Support the Balanced Budget Amendment

Consevative Alerts.Com ^ | Consevative Alerts.Com

[webber]

Support the Balanced Budget Amendment

ISSUE: Don't think Congress can help itself when it comes to overspending taxpayer money? Neither do we.

Maybe what Congress needs is to be *forced* to cut its spending.

Congressman Ernest Istook (R-OK) has introduced a constitutional amendment requiring Congress to balance the budget, along with Congressman Charlie Stenholm (D-TX) and 93 other original cosponsors including the support of the House Judiciary Committee Chairman, James Sensenbrenner (R-WI).

The measure will ensure that the nation's deficit spending will end after the current national security crisis ends.

The text is identical to the Balanced Budget Amendment to the Constitution approved by the House of Representatives in 1995, as part of the "Contract With America", but which failed twice in the Senate by a single vote.

"While we manage our national and homeland security, we must plan ahead to guarantee that we return to a balanced budget once we overcome these challenges. We must assure our kids and grandkids inherit freedom and security, but do not inherit a crushing national debt," said Istook.

This amendment includes language allowing for emergency spending when our nation is faced with an imminent and serious military threat to national security. In such cases, a 3/5 approval of both Houses of Congress would be required for the federal government to spend more in a fiscal year than it receives.

"Congress needs the discipline that this will force on us," said Istook. "It's time to set the standard, and show America what our goals are. It doesn't matter which side of the aisle you are on. Some people complain about the deficit, and say that's why they oppose tax relief.

Others complain about the deficit and say that's why they oppose spending. But everyone who complains about the deficit should support the goal of balancing the budget again. It's hypocritical to say you oppose the deficit but don't support the balanced budget amendment."

ACTION ITEM: This bipartisan proposal now has 112 cosponsors, and has cleared its first hurdle -- it passed out of the House Judiciary Subcommittee on a 5-3 party-line vote. Now, it needs to come to a full vote on the floor, and move on to the Senate.

This shouldn't be a left/right issue; both the big-spenders and the fiscal conservatives should agree that government shouldn't spend more than it receives. Families follow this common-sense rule, and so should Uncle Sam.

Go to our site below to send your a message to your Congressman NOW, urging him or her to support Rep. Istook's Balanced Budget Amendment (H.J. Res. 22): MESSAGE TO CONGRESS

NOTE: A Constitutional amendment requires a 2/3 majority of both Houses of Congress and ratification by 3/4 of the states. If passed, the measure would take effect in on December 31, 2008, or two years after ratification by the states, whichever is later.

The time is ripe for this amendment -- actually, it's overdue. Be sure to forward this e-mail to everyone you know who wants to help *force* Congress to cut back on its bloated spending policies.

Thank you!

Consevative Alerts.Com

[2nd_Amendment_Defender]

This article has already been posted. Go to the website below:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/976842/posts

[GraniteStateConservative]

I prefer a line item veto amendment.

[KQQL]

WIll never happen

[GraniteStateConservative]

Why not?

[goldstategop]

A Balanced Budget Amendment is a joke. We have one in California and it doesn't work. What we need is a national Colorado style Taxpayers' Bill Of Rights to limit spending according to a formula based on population growth, income growth, and the rate of inflation and which provides an automatic refund of any excess amount to the taxpayers over that threshold.

[RJCogburn]

I thought we don't need something like this now that the Republicans control the White House and Congress.

Wasn't that the plan?

[Scott from the Left Coast]

Me too. A balanced budget amendment will do one of two things: It will either restrain spending or it will result in a tremendous increase in taxes to fund programs that people "want". With the mind-set of our national population today, my bet is that those taxes would go up, up, up in order to fund the "goodies".

So if I had a choice between high taxes or deficits, I'd take the deficits every time. And I'm not so sure that deficits don't do a better job at restraining new spending than balanced budget requirements. At least you give the bastards a reason to say "no, we can't". We have a balanced budget requirement here in Washington. And in the past twenty years our state budget has increased 8-fold -- even with voter-approved spending caps in the past 10 years. That's not much of a restraint.

[Andy from Beaverton]

Will never happen. We have not had a surplus since 1960. The surplus people talk about is the publicly held debt, not including government held debt. Even though Reagan ran up $1.7 trillion, Clinton ran up $1.6 trillion in debt. You can look at the numbers here: http://www.publicdebt.treas.gov/opd/opdhisto4.htm

[gatex]

"...has introduced a constitutional amendment requiring Congress to balance the budget, ..."

The Second Amendment doesn't stop Congress.

[Gary42141]

As long as they keep using off-budget trust fund revenue such as Social Security in the on-budget portion of the unified budget, the debt will keep increasing.

Both parties do it, and the IOUs will have to be paid someday. More than likely they'll issue more IOUs and go further in debt. LOL

[Onelifetogive]

The measure will ensure that the nation's deficit spending will end after the current national security crisis ends.

Great...now the "current national security crisis" will NEVER end...

[VOR78]

I don't give a poop about a balanced budget amendment. That still means they can spend like drunken sailors so long as they can raise the taxes high enough to cover it. That's not fiscal conservatism...well, maybe it IS Howard Dean's version.

What we need is some sort cap on gov't spending. Tie it to a certain percentage of the actual GDP for the previous year. 10% or even less would be just fine by me, but I suspect it would have to be twice that to satisfy all the socialists in DC.