OK...I have a plan to reduce the deficit.

[Missourian]

It will require a Constitutional Amendment that:

1) Would require a National Balanced Budget

2) Would allow deficit spending ONLY in the event of a crisis and would require a 2/3rds majority vote in Congress AND Presidential authorization.

3) Would institute a Value Added Tax, the revenues from which would apply 100% to reducing the deficit.

4) The Value Added Tax would sunset after the deficit was paid off. It could be re-instituted to pay off any new deficit spending that resulted from crisis deficit spending.

5) Would outlaw Value Added Taxes for any other purpose than paying off the deficit.
​

Yes, I know it is difficult to pass a Constitutional amendment, but I see no alternative.

Critique.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

I agree that a change is needed but if people wont follow the Constitution why will they follow an Amendment?

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

I couldn't support this. If you give the government authority to only deficit spend in an emergency you're going to see a lot more emergencies, not to mention a value added tax is one of the worst forms of taxation.

 

[Missourian]

I couldn't support this. If you give the government authority to only deficit spend in an emergency you're going to see a lot more emergencies, not to mention a value added tax is one of the worst forms of taxation.

I agree, one of the benefits of this proposal is it outlaws V.A.T.'s.

I also agree that we would see more emergencies, but a 2/3rds Majority is difficult to reach AND the lawmakers would have to sell it to their constituents and put their vote on record.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

I couldn't support this. If you give the government authority to only deficit spend in an emergency you're going to see a lot more emergencies, not to mention a value added tax is one of the worst forms of taxation.

I agree, one of the benefits of this proposal is it outlaws V.A.T.'s.

I also agree that we would see more emergencies, but a 2/3rds Majority is difficult to reach AND the lawmakers would have to sell it to their constituents and put their vote on record.

My problem is the exceptions you give the government in the proposed amendment. It may be difficult to reach a 2/3's majority, but not difficult enough. I think an outright banning of the value added tax and deficit spending is the answer, not exceptions for "emergencies."

 

[Missourian]

My fear is, what if you allow no mechanism, and a situation occurs that requires it.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

My fear is, what if you allow no mechanism, and a situation occurs that requires it.

I think there's a much bigger chance of abuse than there is of that. I can't think of any situation that would warrant it.

 

[Wry Catcher]

Okay, I have a simpler plan. Give the POTUS a line-item veto on budget items, rather than leave the president the choice to veto or sign, he can return the budget signed with appropriations s/he wants removed, removed.
Congress may then override this veto, and restore all or some of the items.
The president gets one bite of the apple, the people see and understand his/her priorities, and each member of congress can pound his or her chest in front of their constituency.
Transparent, and a way to reduce the finger pointing from the fringe, L & R.

 

[Missourian]

Okay, I have a simpler plan. Give the POTUS a line-item veto on budget items, rather than leave the president the choice to veto or sign, he can return the budget signed with appropriations s/he wants removed, removed.
Congress may then override this veto, and restore all or some of the items.
The president gets one bite of the apple, the people see and understand his/her priorities, and each member of congress can pound his or her chest in front of their constituency.
Transparent, and a way to reduce the finger pointing from the fringe, L & R.

I supported the line item veto in 1996, unfortunately it would also require an amendment to the Constitution.

While it would help, I don't think it would end deficit spending or reduce the national debt.

EDIT - That "deduce" should have said "reduce"

 

[Paulie]

Why must we deficit spend?

It's the ultimate fiscal irresponsibility.

If you have something you feel is important to spend the money on, free up the money by eliminating other expenditures.

Keep in mind too, that several states have balanced budget requirements in their constitutions and they simply didn't adhere to it.

I'm not giving these mother fuckers one inch, because they will take a mile.

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

Laughable.. everything will now become a crisis.

The budget process needs to be thrown out the window and every frigg'n expenditure needs to be justified and if not, done away with. And the budget must be paid for without taxing the shit out of 5% Americans and allowing another 45% to pay nothing.

It'll never happen.... too many people lack the initiative, but, then again, this has been the goal.

 

[Missourian]

My fear is, what if you allow no mechanism, and a situation occurs that requires it.

I think there's a much bigger chance of abuse than there is of that. I can't think of any situation that would warrant it.

The things that come to mind are massive natural disasters like The Tsunami, nuclear or biological terrorism, war, and pandemic.

 

[Paulie]

My fear is, what if you allow no mechanism, and a situation occurs that requires it.

I think there's a much bigger chance of abuse than there is of that. I can't think of any situation that would warrant it.

The things that come to mind are massive natural disasters like The Tsunami, nuclear or biological terrorism, war, and pandemic.

In most of those cases, I don't think fiscal responsibility is going to be much of an issue on anyone's agenda anyway.

Besides, the government takes in plenty of money in taxes. There's more than enough revenue for things that are IMPORTANT.

There's no need to print or borrow any. If there's a global war, or nuclear attacks, or tsunamis, then something else that money is spent on is going to have to take a back seat.

 

[Midnight Marauder]

Okay, I have a simpler plan. Give the POTUS a line-item veto on budget items

You're too stupid and uninformed to know we HAD that, Billy Clinton used it 80-something times, until it and Gramm-Rudmann -- which required a balanced budget by LAW -- were ruled unconstitutional by the Supreme Court.

That's when the spending frenzy began, the little piglets started bumrushing the tits.

 

[The T]

Okay, I have a simpler plan. Give the POTUS a line-item veto on budget items

You're too stupid and uninformed to know we HAD that, Billy Clinton used it 80-something times, until it and Gramm-Rudmann -- which required a balanced budget by LAW -- were ruled unconstitutional by the Supreme Court.

That's when the spending frenzy began, the little piglets started bumrushing the tits.

Exactly. I guess some forgot of that little scenario...or never looked it up.

 

[The T]

Okay, I have a simpler plan. Give the POTUS a line-item veto on budget items, rather than leave the president the choice to veto or sign, he can return the budget signed with appropriations s/he wants removed, removed.
Congress may then override this veto, and restore all or some of the items.
The president gets one bite of the apple, the people see and understand his/her priorities, and each member of congress can pound his or her chest in front of their constituency.
Transparent, and a way to reduce the finger pointing from the fringe, L & R.

Court Strikes Down Line-Item Veto

OK so far? Now according to many Statist Democrats on these boards the court has the final say...

-Or do they-??

 

[Missourian]

I think there's a much bigger chance of abuse than there is of that. I can't think of any situation that would warrant it.

The things that come to mind are massive natural disasters like The Tsunami, nuclear or biological terrorism, war, and pandemic.

In most of those cases, I don't think fiscal responsibility is going to be much of an issue on anyone's agenda anyway.

Besides, the government takes in plenty of money in taxes. There's more than enough revenue for things that are IMPORTANT.

There's no need to print or borrow any. If there's a global war, or nuclear attacks, or tsunamis, then something else that money is spent on is going to have to take a back seat.

Fiscal responsibility may not be an issue on anyone's agenda, but for all intents and purposes, this amendment would tie the governments hands completely without some sort of safety valve...and that is exactly the argument opponents would put forward to defeat it.

 

[Missourian]

No more comments?

 

[007]

What we need to do is...

1) Outlaw Pork Barrel Spending.

2) Outlaw Lobbyists.

3) Abolish the IRS.

4) Enact either a Flat Tax or a Fair Tax. Either will work.

5) Term limits.

6) Start deporting all Illegal Aliens by means of attrition.

7) End all foreign wars and occupations.

Our problems will virtually start eroding over night.

 

[editec]

It will require a Constitutional Amendment that:

1) Would require a National Balanced Budget

2) Would allow deficit spending ONLY in the event of a crisis and would require a 2/3rds majority vote in Congress AND Presidential authorization.

3) Would institute a Value Added Tax, the revenues from which would apply 100% to reducing the deficit.

4) The Value Added Tax would sunset after the deficit was paid off. It could be re-instituted to pay off any new deficit spending that resulted from crisis deficit spending.

5) Would outlaw Value Added Taxes for any other purpose than paying off the deficit.
​

Yes, I know it is difficult to pass a Constitutional amendment, but I see no alternative.

Critique.

It would work.

There's lots and lots of ways to deal with the deficit just so long as you don't care what other outcomes spin off from that solution.