Posted on 07/31/2011 6:41:39 AM PDT by Kaslin
Liberals are trying to kill the prospect of a Balanced Budget Amendment (BBA) in the ongoing battle over the debt ceiling. Some on the Right respond that they might settle for a “clean” BBA. But there are two types of a clean BBA, one of which would be even worse than the terrible mess we have today.
Some advocate that the BBA should require only that federal outlays cannot exceed federal tax revenues. They see it as two numbers, where the former must be less than the latter.
But this misses one critical point. If BBA only requires government to spend less than it collects, there are two ways to fix it. The first is cutting spending, and the second is raising taxes.
Many supporters of a clean BBA are not too worried. Although acknowledging the risk, they’re willing to take it on the grounds that they can use the prospect of electoral defeat to exert political pressure on members of Congress to ensure they don’t vote for tax increases.
But what about the courts? What if a judge orders a tax increase?
A judge could, if the BBA only says that spending must be less than revenues.
Courts currently lack the power to make changes to taxes or spending. Article I and the Sixteenth Amendment of the Constitution only authorize four types of taxes—excises, imposts, capitation taxes, and income taxes—and specifies that Congress is the branch with power to levy these taxes.
The Framers specifically wanted fiscal control in the hands of elected legislators. “No taxation without representation!” was the battle cry that helped precipitate the American Revolution.
So three fiscal levers are exclusively in Congress’ hands: Only Congress can tax, spend, or borrow. Congress’ control over the purse strings gives legislators leverage over the other branches. And the members of one congressional chamber—the House of Representatives—must stand before the people every other year, ensuring that those with taxing and spending power would be strictly accountable to the voters.
But a “clean” BBA would change that. It would create a constitutional command. A private party with standing could ask a federal judge to remedy a violation of a clean BBA by ordering increases in taxes to close budgetary gaps, instead of spending cuts. Advocates of a clean BBA point out that with every provision in a BBA, it becomes harder to find the votes for a two-thirds supermajority needed to vote the BBA out of Congress and propose it to the states, where it would very likely be ratified in short order.
Each of the provisions in the BBA currently proposed in Congress is there for a reason. The best version is Senate Joint Resolution 10, the Hatch-Lee version, which has eleven sections.
Section 8 of the BBA in S.J.R. 10 specifies that no federal or state court can order a revenue increase under this amendment. In other words, it leaves open the possibility that political gridlock between the elected branches might result in a court cutting federal spending, but never hiking taxes.
This is critically important. Federal judges hold their offices for life to insulate them from politics so that they can faithfully uphold the Constitution and laws, even when extremely unpopular. This is especially vital when public outcry pushes Congress and the president to do something unconstitutional, leaving judges free to strike it down.
But to grant judges the power to raise taxes would be antithetical to the constitutional design of political accountability for taxes. It would create a perverse incentive for members of Congress who wanted to raise taxes but were politically vulnerable to foster gridlock on spending battles, then let the courts do their dirty work for them by increasing taxes to make up the shortfall.
So the bottom line is that the only type of “clean” BBA that should even be considered is a second variety. In addition to specifying that revenues must exceed spending, it must also retain the current Section 8 that no judge has power to raise taxes.
America’s problem is our debt, not our debt ceiling. We desperately need a BBA to tackle our debt. But a BBA that allows judges to hike taxes would be even worse than the status quo.
Given how horrible the status quo is, that’s quite a statement.
Editor's Note: This column was co-authored by Ken Klukowski.
Wrong. Totally dead wrong. Go back to 9th grade and read Thomas Sowell.
America's problem is the Unconstitutional size and scope of government. The spending is a symptom of that, since government accrues and exerts power by taking money from the unfavored and giving it to the favored. The debt is also a symptom, of the "invisible foot" of government destroying the free economy, reducing revenue and demanding ever more expenditure to keep the game going.
To insure that we have a balance budget, we need a cap on federal revenue such as % of GDP along with term limits.
One problem with any measures that might be taken, as the author recognizes, is that a judge can be found to overrule the voters and/or the legislature, at every level.
BBA must clearly LIMIT spending without increasing taxes or any other form of “revenue enhancement”.
The deficit “crises” has been a known and established problem for the last 10 - 15 years. Why else would Congress be discussing a BBA in the mid 1990’s? Remember that the first BBA failed to exit the Senate for ratification by the States by one vote!
Unless Congress is prohibited from balancing the budget by raising taxes or any other form of revenue enhancement they will do so. How else can a siting Congress Critter ensure his reelection?
Unless future growth of Federal Income is tied to increased GDP Congress and the Federal Bureaucracy will actively work against the American Middle Class. As the system now exists the Federal Bureaucracy makes rules and regulations in a vacuum with no concern over how they will affect the GDP. See coal mining restrictions, oil drilling restrictions, the EPA’s CO2 restrictions, etc for proof of that statement.
I find it very interesting that one of the biggest social/political conflicts in the Republic is the one between wealth producers and wealth consumers, The wealth consumers are doing their best to kill the very source of wealth that they depend upon for their own life style.
We need better representatives that will make decisions based on right and wrong that will follow the Constitution and benefit the American nation.
We need a leader in the White House instead of a redistribution policy.
We need to get rid of the self-serving idiots that are the non-producers that keep giving us laws and regulations that hinder the American exceptionalism.
We need the states to assert themselves and provide good competition without the restraints of federal mandates.
This could reduce the size of the federal government.
We need honest people to eliminate the corruption in government including the courts.
I agree with all that!
Do you think that a BBA could include repeal of the 17th? IMHO, that would go a long way toward a smaller government.
As long as government spending is added into GDP, any solution tied to it invites more spending.
Want more revenue, print and spend more money to make the GDP increase. Your economy is worthless but the numbers look good.
And how could a judge even decide what taxes to raise, or spending to cut?
Want to cut spending?? Tie the debt ceiling increases to highly visible tax increases on the majority of voters, many who pay NO Federal income taxes now (they are not overtaxed.) And send them a letter telling them why their taxes are going up, the same way Washington sent a letter to voters telling them a welfare check (that $800 ‘rebate’) was on the way.
We need to start at the Grassroots of our nation and elect local and state politicians that support our rights under the Constitution.
Government should come from the people up, not the government to the people. The United States is too large and unwieldy to be ruled almost exclusively by DC.
We are at risk of losing our way, Obama would like to be a tyrant but right now we have a tyranny of 635 politicians who care only about themselves, their jobs and winning.
Washington doesn't give a crap about you and me, they care about their power and their money. We are nothing but a vote and that vote is truly the only reason that they even acknowledge that we exist.
Public Law 95-435 Section 7 States Beginning with fiscal year 1981 ,the total budget outlays of the Federal Government shall nor exceed it receipts.How are we in debt 14 Trillion dollars . Who let the taxpayers get screwed.
“As long as government spending is added into GDP, any solution tied to it invites more spending.”
Then any government, Local, State and Federal spending can not be part of the GDP formula.
Easy solution. Fix the budget at a maximum percentage of the GDP except in times of war. Say about 18%.
P.S. And then all expenditures above that limit are to be spent on the war effort alone.
That would be good, but do you really think it is politically possible? Dems and RINOs are going to continue to buy the cheapest (for themselves, not cheapest for future taxpayers) votes they can find.
Maybe no real solutions could be considered until we become Greece, and at that point I think it would be too late.
I hope I am am wrong, but hard experience tells me not to expect too much from human nature.
You know that NOTHING is politically possible except offering the voters more and more stuff that appears free to them(and is free to many). That is why they do it.
How do we keep the self-serving, con men and women from getting elected, that have no principles and are willing to serve for the benefits of power as opposed to the needs of the people?
Even at the local level, the good experienced individuals will not run for office, so we get the pretty boys who say the right thing but lack substance that get elected. (With some exceptions.) We got one in Wisconsin Senator Ron Johnson and Governor Walker.
I know what you mean, we have 2 of them on our County Commission but I can attend the open meetings and I can make my voice heard and I can write local editorials and I can make their lives hell until they do the right thing.
I don’t see a judge setting tax rates.
In Arkansas when Huckabee was Governor some judge said that education had to be funded more. The legislature choose to hike taxes to do that. Huckabee signed the bill. He then blamed the court. But the judge didn’t hike the taxes and sign the bill into law.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.