Is it Time for a Balanced Budget Amendment?
One of several provisions of a debt ceiling agreement floated by Republicans is that both houses of Congress pass a Balanced Budget Amendment (BBA) resolution. Not a new idea – all states but Vermont currently have balanced budget requirements. Germany and Switzerland both have balanced budget provisions in their constitutions. In a letter to John Taylor of Caroline on November 26, 1798, Thomas Jefferson wrote:
“I wish it were possible to obtain a single amendment to our Constitution. I would be willing to depend on that alone for the reduction of the administration of our government; I mean an additional article taking from the Federal Government the power of borrowing. I now deny their power of making paper money or anything else a legal tender. I know that to pay all proper expenses within the year would, in case of war, be hard on us. But not so hard as ten wars instead of one. For wars could be reduced in that proportion; besides that the State governments would be free to lend their credit in borrowing quotas.”
Since 1975, 32 states have petitioned Congress to consider a BBA. Should two additional states issue similar petitions, some contend Congress would then be required to call a Constitutional Convention, in accordance with Article 5 of the US Constitution, to consider the BBA.
There is currently a joint resolution in Congress to pass a BBA.
JOINT RESOLUTION
Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States relative to balancing the budget.
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, unless two-thirds of the duly chosen and sworn Members of each House of Congress shall provide by law for a specific excess of outlays over receipts by a rollcall vote.
Section 2. Total outlays for any fiscal year may not exceed 20 percent of the gross domestic product of the United States for the calendar year ending before the beginning of such fiscal year, unless two-thirds of the duly chosen and sworn Members of each House of Congress shall provide by law for a specific amount in excess of such 20 percent by a rollcall vote.
Section 3. Prior to each fiscal year, the President shall transmit to the Congress a proposed budget for the United States Government for that fiscal year in which total outlays do not exceed total receipts.
Section 4. No bill to increase Federal taxes shall become law unless approved by two-thirds of the duly chosen and sworn Members of each House of Congress by a rollcall vote.
Section 5. The Congress may waive the provisions of this article for any fiscal year in which a declaration of war is in effect. The provisions of this article may be waived for any fiscal year in which the United States is engaged in military conflict which causes an imminent and serious military threat to national security and is so declared by a joint resolution, adopted by a majority of the duly chosen and sworn Members of each House of Congress, which becomes law.
Section 6. The Congress shall enforce and implement this article by appropriate legislation, which may rely on estimates of outlays, receipts, and gross domestic product.
Section 7. Total receipts shall include all receipts of the United States Government except those derived from borrowing. Total outlays shall include all outlays of the United States Government except for those for repayment of debt principal.
Section 8. This article shall take effect beginning with the fourth fiscal year beginning after its ratification.
There have been discussions of changes to the supermajority requirements, from two thirds to three quarters, as well as whether 20% of GDP is the appropriate limit. Amendments have also been proposed requiring state ratification of all increases to the debt ceiling, which would be intended to supplement rather than replace the BBA and would be of little effect if the BBA were properly enforced – a belt and suspenders approach.
Criticism of a BBA largely centers around the Keynesian argument that deficit spending is necessary in times of recession, though this particular argument seems to be dulled if not entirely refuted by recent attempts to dampen the recession with historic annual deficits. Given the clear propensity for members of the Executive and Legislative branches, including many who claim to fly the flag of fiscal conservatism, to consider prior year spending as the budget baseline, expecting a change to that approach absent a Constitutional requirement seems unrealistic at best.
With current debt exceeding $14 trillion, any agreement to allow an increase should come with passage of the joint resolution. The President is right……..enough is enough.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Balanced_Budget_Amendment
Tags: John Galt
So Michael Savage seems to believe that the nationwide emergency broadcast test is evidence if Obama trying to take over
Surprised you didn’t go off on that story
The dude is such a putz. Even banned from going to parts of the UK. TO be honest, I do not even think the rational right listens to this guy.
Wait…
There’s a rational right someplace?
What? He’s got to be joking. How stooopid.
I would be a little cautious until you SEE the story. The dems here like to read headline and run with it.
HAHAHAHAHAHAH………….I cannot even believe you just went there………Barb, that is ALL you do…………….and have been caught in it many times, including this AM. You took a headline about the ladies working for the government (for god knows how long) and got that Obama leaked it, from the headline, EVEN THOUGH the ARTICLE said the OPPOSITE.’
You truly are a classic!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Hilarious.
Well Heard him rant in it for quite a while lalat nighu
it’s 1591.55 ohms.
and 14:59 i’m hitting submit on this….
Um… so…… why would the old Acorn people give a crap about FOX? What’s wrong with a community organization working on a community protest?
Isn’t ACORN corrupt?
Read there piece………….ONCE AGAIN……..we have “sources, unnamed sources, multiple sources, inside sources, outside sources, tomato source, apple source………..yet NOT ONE source that can be identified. I call it the Fox rumor roundup……………….and pass it off just easily.
Even the acorn people are pushing back against this guy. But corruption is ok with you as long as it lives on the left. Anyone else it would make up 3 to 4 pages of your daily morning rants.
- according to sources
- the sources said.
- They’re doing serious damage control right now,” said an NYCC source.
- a source within NYCC told FoxNews.com
- a source told FoxNews.com.
- Sources within the group also
- A source said that immediately following publication
- “‘That’s the story that we’re sticking to,’” Westin said, according to the source.
- the source said
That my freinds is the QUANTIFIABLE DATA and SOURCES Fox uses, 10 mention of some source of which God only knows who it is……probably Kilmeade. But I guess this MEETS the level of fact checking on the propaganda site that is Fox. Of course, when one READS the piece, you will see EVERY person who has the stones to ID themselves calls this assumption bullcrap……….but you could NOT tell that from the Fox article.
FOx lies………….An “Un-Named Source” told me so.
Because no other news organization does that, right LB? Never.
And before you say Fox does it more, I’d like to see some of that QUANTIFIABLE DATA that you have suddenly become so fond of. BTW, can you actually define what that means an explain why it has to be capitalized? Is this some strange Aussie tradition?
As much as these clowns, not a chance……….well maybe World Net Daily…….so you got me there………….Dude, all this network does is toss out whatever redmeat rumor to their readers, for they know, and I can say after looking at some people here, NO ONE WILL question their story. But then again, WE CAN”T, for NO ONE knows who said the stuff in the first place……………well I guess the “source” knows.
What a ridiculous news network………………honestly……….or dishonestly that is. And when you read the article, the FACTS and ID’d sources completely negate the Fox headline………..but again, Fox knows that is as far as the average far rightwing who will buy ANYTHING anti-Obama or anti-Dem person will read.
Not sorry………………they are a propaganda rag………..NOT a news source. IMO
Well at least you didn’t bother letting us know this is only your opinion and not based on any QUANTIFIABLE DATA.
I read very few articles from any source that don’t have comments about unnamed sources, or sources that asked not to be named, etc. Nothing unusual. But since you’ve done a scientific study in comparison to everybody else, I guess I’ll just take your word for it that Fox is way worse.
You need a new hobby.
Well then, if those are your criteria for propaganda rags then most of the sources you post should also be propaganda rags, yes?
Because they are paying people to protest. They are also the ones behind the scenes. this is no grass roots movement. It is as corrupted as acorn is.
I call that a lie, and unless Fox can get anyone to come on air and state so, then they are just parroting lies…………that is after all, what they do. Any rational person would look at any series of articles that DO NOT ONCE back up or validate their sources and realize they are nothing more than rumors. But after all, that is what the Fox viewer feeds upon, and I have no doubt, that FACT just sails past their eagle eyes……………..amazing.
Do you have one teeny tiny little inkling of evidence to back up that total BS?
There’s been lotsa evidence presented here as to ACORN’s corruption.
#1 bull crap…
#2 the question was to show evidence that they are paying protesters
#1 No, it’s not bullcrap. You’ve seen the video. Read the press realeases. Seen the news. You know there are many documented cases of ACORN behaving very baddly. I mean, you can deny it, which I fully expect you to do, but the video will only make you look silly, or worse- dishonest, for doing so.
#2 I don’t care.
Yeah.. the highly edited O’Keefe video that never showed them calling the cops
Well…the SEVERAL videos by O’Keefe DID show them attempting to help with:
Income tax fraud
Human Traffiking
Child Prositution
Immigration fraud
…among others. But I’m sure you’ll say that was all “doctored”
They were cleared an yes..O’Keefe has been shown as a lying hack
Obama says no new taxes unless your breathing says:
November 3, 2011 at 4:22 pm
but the Chantax will let you continue to smoke for the 1st week while your body is getting used to it
————-
Concerned about side effects. I like the sensation of smoking too, so if this healthier for me than cigarettes than I can continue to enjoying that sensation.
I like the sensation of smoking too
This is going to be your biggest enemy. Time to get your kid involved. Kids are relentless
That’s why I’m going to eCig route…both Paul and Alex are after me.
e-cig at work and joints at home?
I don’t smoke at all at work. Not in the morning, or on the way to work…only when I drink. I know, it’s strange. Now the other…..nope….Just a one hit dug-out…allegedly.
I did that for several years after my son was born. Or only when I was traveling on business. Maybe averaged a pack a week for a while, then not even that. Last cig I had was with Gregg at the A’s game. Never bought another back, and now I have no desire, even when drinking.
The other thread is working again … If u are intersted.