Agreed. We should stick with Cut Cap and Balance, which the House has already passed. The Senate hasn’t discussed it because Reid refused to let them consider it. I wonder why?
Cut Cap and Balance is by no means extreme. In fact, it’s barely a start. But at least it’s a step in the right direction. At least it cuts some of the deficit NOW, instead of kicking the can down the road where they can change their minds and never implement any of the promised cuts—as usual.
“Cut, Cap, and Balance” may also be a trap.
The legislation, as written, gives a federal judge an excuse to strike down the balanced budget amendment legislation AFTER it is passed, but BEFORE it gets ratified, preventing that states from voting to ratify but still giving the Dems the cap increase they want.
In the linked article:
The problem is that the courts have held that during the Constitution’s amendment process all proposing, applying, and ratifying bodies act as “Article V assemblies” (my phrase), and not in their normal legislative capacities. Moreover, within their assigned agendas, Article V assemblies must enjoy freedom of deliberation. If the debt limit rule (adopted by Congress and the President in a legislative capacity) puts pressure on Congress (in its Article V capacity), then arguably the discretion of the proposing body has been unconstitutionally infringed. If this argument were accepted, the proposed BBA would be void. (I explain the cases in another context in this Goldwater Institute paper.)