Posted on 08/05/2011 2:22:59 PM PDT by SeekAndFind
WASHINGTON — House Republicans, feeling they have scored significant fiscal victories, are moving on to an even bigger challenge: persuading voters, state legislatures and Democrats to alter the Constitution with a balanced budget amendment.
In a meeting with his conference on Monday, Speaker John A. Boehner told members that the best thing they could do during the August recess was to sell their constituents on the idea that the amendment — which essentially stipulates that government cannot spend more than it takes in — is necessary and good.
Republican leaders on the Hill have pivoted from railing against Democrats about tax increases to pressing for the amendment, which would require the acquiescence of two-thirds of each chamber of Congress, and three-quarters of state legislatures. They point out that such a measure passed the House in 1995, but then failed in the Senate by a single vote.
And if Congress passes a proposed amendment, it bypasses the president, going straight to the states, where 26 legislatures are dominated by Republicans.
Getting Democrats to agree to such a measure now is likely to be an uphill battle. President Obama has previously rejected the idea of a balanced budget amendment. And, after the nasty debt-ceiling duel with Republicans, which left the country a cat’s whisker from default, most Congressional Democrats are bruised and cranky, with little incentive to work with the other side.
(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...
Balanced Budget Amendment, HJ RES 56 (same as SR RES 10) This is the version associated with "Cut, Cap & Balance."
The major difference is the newer version is tighter and more specific. Courts can't mandate tax increases to balance a budget, total spending is limited to 18% of GDP, there are specific supermajority provisions for protecting tax rates for example.
Balanced Budget Amendment, HJ RES 56 (same as SR RES 10) This is the version associated with "Cut, Cap & Balance."
The major difference is the newer version is tighter and more specific. Courts can't mandate tax increases to balance a budget, total spending is limited to 18% of GDP, there are specific supermajority provisions for protecting tax rates for example.
RE: legislatures
This Balanced Budget amendment has little chance of passing then.
I can count 13 states who legislatures are VERY HARD to swing conservative ( starting with my own state — NY ).
And the main holdout was that Senator from Oregon Mark Hatfield.
He originally supported the Balanced Budget but later decided against it.
Sadly, his legacy is marred by one vote that will forever taint it. That seminal vote was against the Balanced Budget Amendment, and America is suffering the consequences today.
It is important to put ex-Senator Hatfield’s vote in perspective. Article Five of the Constitution says that a vote by 2/3rds of both houses of Congress may establish a Convention for Proposing Amendments to the Constitution. This proposed amendment must then be ratified by three-fourths of the states to become an amendment to the Constitution.
The vote was whether to refer the issue to the American people for consideration. Senator Hatfield voted to prevent the people of America from deciding if they wanted a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution. He was unwilling to allow us to decide for ourselves. Hs vote thwarted the will of the people, perpetuated uncontrollable federal spending, and, in my opinion, has set the stage for the financial ruin of America.
History ought not treat Mark Hatfield kindly.
While you are at it, how about a the cap part and term limits? Make it a package deal. What do you say John?
A very similar argument was made by the Federalists for why a Bill of Rights wasn't necessary. The People knew better then and we know better now.
Snort! Really?! We peons in flyover country are the ones who have to be “sold” on the idea?
If the GOP with all its internal RINOS can’t stand their ground enough to prevent an increase in the debt ceiling and obtain actual spending cuts then do they have the forces to get a “balanced budget amendment passed”? No, they don’t.
This is a side show.
Does achieving a “balanced budget” insure that “balance” is achieved with spending reductions instead of tax increases?
No, it generally does not.
And it’s doubtful an Amendment that restricts “balancing” to spending reductions can ever get passed.
And, with Dim majorities in some U.S. Congress at some future point, such an Amendment would guarantee they would raise taxes to “balance the budget”.
Its a side show.
It does not replace simple, basic (1) restraint on spending and (2) dedication to a smaller and limited-role Federal government.
If the Republicans had HALF A BRAIN, they’d tell the states to call for a Constitutional Convention and get the amendment through that way.
They could also permit a 2/3s override of Supreme Court decisions...since the Court now thinks they’re a parallel Congress.
...but they won’t, and the Dems will never yield. So the Republicans are simply PANDERING to the Tea Party.
The problem with including the future figures, IMO, is that it would strictly depends on the projections (hence, assumptions) we use. So, say it passes, the battles will be on that ground?
Luke,
Here’s why the BBA is better than the debt limit: the debt limit is statutory, a BBA would be *constitutional*.
Plain and simple.
“A vote is coming in the House to end baseline budgeting according to Rep. Louie Gohmert (TX) on Hannity’s radio show.”
If so, that would be AMAZING. I’ve been arguing for zero-based budgeting for YEARS now.
Reid and Obama will never let it pass. Here’s the excuse: “We can hardly justify the expense of creating a zero-based budget when we are running such a deficit.”
They are the worst kind of charlatans.
Truth.
The debt limit is here and now. The BBA is an amorphous promise that can't happen for years. The Congress that won't be held to the debt limit, won't pass a BBA that doesn't have loopholes.
It's plain and simple, a bird in the hand now is worth a lot more than a promise that might take 7 to 10 years. A lot of debt can be rung up in the next 7 to 10 years.
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.