The entire debate revolves around the fact that future Congresses are not bound by any spending mandates done by prior congresses.Only taxes transcend new congresses.
No agreement to bind a future Congress to cutting is enforceable. But any tax increase continues until a future congress passes a bill through both houses, and the President signs. Similarly, debt incurred today will need to be paid in the future.
A Constitutional Amendment IS binding (more binding than one Congress “promising” to cut future spending,as if that’ll ever happen) They should try again to pass the “Cut Cap Balance Act” .
Tim “Lightyear” Geithner already said their limit is “To infinity...and beyond!”
No agreement to bind a future Congress to cutting is enforceable. But any tax increase continues until a future congress passes a bill through both houses, and the President signs. Similarly, debt incurred today will need to be paid in the future.
A Constitutional Amendment IS binding (more binding than one Congress “promising” to cut future spending,as if that’ll ever happen) They should try again to pass the “Cut Cap Balance Act” “
___________________________________________________________
That is the most succinct explanation I have seen.
The Dims sound like Wimpy in the Popeye cartoons:
I'LL GLADLY PAY YOU TUESDAY, FOR A HAMBURGER TODAY.