Steny Hoyer: Balanced Budget Amendment Would Make it Impossible to Raise Taxes

[teapartysamurai]

Need anymore reason to be for a balanced budget amendment????????

If you’re on the fence as far as an opinion on a Balanced Budget Amendment to the Constitution, Steny Hoyer seems to be unwittingly trying to push you in the “pro” direction:

(CNSNews.com) – House Minority Whip Steny Hoyer (D.-Md.) said on the House floor last night that if the balanced budget amendment Republicans are supporting is ratified and included in the Constitution it would make it “virtually impossible” to raise taxes.

“In order to pay our bills, Republicans would require us to pass a Constitutional amendment that would permanently enshrine their partisan budget priorities in law and make it virtually impossible to raise revenue,” Hoyer said.
[...]

Hoyer was evidently alluding to the amendment’s requirement that taxes could only be increased with a supermajority vote of Congress when he said the proposal would make it “virtually impossible to raise revenue.”

It might make it virtually impossible to raise taxes, which is Hoyer’s obvious concern, but he’s wrong in saying it would make it virtually impossible to raise revenue. That part isn’t hard at all. Shrink government, back off and watch the economy grow — the revenue will come. That was the Reagan philosophy, and what DC Democrat isn’t running around these days quoting Reagan?

They’re all about Reagan at the moment because Reagan raised the debt ceiling many times. Democrats even used snippets excised with surgical precision from one of Reagan’s radio addresses in an ad. But what they’re not playing are other sections of the same address:

“You don’t need more taxes to balance the budget. Congress needs the discipline to stop spending more, and that can be done with the passage of a constitutional amendment to balance the budget.”

There’s the Republican response to the Democrat ad right there. I don’t recall ever hearing Reagan expressing concern that a potential Balanced Budget Amendment would make it too difficult for the government to raise taxes. That might have been a reason he’d have supported it, but I’ll bet a case of jelly beans it wouldn’t have been a deal-breaker.

Michelle Malkin » Steny Hoyer: A Balanced Budget Amendment Would Make it Virtually Impossible to Raise Taxes

 

[oreo]

Need anymore reason to be for a balanced budget amendment????????

If you’re on the fence as far as an opinion on a Balanced Budget Amendment to the Constitution, Steny Hoyer seems to be unwittingly trying to push you in the “pro” direction:

(CNSNews.com) – House Minority Whip Steny Hoyer (D.-Md.) said on the House floor last night that if the balanced budget amendment Republicans are supporting is ratified and included in the Constitution it would make it “virtually impossible” to raise taxes.

“In order to pay our bills, Republicans would require us to pass a Constitutional amendment that would permanently enshrine their partisan budget priorities in law and make it virtually impossible to raise revenue,” Hoyer said.
[...]

Hoyer was evidently alluding to the amendment’s requirement that taxes could only be increased with a supermajority vote of Congress when he said the proposal would make it “virtually impossible to raise revenue.”

It might make it virtually impossible to raise taxes, which is Hoyer’s obvious concern, but he’s wrong in saying it would make it virtually impossible to raise revenue. That part isn’t hard at all. Shrink government, back off and watch the economy grow — the revenue will come. That was the Reagan philosophy, and what DC Democrat isn’t running around these days quoting Reagan?

They’re all about Reagan at the moment because Reagan raised the debt ceiling many times. Democrats even used snippets excised with surgical precision from one of Reagan’s radio addresses in an ad. But what they’re not playing are other sections of the same address:

“You don’t need more taxes to balance the budget. Congress needs the discipline to stop spending more, and that can be done with the passage of a constitutional amendment to balance the budget.”

There’s the Republican response to the Democrat ad right there. I don’t recall ever hearing Reagan expressing concern that a potential Balanced Budget Amendment would make it too difficult for the government to raise taxes. That might have been a reason he’d have supported it, but I’ll bet a case of jelly beans it wouldn’t have been a deal-breaker.

Michelle Malkin » Steny Hoyer: A Balanced Budget Amendment Would Make it Virtually Impossible to Raise Taxes

The Cut-Cap and balance budget that the house passed two days ago--to ward off this August 2nd default--does just that. It requires that the Federal Government live within their means--just like every household and most states in this country do.

Furthermore--government can never be more expensive that 25% of our GDP. On our current track if nothing is done to CUT spending the Federal Government will be spending 100% of our GDP in 10 years.

 

[Sallow]

Cool.

No more wars.

Ever.

 

[Sallow]

This might very well be the harbinger of a Constitutionally mandated military.

No more professional army under federal control.

No more nuclear warheads.

All militia land forces.

Small permanent navy.

This good be a good thing!

 

[johnwk]

Need anymore reason to be for a balanced budget amendment????????

If you’re on the fence as far as an opinion on a Balanced Budget Amendment to the Constitution, Steny Hoyer seems to be unwittingly trying to push you in the “pro” direction:

Wrong Steny Hoyer you lying piece of dirt. A provision in our Constitution which would compel Congress to extinguish annual deficits would rob the Washington Establishment of its major vehicle by which it now plunders what America’s business and labor has produced.

Have we not just seen how this borrowing has been used to plunder our federal treasury under TARP? How it has been used to bail out auto companies which have blood sucking unions and has been used to send BILLIONS upon BILLIONS of American taxpayer dollars to foreign banks under Congress’ money laundering operations which starts with borrowing?[/i]

NOTE:
Brussells and Paris based Dexia SA received 33 billion dollars
Dublin based Depfa Bank Plc received 24.5 billion dollars.
The Bank of China borrowed 198 million dolllars.
Arab Banking Corp, 29% owned by the Libyan central bank at the time, received 73 different loans.

And we, the American People are left on the hook for this money laundering scheme our folks in Washington have cooked up.


Why do you think the Republican Party Leadership promotes a fake balanced budget amendment and the Democrat Party Leadership is against a balanced budget amendment? Neither want such a restriction which would actually compel Congress to balance the annual budget and so, they have decided to play the good cop bad cop routine, which, in either case leaves the American People with a Hobson's choice.


JWK

 

[NYcarbineer]

How would you ever pay for a major war if you couldn't raise taxes?

 

[WillowTree]

How would you ever pay for a major war if you couldn't raise taxes?

Let's not have any more wars? Do you know why we attacked Libya yet? I sure as hell don't.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

A balanced budget amendment is a dreadful idea, the Constitution mustn’t be cluttered with worthless amendments predicated on subjective partisan dogma. It was the intent of the Framers for Congress to address the fiscal matters of the nation, including taxation. If the people have an issue with how Congress taxes and spends, then they need to communicate that to their elected officials.

It is perfectly normal and appropriate for governments to deficit spend; indeed, it is a necessity for any modern government. It’s normal and appropriate for a government to cycle between deficit and surplus, depending on the current economic situation.

Thrice during the last century the Constitution was amended with Amendments predicated on partisan dogma: the 16th Amendment, conceived as a ‘soak the rich’ scheme, which became nothing as its Framers intended, the 17th Amendment, which has resulted in partisan gridlock of the Senate to the point the Body hardly functions anymore, and the 18th Amendment, which succeeded only in creating the foundation for modern organized crime we continue to suffer with today.

Those who fail to learn from history are doomed to repeat it.

Indeed.

Let’s acknowledge the mistakes of our fellow Americans nearly a century ago and reject the idiocy of a ‘balanced budget’ amendment.

 

[johnwk]

A balanced budget amendment is a dreadful idea, the Constitution mustn’t be cluttered with worthless amendments predicated on subjective partisan dogma. It was the intent of the Framers for Congress to address the fiscal matters of the nation, including taxation. .

And our founders specific intentions, as the historical record establishes, was for Congress to lay and collect a direct tax to extinguish deficits when and if they occurred!

Congress is ignoring the very intentions and beliefs under which our Constitution was adopted.


JWK

 

[Mad Scientist]

Duplicate post.

 

[Mad Scientist]

Uh, yeah Steny, that's kinda' the idea.