, and it's okay if you do.)

The budget should absolutely be balanced MOST of the time, but to constitutionally mandate that it be balanced ALL the time is too dangerous. Sometimes large amounts of emergency spending (think natural disasters) are the only option.

And war.

Point well-taken.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Amending the Constitution is a bad idea for the good reason noted. Thank goodness for the amendment process.

Oh, I'm sure they're in a bad mood these days. But whatever their mood, the electorate always wants what no government can possibly deliver. It's our perennial problem.

True.

However balancing the budget won’t eliminate the factors contributing to their bad mood.

 

[freedombecki]

You bet 75 percent of Americans support a balance budget amendment. But I’m sure they do not want a fake balanced budget amendment which makes it constitutional for Congress to not balance the budget!

So what do “conservative’ members of Congress promote” Surprise! A number of fake balanced budget amendments.

Let us take a look at one of the fake balanced budget amendments S.J.RES. 5 being used to trick recently elected members of Congress who were supported by Tea Party Activists.

S. J. RES. 5

JOINT RESOLUTION

Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States requiring that the Federal budget be balanced.

Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled (two-thirds of each House concurring therein), That the following article is proposed as an amendment to the Constitution of the United States, which shall be valid to all intents and purposes as part of the Constitution when ratified by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several States:

`Article--

`Section 1. Total outlays for any fiscal year shall not exceed total receipts for that fiscal year.

Good thought. Let’s look at it closely!

`Section 2. Total outlays shall not exceed 18 percent of the gross domestic product of the United States for the calendar year ending prior to the beginning of such fiscal year.

Now wait a second. Why should we be stuck with giving the federal government 18 percent of our nation’s GDP? If Congress followed our Constitution, far less revenue would be needed.

`Section 3. The Congress may provide for suspension of the limitations imposed by section 1 or 2 of this article for any fiscal year for which two-thirds of the whole number of each House shall provide, by a roll call vote, for a specific excess of outlays over receipts or over 18 percent of the gross domestic product of the United States for the calendar year ending prior to the beginning of such fiscal year.

Well, isn’t this peachy? Congress may override the amendment whenever it so desires.

`Section 4. Any bill to levy a new tax or increase the rate of any tax shall not become law unless approved by two-thirds of the whole number of each House of Congress by a roll call vote.

Meaningless weasel wording to suggest taxes will not be raised while there is nothing in the proposed wording to establish a real moment of accountability.

`Section 5. The limit on the debt of the United States held by the public shall not be increased, unless two-thirds of the whole number of each House of Congress shall provide for such an increase by a roll call vote.

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

`Section 6. Any Member of Congress shall have standing and a cause of action to seek judicial enforcement of this article, when authorized to do so by a petition signed by one-third of the Members of either House of Congress. No court of the United States or of any State shall order any increase in revenue to enforce this article.

And this is totally pathetic ___ allowing the Court to enforce the amendment, and in the very next section Congress is entrusted to enforce the article by appropriate legislation. In other words, the fox, our federal government, on two different levels is left in charge of the hen house.

`Section 7. The Congress shall have the power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

Just what we need, the fox in charge of patrolling the hen house.


`Section 8. Total receipts shall include all receipts of the United States except those derived from borrowing. Total outlays shall include all outlays of the United States except 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 become effective beginning with the second fiscal year commencing after its ratification by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several States.'.

Bottom line is, the above amendment has been carefully worded in such a manner which neither compels an annually balanced budget, nor requires equal taxes to finance increases in the national debt, nor does it create a moment of meaningful accountability when Congress spends more than is brought in from taxes. It is nothing but a trick to pretend a desire for fiscal responsibility and would make it constitutional for Congress to not balance the budget.

Now let us look at a real balanced budget amendment!

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! These words would remove the existing chains of taxation which Congress now uses to enslave America‘s businesses, its industrial and manufacturing base, and they would end the slavish tax which now confiscates the bread which working people have earned!


"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 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 1 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 by dividing its total population size by the total population of the united states and multiplying that figure by the total being raised by Congress, 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 SUM TO BE RAISED = STATE’S SHARE

Total U.S. Population


This is to insure that those states who contribute the lion’s share of the tax are guaranteed a representation in Congress proportionately equal to 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.
.

JWK


“…a national revenue must be obtained; but the system must be such a one, that, while it secures the object of revenue it shall not be oppressive to our constituents.”___ Madison, during the creation of our Nation’s first revenue raising Act

Thanks for your thought-provoking question of a bill before the Senate. One of the sponsors is a personal friend of mine, and I will tell you, he is a lion among caring men for his constituents in his home state, where I lived most of my adult life. He goes back to the state each week weather permitting (lots of snow in winter) and visits several of the state's 22 or so counties each time. I don't know how anybody else could do that but him.

Also, it's a little confusing with your commentary so close to what the bill actually says, that I need to rewrite from your link the wording on the bill, ok?:

JOINT RESOLUTION

Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States requiring that the Federal budget be balanced.

Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled (two-thirds of each House concurring therein), That the following article is proposed as an amendment to the Constitution of the United States, which shall be valid to all intents and purposes as part of the Constitution when ratified by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several States:

`Article--

`Section 1. Total outlays for any fiscal year shall not exceed total receipts for that fiscal year.

`Section 2. Total outlays shall not exceed 18 percent of the gross domestic product of the United States for the calendar year ending prior to the beginning of such fiscal year.

`Section 3. The Congress may provide for suspension of the limitations imposed by section 1 or 2 of this article for any fiscal year for which two-thirds of the whole number of each House shall provide, by a roll call vote, for a specific excess of outlays over receipts or over 18 percent of the gross domestic product of the United States for the calendar year ending prior to the beginning of such fiscal year.

`Section 4. Any bill to levy a new tax or increase the rate of any tax shall not become law unless approved by two-thirds of the whole number of each House of Congress by a roll call vote.

`Section 5. The limit on the debt of the United States held by the public shall not be increased, unless two-thirds of the whole number of each House of Congress shall provide for such an increase by a roll call vote.

`Section 6. Any Member of Congress shall have standing and a cause of action to seek judicial enforcement of this article, when authorized to do so by a petition signed by one-third of the Members of either House of Congress. No court of the United States or of any State shall order any increase in revenue to enforce this article.

`Section 7. The Congress shall have the power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

`Section 8. Total receipts shall include all receipts of the United States except those derived from borrowing. Total outlays shall include all outlays of the United States except those for repayment of debt principal.

`Section 9. This article shall become effective beginning with the second fiscal year commencing after its ratification by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several States.'..

Section 1, ok... seems good.

Section 2, a percentage seems not too fierce since it allows for changing times, and yes, it does seem a little high. Maybe a few letters could tweak it down, or would get a response from those hosting the bill explaining why they picked 18%, not more, and not less.

Section 3, I'm not seeing a Congress greater than 2/3rds one way or the other right now, and that could change every 2 years. I think getting 2/3rds to vote would mean it was pretty representative of voters wishes. I'm allowing it because of the 2/3rds vote requirement. Not easy even when there is a narrow margin and several Senators invariably do not lockstep on truly important fiscal matters.

Also, some states entered the union with the promise that in spite of their small population, they would get a fair hearing in the Senate. Either the United States keeps its admittance agreements or it doesn't. I'm feeling small states should maintain the same representation as was promised when they were admitted to the union.

Section 4. Again, that tough 2/3rds vote is there. I like it because it puts the majority of voters in the driver's seat.

Section 5. No increases in spending except by 2/3rds vote. Seems okay. That way, if we really need to go to war if Americans are killed by ruthless powers, it wouldn't be hard to get 2/3rds, and if it was to go into debt to takeover all the theme parks in order to initiate atheism, well, it wouldn't be easy to get 2/3rds vote, at least not in this time. Also, if lobbyists are all over the backs of Senators and Representatives about a petty interest over national ones, it gives the congresscritter an out who can show the lobby would significantly place a hardship on taxpayers. So hopefully, that positive may be needed.

Section 6. Judicial backing with 1/3 of Congress behind it? hmmm. I don't like it particularly because I think the powers should be separate down the line, so I'd like to see that section omitted unless I could have its merits that I don't know about explained in full detail.

Section 7. If congress passes it, they certainly should be responsible for enforcing it.

Section 8. I concur with your assessment. "And what happens when total receipts derived from borrowing far exceed those for repayment of debt principal?"

Section 9. A definitive start time. That's okay by me.

I'll answer the rest of your post at a later time. Right now, this is all I can do, I've already tied up over a half hour thinking about what you said and what the bill says. I'm a definite lay person, and not a lawyer, certainly not the comprehensive thinker Mr. Wonky Pundit is. In fact, he may have already laid his case and understands what you're saying better than I ever could, and he has this knack for explaining things in a reasoned fashion that can change my mind if I've gone wrong somewhere.

Thanks, JohnWK. If you wrote that all by yourself, I can see that you've put a lot of thought and time into it. Thanks.

 

[freedombecki]

Amending the Constitution is a bad idea for the good reason noted. Thank goodness for the amendment process.

Oh, I'm sure they're in a bad mood these days. But whatever their mood, the electorate always wants what no government can possibly deliver. It's our perennial problem.

True.

However balancing the budget won’t eliminate the factors contributing to their bad mood.

Thanks, C. Clayton Jones. Why do you think balancing the budget won't perk people up some? I get a real charge out of people from Finland because my 9th grade history teacher pointed out that the Finns were the first European country to pay off their WWII debt borrowed from US bankers. I've never felt so honored to be in the presence of a Finland native ever since. I truly respect people who absolutely keep their word in the financial world. If we balanced our budget, I think Congress would get back some of its respect from Americans it is supposed to represent, but doesn't when it strays from basics like defense of our people against predatory outfits like Nazis, al Qaeda and their murderous ilk.

 

[bripat9643]

Why did Conservatives do away with Paygo?

"Huh?

Paygo is Nancy Pelosi's brainchild.

 

[eflatminor]

[/QUOTE]The budget should absolutely be balanced MOST of the time, but to constitutionally mandate that it be balanced ALL the time is too dangerous. Sometimes large amounts of emergency spending (think natural disasters) are the only option.[/QUOTE]

The amendment could easily put forth a simple 3/5 or 2/3 vote requirement to temporarily exceed a budget in order to respond to a true emergency.

 

[eflatminor]

Why did Conservatives do away with Paygo?

"Huh?

Paygo is Nancy Pelosi's brainchild.

Correct. And it was Dems and Republicans that summarily ignored the PAYGO law. A pox on both of their houses.

 

[johnwk]

You bet 75 percent of Americans support a balance budget amendment. But I’m sure they do not want a fake balanced budget amendment which makes it constitutional for Congress to not balance the budget!

So what do “conservative’ members of Congress promote” Surprise! A number of fake balanced budget amendments.

Let us take a look at one of the fake balanced budget amendments S.J.RES. 5 being used to trick recently elected members of Congress who were supported by Tea Party Activists.

S. J. RES. 5

JOINT RESOLUTION

Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States requiring that the Federal budget be balanced.

Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled (two-thirds of each House concurring therein), That the following article is proposed as an amendment to the Constitution of the United States, which shall be valid to all intents and purposes as part of the Constitution when ratified by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several States:

`Article--

`Section 1. Total outlays for any fiscal year shall not exceed total receipts for that fiscal year.

Good thought. Let’s look at it closely!

`Section 2. Total outlays shall not exceed 18 percent of the gross domestic product of the United States for the calendar year ending prior to the beginning of such fiscal year.

Now wait a second. Why should we be stuck with giving the federal government 18 percent of our nation’s GDP? If Congress followed our Constitution, far less revenue would be needed.

`Section 3. The Congress may provide for suspension of the limitations imposed by section 1 or 2 of this article for any fiscal year for which two-thirds of the whole number of each House shall provide, by a roll call vote, for a specific excess of outlays over receipts or over 18 percent of the gross domestic product of the United States for the calendar year ending prior to the beginning of such fiscal year.

Well, isn’t this peachy? Congress may override the amendment whenever it so desires.

`Section 4. Any bill to levy a new tax or increase the rate of any tax shall not become law unless approved by two-thirds of the whole number of each House of Congress by a roll call vote.

Meaningless weasel wording to suggest taxes will not be raised while there is nothing in the proposed wording to establish a real moment of accountability.

`Section 5. The limit on the debt of the United States held by the public shall not be increased, unless two-thirds of the whole number of each House of Congress shall provide for such an increase by a roll call vote.

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

`Section 6. Any Member of Congress shall have standing and a cause of action to seek judicial enforcement of this article, when authorized to do so by a petition signed by one-third of the Members of either House of Congress. No court of the United States or of any State shall order any increase in revenue to enforce this article.

And this is totally pathetic ___ allowing the Court to enforce the amendment, and in the very next section Congress is entrusted to enforce the article by appropriate legislation. In other words, the fox, our federal government, on two different levels is left in charge of the hen house.

`Section 7. The Congress shall have the power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

Just what we need, the fox in charge of patrolling the hen house.


`Section 8. Total receipts shall include all receipts of the United States except those derived from borrowing. Total outlays shall include all outlays of the United States except 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 become effective beginning with the second fiscal year commencing after its ratification by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several States.'.

Bottom line is, the above amendment has been carefully worded in such a manner which neither compels an annually balanced budget, nor requires equal taxes to finance increases in the national debt, nor does it create a moment of meaningful accountability when Congress spends more than is brought in from taxes. It is nothing but a trick to pretend a desire for fiscal responsibility and would make it constitutional for Congress to not balance the budget.

Now let us look at a real balanced budget amendment!

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! These words would remove the existing chains of taxation which Congress now uses to enslave America‘s businesses, its industrial and manufacturing base, and they would end the slavish tax which now confiscates the bread which working people have earned!


"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 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 1 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 by dividing its total population size by the total population of the united states and multiplying that figure by the total being raised by Congress, 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 SUM TO BE RAISED = STATE’S SHARE

Total U.S. Population


This is to insure that those states who contribute the lion’s share of the tax are guaranteed a representation in Congress proportionately equal to 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.
.

JWK


“…a national revenue must be obtained; but the system must be such a one, that, while it secures the object of revenue it shall not be oppressive to our constituents.”___ Madison, during the creation of our Nation’s first revenue raising Act

Thanks for your thought-provoking question of a bill before the Senate. One of the sponsors is a personal friend of mine, and I will tell you, he is a lion among caring men for his constituents in his home state, where I lived most of my adult life. He goes back to the state each week weather permitting (lots of snow in winter) and visits several of the state's 22 or so counties each time. I don't know how anybody else could do that but him.

Also, it's a little confusing with your commentary so close to what the bill actually says, that I need to rewrite from your link the wording on the bill, ok?:

JOINT RESOLUTION

Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States requiring that the Federal budget be balanced.

Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled (two-thirds of each House concurring therein), That the following article is proposed as an amendment to the Constitution of the United States, which shall be valid to all intents and purposes as part of the Constitution when ratified by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several States:

`Article--

`Section 1. Total outlays for any fiscal year shall not exceed total receipts for that fiscal year.

`Section 2. Total outlays shall not exceed 18 percent of the gross domestic product of the United States for the calendar year ending prior to the beginning of such fiscal year.

`Section 3. The Congress may provide for suspension of the limitations imposed by section 1 or 2 of this article for any fiscal year for which two-thirds of the whole number of each House shall provide, by a roll call vote, for a specific excess of outlays over receipts or over 18 percent of the gross domestic product of the United States for the calendar year ending prior to the beginning of such fiscal year.

`Section 4. Any bill to levy a new tax or increase the rate of any tax shall not become law unless approved by two-thirds of the whole number of each House of Congress by a roll call vote.

`Section 5. The limit on the debt of the United States held by the public shall not be increased, unless two-thirds of the whole number of each House of Congress shall provide for such an increase by a roll call vote.

`Section 6. Any Member of Congress shall have standing and a cause of action to seek judicial enforcement of this article, when authorized to do so by a petition signed by one-third of the Members of either House of Congress. No court of the United States or of any State shall order any increase in revenue to enforce this article.

`Section 7. The Congress shall have the power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

`Section 8. Total receipts shall include all receipts of the United States except those derived from borrowing. Total outlays shall include all outlays of the United States except those for repayment of debt principal.

`Section 9. This article shall become effective beginning with the second fiscal year commencing after its ratification by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several States.'..

Section 1, ok... seems good.

Section 2, a percentage seems not too fierce since it allows for changing times, and yes, it does seem a little high. Maybe a few letters could tweak it down, or would get a response from those hosting the bill explaining why they picked 18%, not more, and not less.

Section 3, I'm not seeing a Congress greater than 2/3rds one way or the other right now, and that could change every 2 years. I think getting 2/3rds to vote would mean it was pretty representative of voters wishes. I'm allowing it because of the 2/3rds vote requirement. Not easy even when there is a narrow margin and several Senators invariably do not lockstep on truly important fiscal matters.

Also, some states entered the union with the promise that in spite of their small population, they would get a fair hearing in the Senate. Either the United States keeps its admittance agreements or it doesn't. I'm feeling small states should maintain the same representation as was promised when they were admitted to the union.

Section 4. Again, that tough 2/3rds vote is there. I like it because it puts the majority of voters in the driver's seat.

Section 5. No increases in spending except by 2/3rds vote. Seems okay. That way, if we really need to go to war if Americans are killed by ruthless powers, it wouldn't be hard to get 2/3rds, and if it was to go into debt to takeover all the theme parks in order to initiate atheism, well, it wouldn't be easy to get 2/3rds vote, at least not in this time. Also, if lobbyists are all over the backs of Senators and Representatives about a petty interest over national ones, it gives the congresscritter an out who can show the lobby would significantly place a hardship on taxpayers. So hopefully, that positive may be needed.

Section 6. Judicial backing with 1/3 of Congress behind it? hmmm. I don't like it particularly because I think the powers should be separate down the line, so I'd like to see that section omitted unless I could have its merits that I don't know about explained in full detail.

Section 7. If congress passes it, they certainly should be responsible for enforcing it.

Section 8. I concur with your assessment. "And what happens when total receipts derived from borrowing far exceed those for repayment of debt principal?"

Section 9. A definitive start time. That's okay by me.

I'll answer the rest of your post at a later time. Right now, this is all I can do, I've already tied up over a half hour thinking about what you said and what the bill says. I'm a definite lay person, and not a lawyer, certainly not the comprehensive thinker Mr. Wonky Pundit is. In fact, he may have already laid his case and understands what you're saying better than I ever could, and he has this knack for explaining things in a reasoned fashion that can change my mind if I've gone wrong somewhere.

Thanks, JohnWK. If you wrote that all by yourself, I can see that you've put a lot of thought and time into it. Thanks.

Indeed, I have put a lot of thought into this subject. I started back in the 1980’s when Gingrich and other RINOs were pushing another fake balanced budget amendment. And the only reason I was able to pick up on the fraud that it was, was because I was engaged in an extensive research project at the University of Maryland, researching our nation’s founding, and stumbled upon our Constitution’s intended method to deal with deficits which appeared in several of the State Ratification documents, e.g., 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-``


My first reaction was, what would have happened to each State‘s Congressional Delegation if they returned home with a bill in hand because they spent more than was brought in from imposts, duties and excise taxes imposed upon judiciously selected articles of consumption, and Congress had been squandering federal revenue as they are today? I think the moment of accountability created by our founder’s method to extinguish a deficit with a general tax laid among the States by the rule of apportionment is the very thing our existing members of Congress are attempting to avoid with their fake balanced budget amendments.

There is no question that our founders intended to use a general tax laid among the States to extinguish deficits, and they likewise agreed that the rule of apportionment would be strictly observed. But let our founding fathers speak for themselves regarding any general tax laid among the states:


“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


PINCKNEY:


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 if there is any question as to why a fair share formula was put into our Constitution and tied taxation and representation by the same standard (each state’s population size) Mr. PENDLETON says the following during the ratification debates:

“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


Regards,

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.