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

[freedombecki]

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.

Do you think the bill discussed by JohnWK in Post 12 will fix the balancing issue?

 

[eflatminor]

"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.

Do you think the bill discussed by JohnWK in Post 12 will fix the balancing issue?

I doubt it but living within the confines of the Constitution will. Given the absurd abuse of the commerce and general welfare clauses, if it takes a few amendments to reign in tyranny, I'm fine with that.

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

Why did Conservatives do away with Paygo?

There was no Paygo. It was a publicity stunt and nothing more. Neither party has abided by the philosophy.

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

Would you like to see an amendment requiring an annual balanced budget from the federal government?

I'm highly skeptical such an amendment will ever pass.

 

[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.

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.

Oh, my, did you ever put a lot of thought into that! I've read five of your links so far, and knowing this history would inflect a radically different vantage, apart from a lot of contemporary doctrinal approaches.

Reading the New Hampshire Ratification of the U.S. Constitution was so delightful. I say that fondly, as we travelled to New England several years ago to see the leaves turn. We landed in Boston, rented a car, and began our sojourn through MA and several neighboring states, including NH, which was my favorite on the account of the leaves being a bright red, which was so fascinating compared with the brown and gold and brown, brown, brown everything in the Equality state where we lived at the time. What NH stated as requirement truly was acknowledged and became part and parcel of the U.S. Constitution, so knowing this, no wonder you must feel dismay when less knowledgeable people conjure up solutions so callously dismissed by the founders as was furnished by your impeccable scholarship.

Notwithstanding, I still think we have a large problem with owing so much money that the interest is approaching the amount we are taxed, isn't it? How can this be controlled? The framers may never have dreamed the trillions of dollars their country might eventually accrue as debt to the point some of us have been convinced our way of life is jeopardized.

Some persons have even envisioned a debt clock for the United States, and I watched it click off about a million dollars a minute, give or take a few seconds. It claims the U.S. total debt is $55,367,693,000,000+ and the National Debt is about 14,402,585,000,000+. as I type this out.

Are you worried?

 

[freedombecki]

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

Do you think the bill discussed by JohnWK in Post 12 will fix the balancing issue?

I doubt it but living within the confines of the Constitution will. Given the absurd abuse of the commerce and general welfare clauses, if it takes a few amendments to reign in tyranny, I'm fine with that.

I, too, hope we have no tyrannical reign, but I do hope we rein in spending at least until we have some relief from that monstrous interest tab the American people are paying.

My attitude is all my high school English text's fault, quoting Longfellow's poem, The Village Blacksmith: ...and he looks the whole world in the face for he owes not any man...

 

[Wonky Pundit]

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.

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.

I wouldn't be opposed to an amendment like that (depending on the exact wording), but would it survive the amendment process? I would not care to bet on or against it.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Why do you think balancing the budget won't perk people up some?

It may for political reasons but economic cycles – boom and bust – are global.

I wouldn't be opposed to an amendment like that (depending on the exact wording), but would it survive the amendment process? I would not care to bet on or against it.

I would still oppose an amendment because it’s predicated on political dogma, not objective reasoning; and you can’t have such exemptions in an amendment – good heavens – it would be a judicial review nightmare.

 

[johnwk]

Oh, my, did you ever put a lot of thought into that! I've read five of your links so far, and knowing this history would inflect a radically different vantage, apart from a lot of contemporary doctrinal approaches.

Reading the New Hampshire Ratification of the U.S. Constitution was so delightful. I say that fondly, as we travelled to New England several years ago to see the leaves turn. We landed in Boston, rented a car, and began our sojourn through MA and several neighboring states, including NH, which was my favorite on the account of the leaves being a bright red, which was so fascinating compared with the brown and gold and brown, brown, brown everything in the Equality state where we lived at the time. What NH stated as requirement truly was acknowledged and became part and parcel of the U.S. Constitution, so knowing this, no wonder you must feel dismay when less knowledgeable people conjure up solutions so callously dismissed by the founders as was furnished by your impeccable scholarship.

Notwithstanding, I still think we have a large problem with owing so much money that the interest is approaching the amount we are taxed, isn't it? How can this be controlled? The framers may never have dreamed the trillions of dollars their country might eventually accrue as debt to the point some of us have been convinced our way of life is jeopardized.

Some persons have even envisioned a debt clock for the United States, and I watched it click off about a million dollars a minute, give or take a few seconds. It claims the U.S. total debt is $55,367,693,000,000+ and the National Debt is about 14,402,585,000,000+. as I type this out.

Are you worried?

Yes I am worried. But I do know, or rather strongly believe, those in Congress who are sincere in wanting to address Congress’ profligate spending and borrowing, ought to have faith in our founding fathers apportioned tax to extinguish annual deficits should they occur, as it would put every member of Congress’ feet to the fire should they allow spending to exceed revenue which is brought in. And it would create this accountability in as far as each States’ Congressional Delegation would have to return home with a bill in hand for the Governor and State Legislature to deal with in extinguishing a deficit created by Congress. And the Governor and State Legislature would have to transfer its apportioned share to extinguish a federal deficit from its state’s treasury into the federal treasury, thereby depleting the state's treasury, or raise additional taxes within the State and then send that revenue to the federal treasury.

And just to be on point, my confidence in our founding fathers is not merely whimsical.

Under our Constitution’s original tax plan, which included the apportioned tax, note that by the year 1835, America was manufacturing everything from steam powered ships, to clothing spun and woven by powered machinery and the national debt [which included part of the revolutionary war debt] was completely extinguished and Congress enjoyed a surplus in the federal treasury from tariffs, duties, and customs. And so, by an Act of Congress in June of 1836 all surplus revenue in excess of $ 5,000,000 was decided to be distributed among the states, and eventually a total of $28,000,000 was distributed among the states by the rule of apportionment in the nature of interest free loans to the states to be recalled if and when Congress decided to make such a recall. Why do so many willingly ignore the wisdom of our founding fathers?

And just for the record, here is some of the history regarding the use of the apportioned tax:

The Constitution went into operation on the 4th of March, 1789 and what follows is the use of the apportioned tax.

The Act of July 14, 1798, c. 75, 1 Stat. 53. This act imposed a tax upon real estate and a capitation tax upon slaves.

The Act of Aug. 2, 1813, c. 37, 3 id. 53. By this act the tax was imposed upon real estate and slaves, according to their respective values in money.

The Act of Jan. 19, 1815, c. 21, id. 164. This act imposed the tax upon the same descriptions of property, and in like manner as the preceding act.

The Act of Feb. 27, 1815, c. 60, id. 216, applied to the District of Columbia the provisions of the Act of Jan. 19, 1815.

The Act of March 5, 1816, c. 24, id. 255, repealed the two preceding acts, and reenacted their provisions to enforce the collection of the smaller amount of tax thereby prescribed.

The Act of Aug. 5, 1861, c. 45, 12 id. 294, required the tax to be levied wholly on real estate.

The Act of June 7, 1862, c. 98, id. 422, and the Act of Feb. 6, 1863, c. 21, id. 640, both relate only to the collection, in insurrectionary districts, of the direct tax imposed by the Act of Aug. 5, 1861,

All that has to happen to get Congress in gear and force Congress to live within the revenue brought in from imposts, duties and miscellaneous excise taxes is for a bill to be adopted requiring the direct tax to be laid at the close of 2012 should Congress spend more than was brought in from its normal means of raising a revenue. Put a gun to someone’s head and it’s amazing how they can do things never thought to be possible.


Picture for a moment the expression on the faces of the Governor of New York and the New York State Legislature if Chuck Schumer had to return home with a bill in hand to extinguish the 2012 federal deficit which Schumer helped to create with his teeny, tiny pork barrel earmarks which he was proud to announce the American Taxpayer did not care about! I suspect Schumer’s political career would come to an immediate and painful end. It’s all about creating a meaningful moment of accountability.

Fake balanced budget amendments do not create that meaningful and necessary moment of accountability.


JWK

 

[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.

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.

I wouldn't be opposed to an amendment like that (depending on the exact wording), but would it survive the amendment process? I would not care to bet on or against it.

I love the thought of our nation being out of debt, not owing China, not owing the big money folks in any given continent, but I would hate to see the national debt become a political flogging device by anyone, when it is in our best interests not to owe hostile civilizations borrowed money.

I know it is important to some to insure that historical guidelines might help us better undertake the wording, and some room is made for indigent persons incapacitated by youthful education, aging, war injury or other physical or cerebral malfunction.

It is my prayer that the people writing the amendment will do so jointly from both sides of the aisle. It will if political prejudice is dismissed and the true good of the American people is in the hearts and souls of the amendment's authors.

 

[freedombecki]

Oh, my, did you ever put a lot of thought into that! I've read five of your links so far, and knowing this history would inflect a radically different vantage, apart from a lot of contemporary doctrinal approaches.

Reading the New Hampshire Ratification of the U.S. Constitution was so delightful. I say that fondly, as we travelled to New England several years ago to see the leaves turn. We landed in Boston, rented a car, and began our sojourn through MA and several neighboring states, including NH, which was my favorite on the account of the leaves being a bright red, which was so fascinating compared with the brown and gold and brown, brown, brown everything in the Equality state where we lived at the time. What NH stated as requirement truly was acknowledged and became part and parcel of the U.S. Constitution, so knowing this, no wonder you must feel dismay when less knowledgeable people conjure up solutions so callously dismissed by the founders as was furnished by your impeccable scholarship.

Notwithstanding, I still think we have a large problem with owing so much money that the interest is approaching the amount we are taxed, isn't it? How can this be controlled? The framers may never have dreamed the trillions of dollars their country might eventually accrue as debt to the point some of us have been convinced our way of life is jeopardized.

Some persons have even envisioned a debt clock for the United States, and I watched it click off about a million dollars a minute, give or take a few seconds. It claims the U.S. total debt is $55,367,693,000,000+ and the National Debt is about 14,402,585,000,000+. as I type this out.

Are you worried?

Yes I am worried. But I do know, or rather strongly believe, those in Congress who are sincere in wanting to address Congress’ profligate spending and borrowing, ought to have faith in our founding fathers apportioned tax to extinguish annual deficits should they occur, as it would put every member of Congress’ feet to the fire should they allow spending to exceed revenue which is brought in. And it would create this accountability in as far as each States’ Congressional Delegation would have to return home with a bill in hand for the Governor and State Legislature to deal with in extinguishing a deficit created by Congress. And the Governor and State Legislature would have to transfer its apportioned share to extinguish a federal deficit from its state’s treasury into the federal treasury, thereby depleting the state's treasury, or raise additional taxes within the State and then send that revenue to the federal treasury.

And just to be on point, my confidence in our founding fathers is not merely whimsical.

Under our Constitution’s original tax plan, which included the apportioned tax, note that by the year 1835, America was manufacturing everything from steam powered ships, to clothing spun and woven by powered machinery and the national debt [which included part of the revolutionary war debt] was completely extinguished and Congress enjoyed a surplus in the federal treasury from tariffs, duties, and customs. And so, by an Act of Congress in June of 1836 all surplus revenue in excess of $ 5,000,000 was decided to be distributed among the states, and eventually a total of $28,000,000 was distributed among the states by the rule of apportionment in the nature of interest free loans to the states to be recalled if and when Congress decided to make such a recall. Why do so many willingly ignore the wisdom of our founding fathers?

And just for the record, here is some of the history regarding the use of the apportioned tax:

The Constitution went into operation on the 4th of March, 1789 and what follows is the use of the apportioned tax.

The Act of July 14, 1798, c. 75, 1 Stat. 53. This act imposed a tax upon real estate and a capitation tax upon slaves.

The Act of Aug. 2, 1813, c. 37, 3 id. 53. By this act the tax was imposed upon real estate and slaves, according to their respective values in money.

The Act of Jan. 19, 1815, c. 21, id. 164. This act imposed the tax upon the same descriptions of property, and in like manner as the preceding act.

The Act of Feb. 27, 1815, c. 60, id. 216, applied to the District of Columbia the provisions of the Act of Jan. 19, 1815.

The Act of March 5, 1816, c. 24, id. 255, repealed the two preceding acts, and reenacted their provisions to enforce the collection of the smaller amount of tax thereby prescribed.

The Act of Aug. 5, 1861, c. 45, 12 id. 294, required the tax to be levied wholly on real estate.

The Act of June 7, 1862, c. 98, id. 422, and the Act of Feb. 6, 1863, c. 21, id. 640, both relate only to the collection, in insurrectionary districts, of the direct tax imposed by the Act of Aug. 5, 1861,

All that has to happen to get Congress in gear and force Congress to live within the revenue brought in from imposts, duties and miscellaneous excise taxes is for a bill to be adopted requiring the direct tax to be laid at the close of 2012 should Congress spend more than was brought in from its normal means of raising a revenue. Put a gun to someone’s head and it’s amazing how they can do things never thought to be possible.

Picture for a moment the expression on the faces of the Governor of New York and the New York State Legislature if Chuck Schumer had to return home with a bill in hand to extinguish the 2012 federal deficit which Schumer helped to create with his teeny, tiny pork barrel earmarks which he was proud to announce the American Taxpayer did not care about! I suspect Schumer’s political career would come to an immediate and painful end. It’s all about creating a meaningful moment of accountability.

Fake balanced budget amendments do not create that meaningful and necessary moment of accountability.

JWK

In your opinion, johnwk, what would make a balanced budget amendment create accountability in today's houses of Congress?

 

[HUGGY]

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.)

You are not JUST a liar. You are a liar AND you are bat shit crazy!

You really need to stop polling your little nest of meth crazed wild eyed raccoons and trying to pass it off as legitimate.

Thanks for playing!

 

[freedombecki]

Why do you think balancing the budget won't perk people up some?

It may for political reasons but economic cycles – boom and bust – are global.

I wouldn't be opposed to an amendment like that (depending on the exact wording), but would it survive the amendment process? I would not care to bet on or against it.

I would still oppose an amendment because it’s predicated on political dogma, not objective reasoning; and you can’t have such exemptions in an amendment – good heavens – it would be a judicial review nightmare.

In the past, economic cycles globally are directly affected by America's ups and downs. I don't think it will always be that way, but in the meantime, if we work hard on prosperity and things follow the same thread, it goes to reason countries we have little to do with will come up just because we did.

Seems to me, our prosperity is the world's. Ergo, would it not follow that to throw off the bondage of endless interest that we freed ourselves from this menace, we could then prosper more which would spiff up the economies even of third world countries.

Any objection to that?

 

[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.)

You are not JUST a liar. You are a liar AND you are bat shit crazy!

You really need to stop polling your little nest of meth crazed wild eyed raccoons and trying to pass it off as legitimate.

Thanks for playing!

Welcome to the fray, Huggy.

Sorry, you are mistaken. I have never had the slightest desire to do illicit drugs, and the only raccoons we ever have to deal with on our farm are the ones who died that my Miss Puppy rolls in for genetic reasons way beyond my grasp. We hope she stops it pretty soon as it smells major bad.

What's in it for you if the remainder of your fellow Americans are up to their eyeballs in the national debt? Are you buying stock from our overseas bank masters or are you just shilling for them?

Thanks for sharing, I'm sure.

 

[johnwk]

In your opinion, johnwk, what would make a balanced budget amendment create accountability in today's houses of Congress?

The requirement that the apportioned tax is to be laid whenever Congress spends more than is brought in from imposts, duties and miscellaneous excise taxes, and each state’s congressional delegation having to return home with a bill in hand for their State Governor and Legislature to deal with to extinguish the deficit created by Congress.


JWK

 

[Big Fitz]

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.)

Meh. Rather have a Presidential line item veto before something like this.

 

[freedombecki]

In your opinion, johnwk, what would make a balanced budget amendment create accountability in today's houses of Congress?

The requirement that the apportioned tax is to be laid whenever Congress spends more than is brought in from imposts, duties and miscellaneous excise taxes, and each state’s congressional delegation having to return home with a bill in hand for their State Governor and Legislature to deal with to extinguish the deficit created by Congress.

JWK

Voluntary pay or involuntary? I mean that in a good and a practical way, as my heart and thoughts are with the folks in Joplin, Missouri, who just lost everything lately... which reminds me, I need to go and visit the Red Cross.

Back in a bit.

 

[eflatminor]

My attitude is all my high school English text's fault, quoting Longfellow's poem, The Village Blacksmith: ...and he looks the whole world in the face for he owes not any man...

Regulation 46521.623, Paragraph 36.2, subsection C of the OSHA code prohibits the operation of any kiln within 1500 feet of a minor. The smithy's license to operate is hereby suspended while charges of child endangerment are pending.

That is all.

 

[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.)

Meh. Rather have a Presidential line item veto before something like this.

Why?

 

[Big Black Dog]

When I got married I told my wife that we would, under no circumstances, spend more than we had to spend. If we didn't have the money for it, we would do without. I expect my government to run the same damned way.