Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Congressional Republicans are clear in their demand for a constitutional amendment forcing the government to balance its budget. What theyre not offering is clarity on how to get there.
Its politically popular to line up behind such an amendment; laying out specific cuts is less appealing.
Almost all Republicans and some Democrats will vote to alter the Constitution when the issue comes up as early as this week. Almost none, including a leading co-sponsor of the Senate measure, Orrin Hatch, and Bill Flores of Texas, a co-sponsor of the House measure, say how theyd slash Medicare, eliminate federal programs or shrink education, law enforcement or national defense. Republicans agree that tax increases shouldnt be part of the equation.
Its a misleading political cheap shot, Bill Hoagland, a budget adviser to Republican congressional leaders from 1982 to 2007, said of the proposed amendment. We all agree we should have a balanced budget, but thats the process of budgeting and governing. They are paid to come to town and make decisions.
A balanced-budget amendment would require cuts even deeper than those in the budget proposed by Representative Paul Ryan of Wisconsin, which was approved by the Republican-controlled House in April. Ryans plan doesnt balance the budget until 2040 and would leave a $338 billion deficit in 10 years.
Hatch, a Utah Republican facing re-election in 2012, wouldnt offer specifics on entitlement cuts or say which federal departments he would close to reach a balanced budget.
When the time comes, Ill name them, said Hatch. I dont want to do it right now, because we have to pass that amendment.
"They see me trollin' they hatin' tryin to catch me postin bullshit, trying to catch me postin bullshit, tryin to catch me postin bullshit..."
When was the last democrat version of a budget submitted?
Obama has submitted one budget to date, and it was overwhelmingly rejected by both sides of the aisle. Perhaps Little Lord Obamaboy should submit a budget that is fiscally responsible. Cause, you know, that's kinda how this works.
modbert:"They see me trollin' they hatin' tryin to catch me postin bullshit, trying to catch me postin bullshit, tryin to catch me postin bullshit..."
modbert:"They see me trollin' they hatin' tryin to catch me postin bullshit, trying to catch me postin bullshit, tryin to catch me postin bullshit..."
What are you? 12?
Republicans Pressing for a Balanced Budget Fail to Deliver Details on How - Bloomberg
Congressional Republicans are clear in their demand for a constitutional amendment forcing the government to balance its budget. What theyre not offering is clarity on how to get there.
Its politically popular to line up behind such an amendment; laying out specific cuts is less appealing.
Almost all Republicans and some Democrats will vote to alter the Constitution when the issue comes up as early as this week. Almost none, including a leading co-sponsor of the Senate measure, Orrin Hatch, and Bill Flores of Texas, a co-sponsor of the House measure, say how theyd slash Medicare, eliminate federal programs or shrink education, law enforcement or national defense. Republicans agree that tax increases shouldnt be part of the equation.
A balanced-budget amendment would require cuts even deeper than those in the budget proposed by Representative Paul Ryan of Wisconsin, which was approved by the Republican-controlled House in April. Ryans plan doesnt balance the budget until 2040 and would leave a $338 billion deficit in 10 years.
Hatch, a Utah Republican facing re-election in 2012, wouldnt offer specifics on entitlement cuts or say which federal departments he would close to reach a balanced budget.
When the time comes, Ill name them, said Hatch. I dont want to do it right now, because we have to pass that amendment.
More political pandering to the base by the GOP without any real substance.
Yeah. KInda reminds me of Barry Boy and his plan to cut entitlements. Of course he has no specifics yet but I'm sure he'll let us know in time. I haven't seen that in the press yet and I ain't holding my breath for it to be the hot topic on LSM.
Wonder if he'll count the 500B he took out of Medicare to fund his clusterfuck of a HC bill??
Republicans Pressing for a Balanced Budget Fail to Deliver Details on How - Bloomberg
Congressional Republicans are clear in their demand for a constitutional amendment forcing the government to balance its budget. What theyre not offering is clarity on how to get there.
Its politically popular to line up behind such an amendment; laying out specific cuts is less appealing.
Almost all Republicans and some Democrats will vote to alter the Constitution when the issue comes up as early as this week. Almost none, including a leading co-sponsor of the Senate measure, Orrin Hatch, and Bill Flores of Texas, a co-sponsor of the House measure, say how theyd slash Medicare, eliminate federal programs or shrink education, law enforcement or national defense. Republicans agree that tax increases shouldnt be part of the equation.
A balanced-budget amendment would require cuts even deeper than those in the budget proposed by Representative Paul Ryan of Wisconsin, which was approved by the Republican-controlled House in April. Ryans plan doesnt balance the budget until 2040 and would leave a $338 billion deficit in 10 years.
Hatch, a Utah Republican facing re-election in 2012, wouldnt offer specifics on entitlement cuts or say which federal departments he would close to reach a balanced budget.
When the time comes, Ill name them, said Hatch. I dont want to do it right now, because we have to pass that amendment.
More political pandering to the base by the GOP without any real substance.
A balanced budget amendment would take years to pass enough state legislatures to become law. Whatever future Congresses and presidents think is the best way to raise revenues and spend it would be up to them. Kinda silly to be establishing details now for an economy that might be vastly different in the future.
I do think it's a dumb idea though, if our elected reps can't even come close to figuring out how to live within the means they have then we oughta vote the bastards out and get somebody in there who will.
Why spend years working on an amendment when all we really have to do is cut spending to the level it was in 2000. We would have an instant surplus.
Why spend years working on an amendment when all we really have to do is cut spending to the level it was in 2000. We would have an instant surplus.
