Ronald Reagan endorsed the idea. Back in his day, there were more than thirty states demanding a convention under Article V of the constitution for the purpose of framing such an amendment.
Congress got scared and passed the so called Graham-Rudman Act which was supposed to reign in deficit spending.
No so. The federal deficits have continued and the accumulated federal debt has now surpassed 14 trillion dollars.
In connection with the recent raising of the debt limit, there was a lot of discussion about a constitutional amendment that would require balanced budgets in the future.
A proposal was in fact introduced in the Congress. It required super majority votes to approve deficit budgets, except in time of war or other emergencies. There was no automatic enforcement provision written into the proposal, however. It is, therefore, only an aspirational statement that can simply be ignored by the Congress because nothing will happen if they do.
To be effective, a balanced budget amendment must have automatic and immediate consequences.
Here is language that would achieve the goal:
Any member of Congress who introduces, sponsors or votes in favor of a federal budget in which estimated expenditures exceed estimated revenues shall be ineligible to serve in the next succeeding Congress. This amendment shall be enforceable in federal courts on the petition of any state.
It’s simple. It’s automatic. It can be enforced by the courts.
And it does not prevent the government from incurring a deficit when required by war or other emergency. Members of Congress who sincerely believe that a deficit budget is necessary ought to be willing to step aside from the next Congress and let others address the problems.
After all, we ask many of our young men and women to sacrifice their lives for their country. It ought not be too severe a consequence for patriotic politicians to give up their offices for a couple of years.
No doubt the idea will be debunked on the same ground as other balanced budget proposals: what is to stop the Congress from overestimating revenues or underestimating expenses?
Especially when a line item is simply described as “New taxes” or “Reduced Expenses” the fact that the totals are equal is obviously a façade.
The amendment addresses that problem by authorizing legal action by the states in federal courts. If the federal budget is a mere subterfuge, that fact can be proven in court.
Comments are invited.
33 comments:
I'm skeptical. First, deficit spending is sometimes necessary and I think this amendment would go to far in penalizing people who even suggest it. Second, this amendment talks about projected budgets. Projected by whom? CBO or OMB or somebody else. It's a big question and whenever it does get resolved, probably in court,that group will have huge power. Finally, it gives the judiciary massive power over budgets, something that was previously under Congressional control and thus undermines separation of powers.
I like the version in the 2010 Florida application for a convention.
Rather than requiring a balanced budget, it limits the expenditures to 20% of GDP, except in times of war.
Further, some debt might not be a bad thing. The issue is uncontrolled debt.
Another major constitutional issue is that the direct election of senators has undercut the state's voice in the legislative process. Why not kill two birds with one stone?
Here is a sketch of what a convention could work towards:
1) Limit federal spending to less than some percentage of the national gross domestic product, except in times of emergency authorized by one half of the State Governors.
2) Prohibit the Congress of the United States from authorizing non-emergency debt exceeding a debt limit set by the several State Legislatures, for example by the median of the debt limits offered.
3) Limit the amount federal expenditures may be reduced by the states per year through reductions in the debt limit, for example by ten percent of the expenditures, less any budget surplus, from the previous year.
4) Retroactively require members of a congress passing a budget that exceeds these limits to return half of their salary for the entire two year session the offending budget was authorized.
Utesfan,
I think you have a distorted view of the effect of directly electing Senators. Going backwards would have one of two effects: 1) people would vote for legislatures just to get the Senators they want, 2) Senators would do what most states really want which is to spend more and always be cutting taxes. State gov'ts have no incentive to check federal spending as long as the money routes through them.
Arturius:
Ineligibility is no more a punishment than being a military casualty. It's just part of the job.
The amendment doesn't use the word 'projected,' and in fact it doesn't matter where the numbers come from. What matters are the numbers in the bill that is introduced.
The court's are only authorized to rule on the eligibility of specific members of Congress. They would have no power to dictate policy.
To the extent that the courts would be some check and balance on the Congress, however, that is the very purpose of the amendment.
@Arturius: I would not repeal the direct election of senators, but merely intended to suggest that this did remove a check by the states over the federal government.
@Judge Brennan: Arturius' complaint is still valid, but should be worded, estimated by whom?
My biggest concern is the obvious one that always comes up in this debate. What about an emergency (war)? Then what about congress going into perpetual war (like we already aren't)?
The language of the proposed amendment is an attempt to circumvent this argument by punishing those that would propose "any" expenditure that exceeds.
My questions are these:
- Does it punish a congressperson who is looking out for everyone's best interest in the time of an emergency?
- Would we want someone who is willing to make the tough decision to have to step aside?
- Have we considered all the unintended consequences of limiting the budget response to any and all true emergencies?
- Would we paralyze the federal courts with petitions? There are strong economic arguments that future budgets may never exceed current spending (decline).
- Would we create an environment where gaming the numbers is now the goal of every congress? Meaning more than they are already manipulated.
- Do we cheapen the congress by making it a revolving door of disposable members who's only job is to keep voting deficits? There is a strong argument that a majority of them are bought as is. This may just resign them to all being one term, bought puppets.
I don't have all the answers, or questions, that will arise from this proposal. I do have a background in financial services, and am very confident that any one of my peers could quickly find ways to game even this.
These are all good questions. My purpose in putting this idea on the table is to stir discussion and invite comments, criticism and different suggestions.
Rather than removal from office, I would like to see suspension of compensation for any congressperson who votes in favor of a deficit budget. That should be enough incentive.
There are some good things to be said about a balanced budget. But as lopng as Congresspersons can get a fat cat bill passed for their district, they are going to bust the budget.
What I think we need to do is get rid of Congress. Rewrite the Constitution through An Article V convention, eliminate Congress and let the 50 Governor meet for 4 months out of the year as the new Congress. They would write and pass a budget.
They would then have to go home to govern the state government. They would also have to face the voters again and defend their Federal spending. I believe we would get a balanced budget then.
While accepting that the federal budget is wildly out of control, I do think that their may be good reasons why future generations may want to deviate from a balanced budget.
These recent debt limit debates highlight a key issue in the budget crisis. Congress has the constitutional authority to set their own debt limit. Why not give this power to the states?
Here is my proposed amendment:
1) The Congress of the United States shall not authorize debt exceeding the median debt limit set by the several state legislatures, except as provided in sections 2 and 3 below.
2) The median debt limit shall not require federal expenditures to be reduced by more than 10% in any consecutive fiscal year.
3) During times of national emergency, authorized by a majority of the state governors, the debt limit may be waved for a single fiscal year.
4) Shall congress not produce a budget by the start of any fiscal year within these constraints, they shall adjourn without pay for nine months.
I don't think the language of the amendment is strong enough. When we really compare the powers held by the Federal government according to the constitution and the powers held by the states given to them by the people then it becomes clear that the Federal government collects far too much money to begin with and spends far too much more. Along with that we should probably consider that fact that the senate was supposed to be the voice of the elected state governments in Washington.
Here is my idea.
Congress collects whatever money they will collect in the first year.
The year after congress collects the money they are allowed to put that money in a budget and specify how much they will spend.
The year after that, the budget will actually go into effect for use by the President in running the government.
Any additional money the president needs must be borrowed from the states with consent of the states.
States may not borrow money for the purpose of lending money to the federal government.
The interest rate for any such loans will be equal or higher than the top Federal income tax rate.
Any year that the Federal government must borrow money, neither the president nor any elected member of congress may receive any compensation whatsoever from any tax payer funded source.
SO for example, congress collects 100 million in taxes in 2015. They can not spend or even say how they want to spend the money yet.
In 2016 they make the 2017 budget using the money collected in 2015. In 2016 they can not yet actually spend the money but the budget lets them say how they want the money spent.
In 2017, the budget actually goes into effect and the money collected in 2015 can finally be spent.
If there is not enough money for everything the government needs then the only place the government can go for a loan is the state legislature of a state that just happens to already have some extra money laying around.
Once the federal government takes out a loan no elected official can get a salary, living expenses, transportation expenses, medical care, or anything else. They get nothing. The president I suppose could continue to use the White House for diplomatic functions but he has to now buy his own food and provide for his own protection, transportation, and pay the electricity bill himself.
Also, the Federal government must pay an interest rate equal to the tax rate so if they want to collect 40% in taxes than that is the interest rate they must pay to get a loan from a state.
Now I realize some may think I am going to far but that is why we have discussion and debate to work out issues others might not have thought of. At the very least if we force the president and congress to only get loans from the states with their consent then that is a huge shift in power back to democratically elected state legislatures away from much less democratically elected Washington.
Another idea is to limit the Federal budget to the being no larger each year than the second largest state budget. After all, states have so many more responsibilities than Washington that they ought to be spending more.
Another idea is to take away the senate's role in the budget process and allow each state legislature to vote to accept or reject a budget proposed by the house of representatives. This is what would have been done at the time of the founding if the founding fathers had access to the information, transportation, and communication technology of today.
For that matter, most of the exclusive powers of the senate are things the states should be doing and probably would have been doing from the beginning if the founders had had modern technology. States should be the ones to confirm appointments, ratify treaties, judge impeachment, and vote on a Federal budget. Sure, we can keep the senate around to be a higher chamber for other, less important laws but in my opinion the higher powers should be returned to state control.
David: You and I agree on the principle that the federal government's budget should be constrained by the states.
I disagree with any hard line, say less than the second highest state budget. I would argue that the median state budget times the square root of the number of states would be fitting. State budgets totaled 1.4 Trillion in 2012, for a mean of 28 Billion. This would limit the federal budget to 200 Billion. Still, I would much rather let the states decide how to constrain the federal budget in a thoughtful and controlled way by giving them power over the Debt Limit.
Your second post is exactly why I proposed the alternate version above.
The proper role of the Senate is likely worthy of an entire thread of its own. I have been entertaining the idea of making Senator's terms not limited by time, but rather until they are recalled by their state legislature.
Keep the direct election of Senators to keep the selection process from corrupting and distracting the state houses, but Senators only hold office as long as the state legislature is satisfied with their service.
I actually think the Senate as it is satisfactorily handles the unique roles they have been given, especially on confirming federal appointments and trying federal impeachments.
For the federal budget, I have outlines my ideas above. Ratification of treaties is a separate topic, and should be discussed in its own thread. I would strongly support a Governor veto of treaties, by a 2/3 of the Governors of the several states, within one year of the treaty being presented to the Senate for approval.
My Thoughts:
1. I do not like te use of the word "estimated" in the ammendment...it leaves "wiggle room" and we all know congress is well practiced in wiggeling.
2. ALL federal budgets should be balanced...Any emergency spending or spending that exceeds the budget for wars etc. should be stand alone legislation. Approval process for these stand alone bills should include ensuring that each bill includes a method to pay off the debt incurred by the levying of a "special tax" linked directly to repaying the specific debt the bill creates.
3.Initially, untill the current debt is paid off, the balanced budget needs to include principle payments on the debt as part of the balanced budget. The interest rate paid on the debt needs to be set by law at a very low rate (1-5%) and any debt issued cannot be transferred from the original debtor. Our national debt should not be a means for enriching others.
4. As another discussion: We need to clarify what the federal gvernment is allowed to spend money on....they currently spend WAY TOO MUCH on items that should be paid for by the states such as education, etc. The commerce clause in particular needs to be clarified ad limited.
5. "Continuing Resolutions" to delay voting on a budget need to be banned. There is no reason why the congress and the senate cannot complete their work in a timely manner. NO BUDGET - NO SPENDING. Shut down the government (except for the congress and senate and defense). Force ALL MEMBERS of both houses and the president to be "locked down" in the capitol building untill they pass the budget.
Hope these ideas help to stir up some good debate, enlighten other delegates and inspire great ideas!
SSGRichDAV
Any Balanced Budget Amendment passed and sent to the states, must be concise with no “wiggle-room” for politicians and lawyers to exploit. Section one of the proposed amendment seems to meet that criteria.
“Total outlays for any fiscal year shall not exceed total receipts for that fiscal year, unless two-thirds of the duly chosen and sworn Members of each House of Congress shall provide by law for a specific excess of outlays over receipts by a roll call vote.”
Everything else in the proposed amendment should be by statutory law — if necessary — under Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution. Anything more is only inviting unintended consequences that will do more harm than good.
The value of such an Amendment will only be realized in the present crisis if it is used to force Congress and the President to curtail their unsustainable appetite for spending. Conservatives should hold fast to the demand that no increase in the government’s spending limit will be approved until a satisfactory Balanced Budget Amendment has been passed and submitted to the States for ratification. If the progressive Democrats maintain their “no compromise” position, they will be forced to downsize the federal government substantially when they run out of money to spend. That will cause major hardships for many, however, we are in a position much like the passengers on United Flight 93 over the hills of Pennsylvania, September 11, 2001. If we do nothing, we are going down as a nation. If we take a stand we may go down anyway, but if we succeed we can save the future for ourselves and our children and grandchildren.
This is not a problem that can be solved with a "balanced budget" amendment of this kind. For further discussion see http://constitutionalism.blogspot.com/2011/03/flaws-in-balanced-budget-amendment.html and http://constitutionalism.blogspot.com/2011/03/so-what-about-balanced-budget-amendment.html
Any Balanced Budget Amendment passed and sent to the states, must be concise with no “wiggle-room” for politicians and lawyers to exploit. Section one of the proposed amendment seems to meet that criteria.
“Total outlays for any fiscal year shall not exceed total receipts for that fiscal year, unless two-thirds of the duly chosen and sworn Members of each House of Congress shall provide by law for a specific excess of outlays over receipts by a roll call vote.”
Everything else in the proposed amendment should be by statutory law — if necessary — under Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution. Anything more is only inviting unintended consequences that will do more harm than good.
The value of such an Amendment will only be realized in the present crisis if it is used to force Congress and the President to curtail their unsustainable appetite for spending. Conservatives should hold fast to the demand that no increase in the government’s spending limit will be approved until a satisfactory Balanced Budget Amendment has been passed and submitted to the States for ratification. If the progressive Democrats maintain their “no compromise” position, they will be forced to downsize the federal government substantially when they run out of money to spend. That will cause major hardships for many, however, we are in a position much like the passengers on United Flight 93 over the hills of Pennsylvania, September 11, 2001. If we do nothing, we are going down as a nation. If we take a stand we may go down anyway, but if we succeed we can save the future for ourselves and our children and grandchildren.
Any balanced budget ammendment should include the following:
1. Budget MUST be balanced.
2. ALL "emergency" funding must be approved by 2/3rds of BOTH the House and Senate AND siged by the President.
3. The "Balanced Budget" MUST include interest AND a PRINCIPLE payment on the existing debt equal to a MINIMUM of 5% of the outstanding balance (this would pay off the debt in 20 years).
4. Defense, Social Security, Medicare and Veterans Benefits would be the only areas of the budget that CANNOT be subjected to "automatic" cuts.
5. As long as there is any debt remaining, America will NOT pay ANY funds to any country as foreign aid. It is time for America to take care of Americans FIRST. It is the responsibility of the governments of the other counties to take care of their own.
6. There may be other clauses that need to be included but the above 5 should offer a realistic and "Eyes Open" approach.
SSGRichDAV
I think this addresses wiggle room by including automatic cuts. It also covers serious tax reform. It is from AmericanAmendment.com
On the question of direct election senators we only need to look at spending history. Shortly after the 17th was adopted spending began climbing. In 1913 we got the 16th, 17th and Federal Reserve Act. Combined they gave congress virtually unlimited tax revenue, added unlimited borrowing when taxes hit real or political limits and removed any state based accountability. The results are pretty clear.
Tax Reform and Balanced Budget Requirement
ARTICLE—SECTION 1. The Sixteenth Amendment to the US Constitution is hereby repealed.
SECTION 2. Congress shall make no law levying or collecting a tax on any form of income, real or personal property, gifts or estates. Neither congress nor the several states shall prohibit, regulate or impose a tax on transactions utilizing gold, silver or other precious metals except where such metals are the payment method and the regulation or tax applies equally to all payment methods.
SECTION 3. The levying of any new tax or an increase of any existing tax shall require a 3/5ths majority in each house, shall be considered separately from any other legislation.
SECTION 4. During any year in which the United States has an outstanding debt, the Congress may not authorize spending in excess of 90% of the prior year’s actual revenue except as otherwise provided in this article. If spending exceeds this requirement all authorized spending shall be automatically reduced on a pro-rata basis to achieve the required spending level.
SECTION 5. Excess revenue collected as a result of Section 4 spending limits shall be used to pay down the national debt.
SECTION 6. Congress may, by 3/5ths vote of each chamber, authorize additional spending above the limits imposed in Section 4. This authorization shall apply only to the current year and the vote shall be specific to, and limited to, the issue of authorizing an unbalanced budget and shall state the amount of excess spending authorized. authorize additional spending above the limits imposed in Section 4. This authorization shall apply only to the current year and the vote shall be specific to, and limited to, the issue of authorizing an unbalanced budget and shall state the amount of excess spending authorized.
Many good points have been made. I voted 'yes' but have concerns. Certainly, some kind of war clause necessary. Seems unconstitutional to demand a congressperson 'sit out' some period of time, irregardless of the reason.
I would vote for legislation or an amendment that places rational, reasonable constraints on gov't spending.
IMO, no entity should be too big to fail and that issue should be resolved through anti-trust law.
The debt crisis is extremely serious and the proposal is a bandage that can help, but until we go to the source of the problem we can not solve the nations economic troubles.
The first order of business should be the limitation placed on congress. To disallow an extention the debt and to maintain a balanced budget.
The next order of business should be to eliminate the Federal Reserve and turn our currency back over to our Department of the Treasury and re-establish the Gold Standard.
Following this or in conjunction to this we need to reduce the size and power of the Federal Government by eliminating agencies that are unconstitutional and forcing the FED into conforming to the Resolution of 1780.
I don't think a new amendment for a balanced budget can accomplish more than forcing the Federal Government/Congress to conform to the Constitution. However, it can restrict Congressional damage more than they have already accomplished and set us back on a course to conform with the Constitution.
I believe that we can fix the economic problems of this country by putting people back to work and protecting small businesses from federal controls and monopolies that make business almost impossible to the average US Citizen engaged in Small business.
In other words, we can legislate all day long but we will not fix the problems until we follow the constitution and every citizen follows the words of Benjamin Franklin, "every citizen is responsible for his own personal wealth!" (and that includes debts).
Budgets can not be fixed without a GNP and the US GNP is in the toilet.
Reduce the size of Government
End the sickness of Perpetual Debt.
Re educate the people as to personal responsibility; economic and political.
All budgets must be balanced, frugal, and limited. No budget should be allowed out of any legislative body until 2/3's approve it. They must revise, cut, save and slash until they can get the 2/3's, because it would take the same 2/3's to increase any taxes.
“Section 1: Federal Deficit spending shall be prohibited. The federal government shall be required to maintain a balanced budget. At no time, except as contained herein, shall federal government expenditures exceed actual collected receipts on hand.”
“Section 2: The United States government shall not borrow funds or encumber, in any way, the United States or its citizens.”
“Section 3: The federal government shall place five percent (5%) of all annual collected revenues into an Emergency Reserve Fund. The Emergency Reserve Fund shall be used only for Emergency Purposes during sudden and unexpected economic downturns or unexpected budgetary shortfalls, and shall not be used for any other purpose.”
“Section 4: Twenty percent (20%) of all federal tax revenues shall be applied to the National Debt until said National Debt is fully satisfied. The term “National Debt” shall mean total outstanding borrowings of the United States government comprising of internal (owing to national creditors) and external (owing to foreign creditors) debt incurred in financing its expenditure, including, but not limited to (1) floating debt, short term borrowings such as treasury bills, various ways-and-means advances, and borrowings from the central bank; (2) funded debt, short-term debt converted into long-term debt; and (3) unfunded debt, national savings certificates, savings bonds, premium bonds, and securities repayable in foreign exchange (payment of which affects the country's balance of payments).”
“Section 5: Annual Federal Combined Spending shall not exceed ten percent (10%) of Annual Gross Domestic Product (GDP) for the same budgetary year. The term “Federal Combined Spending” shall mean all spending by the federal government, including but not limited to, military, homeland security, disaster relief, Presidential and Congressional salaries and benefits, and the staffing and administration of all federal agencies, departments and programs.”
“Congress shall have the right to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.”
I want to suggest an important distinction between prohibiting federal deficits and penalizing them.
The former is akin to repealing the Borrowing Clause (Article I, Section 8, Clause 2), which would have the unintended consequences of hyper-inflation, unless you took the further step of constitutionalizing a currency gold standard. Just because the Federal Government could not borrow money would not prevent it from printing money. Ultimately, the issue is not federal borrowing but federal spending.
Judge Brennan's proposal is intended to prohibit deficit spending for all time, but this raises suitability, policy, and enforcement concerns. Prohibiting deficits in all circumstances enacts a permanent economic policy, which many consider inappropriate for a constitutional amendment. Moreover, balanced budget proponents reasonably insist on exceptions for war or other genuine national emergency. Once you have emergency exception, however, it is not hard for Congress to declare a permanent “emergency.” Congress in effect did this in 2001 when it passed the 9/11 Use of Force Resolution, which will never be repealed given our perpetual “global war on terror.”
I can also think of an easy way for Congress to evade Judge Brennan’s proposal: just pass appropriation bills without “introducing, sponsoring, or voting” on a budget resolution. How many years now has it been since the Senate passed a budget resolution? And suppose Congress did limit itself to passing budget resolutions in which estimated revenues exceeded estimated expenditures? Nothing binds Congress to their own budget resolutions, which in any event are limited to discretionary spending and do not encompass entitlement programs. Moreover, Congress can always pass “emergency” spending bills that ignore their budget resolutions, and has often done so.
Judge Brennan, however, is on to something important, namely, the concept of a penalty for deficit spending. Rather than trying to prohibit deficits without exception, it is more important that we prevent our national politicians from taking advantage of emergencies to spend whatever they want. This is what President Bush did following 9/11 and what President Obama did after the 2008 banking crisis. What we need are penalties that effectively compel Congress to return to balanced budgets as soon as the emergency has passed.
Judge Brennan’s idea of prohibiting re-election has merit in this regard, although I would be more flexible: instead of immediate ineligibility, I would suggest a “Balanced Budget Rotation Amendment” that prohibits re-election for anyone who has served in five consecutive years of deficit spending. (I choose five years because Senate terms are six years, and five years of deficits would effectively limit senators to one term.)
Other possibilities include a “Balanced Budget Veto Amendment” and a “Balanced Budget Compensation Amendment.” The former would give the President a line-item veto whenever a prior fiscal year ended with a deficit, while the latter would reduce Congressional salaries and other compensation by same percentage of borrowing to spending (e.g. since we currently borrow 40% of the budget, I would cut Congressional compensation by 40%).
What all of these ideas have in common is that none of them prohibit deficits (hence no need for any type of “emergency” loophole), but all of them create a strong or compelling incentive to prevent deficits and/or return to a balanced budget as soon as possible following a genuine emergency. I will address these ideas further in the Delegate Forum.
I want to suggest an important distinction between prohibiting federal deficits and penalizing them.
The former is akin to repealing the Borrowing Clause (Article I, Section 8, Clause 2), which would have the unintended consequences of hyper-inflation, unless you took the further step of constitutionalizing a currency gold standard. Just because the Federal Government could not borrow money would not prevent it from printing money. Ultimately, the issue is not federal borrowing but federal spending.
Judge Brennan's proposal is intended to prohibit deficit spending for all time, but this raises suitability, policy, and enforcement concerns. Prohibiting deficits in all circumstances enacts a permanent economic policy, which many consider inappropriate for a constitutional amendment. Moreover, balanced budget proponents reasonably insist on exceptions for war or other genuine national emergency. Once you have emergency exception, however, it is not hard for Congress to declare a permanent “emergency.” Congress in effect did this in 2001 when it passed the 9/11 Use of Force Resolution, which will never be repealed given our perpetual “global war on terror.”
I can also think of an easy way for Congress to evade Judge Brennan’s proposal: just pass appropriation bills without “introducing, sponsoring, or voting” on a budget resolution. How many years now has it been since the Senate passed a budget resolution? And suppose Congress did limit itself to passing budget resolutions in which estimated revenues exceeded estimated expenditures? Nothing binds Congress to their own budget resolutions, which in any event are limited to discretionary spending and do not encompass entitlement programs. Moreover, Congress can always pass “emergency” spending bills that ignore their budget resolutions, and has often done so.
Judge Brennan, however, is on to something important, namely, the concept of a penalty for deficit spending. Rather than trying to prohibit deficits without exception, it is more important that we prevent our national politicians from taking advantage of emergencies to spend whatever they want. This is what President Bush did following 9/11 and what President Obama did after the 2008 banking crisis. What we need are penalties that effectively compel Congress to return to balanced budgets as soon as the emergency has passed.
Judge Brennan’s idea of prohibiting re-election has merit in this regard, although I would be more flexible: instead of immediate ineligibility, I would suggest a “Balanced Budget Rotation Amendment” that prohibits re-election for anyone who has served in five consecutive years of deficit spending. (I choose five years because Senate terms are six years, and five years of deficits would effectively limit senators to one term.)
Other possibilities include a “Balanced Budget Veto Amendment” and a “Balanced Budget Compensation Amendment.” The former would give the President a line-item veto whenever a prior fiscal year ended with a deficit, while the latter would reduce Congressional salaries and other compensation by same percentage of borrowing to spending (e.g. since we currently borrow 40% of the budget, I would cut Congressional compensation by 40%).
What all of these ideas have in common is that none of them prohibit deficits (hence no need for any type of “emergency” loophole), but all of them create a strong or compelling incentive to prevent deficits and/or return to a balanced budget as soon as possible following a genuine emergency. I will address these ideas further in the Delegate Forum.
One problem that may be encountered is the fact that to balance the budget, they simply raise taxes. Don't get me wrong, I want a balanced budget, but I also do not want taxes raised.
Another point, what constitutes a war? What constitutes an emergency? We haven't been constitutionally at war since WWII have we? We have honestly been at war at other times. Do small police actions count as wars? I am not making a political statement at all with this. This is something that just needs to be hashed out. Would Libya count? Iraq? Afghanistan?
Balance the budget?? how about tackling how money is spent/budgeted. Here is a section from the Continental Congress 2.0 list of grievances a adopted on July 4, 2012.
Section VII.
Whereas, Congress has abdicated its responsibility for the declaration of war, allowing the United States military to engage in unconstitutional military actions and occupations abroad in the name of National Security;
Whereas, there is an unacceptable lack of transparency in negotiations between the military and multi-national industrial contractors who profit from perpetual war;
Whereas, our government has failed to uphold the promised benefits and medical care to our men and women returning from military action and unless their injuries occurred in battle, our veterans are routinely denied health services;
We therefore demand the following:
1. Strengthen the War Powers Resolution Act of 1973, to implement controls on the executive branch for deployment of armed forces, and prohibit the use of military force without the consent of the legislative branch.
2. That our government be required to adhere to the United Nations Charter, Article 2, Paragraph 4 and the Kellogg-Briand Treaty (a.k.a. The General Treaty for the Renunciation of War) making warfare illegal.
3. Full disclosure of government policy and monetary relationships for all unsanctioned and/or unauthorized programs associated with the military industrial complex, including the high technology research and development industry.
4. Systems to provide humanitarian services and all promised medical and psychological benefits to military personnel and veterans who have not been dishonorably discharged, and their families.
5. An immediate freeze in the use of nuclear and depleted uranium weapons.
6. Raise global awareness of Peace Day, a day of global cease fire and non-violence on September 21st annually. Engage all sectors of society and observe the International Day of Peace in accordance with the United Nations General Assembly Resolution 55/282.
7. The United States submit the National and International “Peace Everyday Treaty” for Global Truce and Global Cease Fire to the United Nations.
8. The United States government sign and ratify the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court.
9. Reinstate the Grand Jury process in America to represent the People.
10. The arrest of any person or persons indicted or charged with war crimes for intentionally and knowingly engaging in warfare based on false premises or pretexts and the extradition of such individuals to the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court.
Great wording,looks like it will work,to me.
Any Amendment proposal to balance the federal budget must include the repeal of the 16th Amendment.
TEST MOTION: THAT A BALANCED BUDGET AMENDMENT BE APPROVED IN PRINCIPLE AND REFERRED TO A COMMITTEE OF STYLE AND DRAFTING
let me express my disappointment that if five criteria are not met on proposed Constitutional Amendments, they are therefore not worthwhile to pursue. One needs only to read the Unanimous Declaration in order to grasp that our founding Fathers were faced with the same harsh obstacles in effecting meaningful change that that would have prevented them from ending economic tyranny. Were I not able to employ such drastic terminology describing what the people are experiencing under our present corrupted and evil monetary system - Franklin's, Jefferson's, Paine's and many others' efforts and struggles would indeed have also been fruitless. But today we are so much more fortunate to have the legacy they left us with which we are able to employ peacefully through the amendment process what they were forced to do with a violent war. Therefore, I call into question how easily a deliberation process is neutralized even when removal of evil influences from our government will require drastic change. For example, look closely at Test #5 of the Five Tests for a Constitutional Amendment:
"5. The Political Test: Is the proposal politically viable?
Lastly, it is important to remember that proposed amendments must achieve deep and widespread political support to run the proposal and ratification gauntlet under Article V of the Constitution. The proposal must therefore have the potential for political viability, which in turn means that it must eventually gain bipartisan support. To be sure, many of our greatest constitutional provisions were not seen as politically viable when first proposed. The Civil War Amendments (13th, 14th, and 15th) required, well, a civil war, and the 19th Amendment required decades of political activism to achieve women’s suffrage. Still, most of us have limited time and energy, so it is best to focus on proposals that are serious and significant, yet do not favor any political party or which are so ideologically motivated as to ensure failure. One of my favorite proposals would change Tax Day from April 15 to the first Monday in November, but I am not going to make this the focus of my Article V efforts given the enormity of our fiscal problems and the need to make spending restraint by the federal government our first priority."
Should we abandon working for meaningful change because it is not practical? Or should we, knowing that soon now evils will no longer be sufferable, begin working in earnest to educate the population that their money is not honest and that it will take a drastic series of Amendments to break the dishonest money creators' control over our financial system? What does political support have to do with stopping evil dead in its tracks? If it can be shown that our present monetary system is fundamentally flawed morally and presently acts contrary to the interests of Americans as a whole, then it is assuredly a violation of the long train of 'Abuses and Usurpations' enumerated in the Uninamous Declaration and also a violation of the principle written in the Preamble, 'Promote the General Welfare'. Anyone who would place politics above the interests of the American 'People' is not a loyal American and should be removed from any positions of authority in any deliberating body.
Daniel S. Krynicki
Michigan Delegate MI019
Convention USA
There has always been a deficit and it's a reality of government. The problem is when the deficit exceeds an arbitrary % of GDP that automatic restraints need to kick in and be enforced. I've drafted a version of a balanced budget amendment as follows:
Balanced Budget Amendment:
The Federal Government shall not spend what it does not have and shall operate within a balanced budget where annual expenditures do not exceed annual receipts. When federal debt exceeds 15% of the previous fiscal year’s Gross Domestic Product the government shall be considered a debtor nation and hold debtor status.
The Federal budget shall be limited to receipts of the previous calendar year and where a minimum of 10% shall be paid toward outstanding debt. When no debt exists, 10% shall be placed in an emergency trust fund to be used in time of national crisis.
While in a debtor status the Federal Government may not loan, grant, or give away money to any person, organization, corporation, business, foreign government or other foreign entity.
While the Federal Government is in a debtor status, it must each year reduce discretionary spending by 20% from previous year and must reduce non-discretionary spending by 2% from previous year.
While the Federal Government is in a debtor status, the Federal government shall not borrow money unless approved by 3/5 of the State Legislatures.
While in a debtor status the Federal Government shall reduce the federal civilian work force by 20% the first year upon enactment of this amendment and 1% each year thereafter until our nation is debt free.
Increases in Federal personal income taxes must be approved by 3/5 of the State Legislatures.
Balanced Budget Amendment:
The Federal Government shall not spend what it does not have and shall operate within a balanced budget where annual expenditures do not exceed annual receipts. When federal debt exceeds 15% of the previous fiscal year’s Gross Domestic Product the government shall be considered a debtor nation and hold debtor status.
The Federal budget shall be limited to receipts of the previous calendar year and where a minimum of 10% shall be paid toward outstanding debt. When no debt exists, 10% shall be placed in an emergency trust fund to be used in time of national crisis.
While in a debtor status the Federal Government may not loan, grant, or give away money to any person, organization, corporation, business, foreign government or other foreign entity.
While the Federal Government is in a debtor status, it must each year reduce discretionary spending by 20% from previous year and must reduce non-discretionary spending by 2% from previous year.
While the Federal Government is in a debtor status, the Federal government shall not borrow money unless approved by 3/5 of the State Legislatures.
While in a debtor status the Federal Government shall reduce the federal civilian work force by 20% the first year upon enactment of this amendment and 1% each year thereafter until our nation is debt free.
Increases in Federal personal income taxes must be approved by 3/5 of the State Legislatures.
Balanced Budget Amendment:
The Federal Government shall not spend what it does not have and shall operate within a balanced budget where annual expenditures do not exceed annual receipts. When federal debt exceeds 15% of the previous fiscal year’s Gross Domestic Product the government shall be considered a debtor nation and hold debtor status.
The Federal budget shall be limited to receipts of the previous calendar year and where a minimum of 10% shall be paid toward outstanding debt. When no debt exists, 10% shall be placed in an emergency trust fund to be used in time of national crisis.
While in a debtor status the Federal Government may not loan, grant, or give away money to any person, organization, corporation, business, foreign government or other foreign entity.
While the Federal Government is in a debtor status, it must each year reduce discretionary spending by 20% from previous year and must reduce non-discretionary spending by 2% from previous year.
While the Federal Government is in a debtor status, the Federal government shall not borrow money unless approved by 3/5 of the State Legislatures.
While in a debtor status the Federal Government shall reduce the federal civilian work force by 20% the first year upon enactment of this amendment and 1% each year thereafter until our nation is debt free.
Increases in Federal personal income taxes must be approved by 3/5 of the State Legislatures.
AND the 16th Amendment is repealed.
Post a Comment