Balanced Budget Amendment: Fraud and Politics as Usual (part of Republican Fantasy Weekend Series)

Simple truth 1: Repepublicans have the POWER to FORCE a "balanced budget" for THIS NEXT YEAR (the government fiscal year beginning in October). Doubt me? Don't. This is not even a matter of opinion. It is a fact. The government cannot spend ANY money not authorized by Congress. No money has been authorized for next year (despite the absurd idea by SOME Republicans to have a TWO YEAR budget: Hohn Thune, just go away---disappear--as you are hazardous to my mental health and blood pressure). The House of Representatives is part of Congress ("this is a football"--it being neccessary to go back to basics for lefts and sOME Republicans). The House of Representatives is controlled by Republicans, with a substantial majority. Q.E.D. NO spending bill can pass Congress without the cooperation of Repubicans in the House of Representatives. If those Repubicans demand that SPENDING be no more than revenue ("balanced"), then we have achieved the purpose of a "balanced budget". In fact, we will have done BETER than a "balanced budget", because Congress can overspend,, and has overspent in the past, the "budget". Who cares abut the BUDGET? Control the SPENDING. You say it will be political suicide for Republicans to cut spending that abruptly--that it would mean having to slash Medicarfe and Social Security? Maybe. I don't advocate it, although I advocate MAJOR steps in that direction NOW, so that we can see a "balanced budget" in three years, four years, or five. It is INSANE, however to suggest that we can IGNORE current spending because a "balanced budget amendment" will take care of the problem. That is what some Republicans almsot sesem to be suggesting, and it makes me CRINGE.


Simple truth no. 2: Republicans do NOT have the power to pass a "balanced budget amendment". That requires a 2/3 vote of Congress, AND ratification by 3/4 of the states. So why make a point over a "balanced budget amendment" that you CANNOT PASS, instead of the spending control that you HAVE (no amendment necessary)? Answer: POLITICS. Republican politicians (most of them) do not WANT to "balance the budget"--that is, to spend only the money that we have. But those samepoliticians want to DECEIVE the public into believing that they are serious about balanceing the budget, wihout actually having to do it. A "balanced budget amendemnt" is a SHAM idea designed to do exactly that--an idea endorsed by too many conservatives who should know better.


Simple truth no. 3: If you have NO proposal to "balance the budget" NOW, or at least in a few years, no one believes you when you suggest that you are "serious" about a "balanced budget". Propoing a "balancecd budget amendment" you cannot pass, and which would not even go into effect--at best--for some 8 years, does not convince anyone. No, I don't believe ie. In fact, every time I hear a Republican talk about a "balanced budget amendment, without talking about cutting spending NOW, I feel like voting AGAINST that Repubican. Such a Republican is merely showing himself to be a politican willing to LIE to me for my vote. But isn't this a way of getting sppending contol by "sleight of hand", when tehe public will not otherwise accept it? That is, the public is not willing to accept a "balanced budget" NOW, because it would cut too many of the programs they WANT. But-the theory goes--the public is willing to be for a "balanced budget amendment", BECAUSE it does not really operate until sometime in the distant future. Why is that not a goood strategy? Moan. First, it is based on LIES and DECEIT. No, I don't care about that etither, if they can work. They can't work, because EVERYONE sees through this. You can't get a "balanced budget amendment" passed, and if you could it will certainly contain LOOPHOLES that make it useless. I would remind yu that we now HAVE a debt ceiling, although it does not have Constitutional authority behind it, and all that means is that Congress has to RAISE (waive, realy) the debt ciling every so often.


Simple truth no. 4: Thos Republicans who suggest that Republicans should trade real spending control (again, which Republicans have the POWER to enforce) for a mere VOTE on a b "balanced budget amendment" shoud be SHOT. No, merely voting against lthese people is not good enough. Figuratively speaking, they need to be shot. Am I saying that I will NEVER support a Repubican poliltician who makes a "deal', or votes for a "deal", where one of the main things Republicans get is a "vtoe" on a balanced budget amendemtn? Yep. You are finally getting it. In fact, my present inclination is to vote AGAINST any Republican involved in trading preesnt spending control for PASSAGE of a balanced budget amendment. But I don't have to worry about that, beause it ain't going to happen. What Republlicans are doing, if they trade real spending control for a mere vote on a balnced budget amendment, is ADMIT that the the whole thing is a SHAM desined for no other purpose than to put Democrats on record against a blanced budget amendment, when Republicans have no intentiion of actually balancing the budget. You will remember that Ryan's budget, which Democrrats will not accept, does not even propose balancing the budget in TEN YEARS. In this context, to talk about a "balanced budget amendment" is a SHAM deceit, and everyone knows it. That means it is not even an effective lie.


5. Simple truth no. 5: The only "amendment" we should be looking at, for the LONG TERM (knowng that e can't pass it now, but could run on it with a clear conscience) is something like this: "No Congress shall authorize spending, in any fiscal year, more than 28% of the Grosss Domestic Product. Congress shall moniotr spending during every fiscal year, and correct the spending level if it appears to be hedling toward a igher amount in any fiscal year. Every member of Congress , who is a member at any time during a fiscal year in which thi spending limit is exceeded, shall be INELIGIBLE for relectioin to the same seat held at any time during the fiscal year when the violation occurred, and shall further be ineligible ofr ANY election to ANY state or Federal office for at least two years. Nor shall any such member of Congress be APPOINTED to any state or Fedral office for a period of tw years. Further, the President of the United States shall be authorized and directed to ILMPOUND--not spend--funds that would exceed the 18% limit, in the absence of Congressional action in any fiscal year. If the President fials to do this, he or she shall be ineligible for reelection, and it shall be regarded as an impeachable offense. Congress shall be authroized to exceed this 18% limit in time of war, or other national emergency, ONLY if the emergency is so grave that members of Congress are willing to accept the sanctions of this article. In other words, an emergency shall NOT excuse or change the snctions provided by this article, but actions of Congress and the President to spend more than authorized by this article shall not be subject to legal challenge. The spending shall stand. The Congress and/or President shall go".


Now THAT is the kind of amendment I would support. Yes, I have used dramatic effect, especially at the end, and the wording might have to be cleaned up a little. But you get the concept. CONGRESS and the PRESIDENT should face AUTOMATIC SANCTIONS for violating the amendment, and should be allowed to overrule the amendment (in an "emergecy") ONLY if they are willing to accept the santctions--only if lthey believe it is that much of an ememergency.


You should et the picture. It is one of the reasons I am holding back on endorsing Michelle Bachmann. The TEST that needs to be applied to Republicans now is what they do with CURRENT SPENDING. Forget the gimmicks. Forget the SHAM "balanced budget amendment". Forget the "pyroll tax cut/holiday". Forgetr other tax GIMMICKS. CT SPENDING (which you have the power to do), or slinnk home with your tails between your legs. Cut spending for the CURRENT YEAR (tat is, year that begins in October, as you already blew it for the current year that is ending). Yes, I believe in cutting income tax RATES==mpt om s[ecoa;ozed tax BREAKS. And any Republican who agrees to RAISE income tax RATES might as well fall on his sword. He or she will be history. And it is a terrible mistake to RAISE TAXX RATES (on the "rich", or anybody else, and what happened to the idea of a SIMPLE tax system?). REDU:CING tax RATES was the thing to do when Obama came into office. However, Obama has succeeded in making that absurd, UNLESS you do away with enough "tax expenditures" (those metasticizing "tax credits" and subsidies for everything from ethanol/farms to "green" energy and technology). MAYBE you can switch these tax exe]penditures into a reduction in tax RATES, like the Debt Commission proposed. But I doubt if the political will exists. Yes, ultimately LOWERING tax RATES (not gimmicks) RAISES revenue. But we can no longer AFFORD the SHORT TERM hit of a gneral tax rate cut without REFORMING the tax code.


See my article yesterday on the FRAUD of a "payroll tax cut/holiday". This article fits fright in, and with what I have been waring Republicans ever since the SHAM "deal" at the end of 2010 (which INCRESDED the defict more than the spending "cuts" Republicans have made since, and that is NOT counting the correct extension of the Bush tax cuts--that is, the sane policy of not RAISING taxes). Ryan's Medicare plan is almost not releveant here. It is never gong to pass THIS CONGRESS. Yes, we need to save Medicare. We need to repeal ObamaCare (rather urgently). But the votes are not there to do those things in this Congress. The votes ARE there, because they have to be (no spending occurrigng unless authorized by Congress) to CTU SPENDING THIS NEXT YEAR. As far as I am concerned, that is the only TEXT of Republicans now. YOU are the ones wo have to AUTHORIZE ALL SPENDING. If you make some kind of "deaL' to avoid the responsibility to CONTROL that spending NOW, then you are TOAST (burned again, as in 2006). Nope. We will not be impressed by some sort of deal on spending "cuts" ten years in the future (that will never happen). We will ot be impressed by some sort of "trade" where you get some action on a "balanced budget amendment" (lol). We will definitely not be impressed by another "deal" where you INCREASE the deficit with more extensioins of unemployment insurance and "payroll tax cuts/holidays".


Yes. The Republican Party is in the balance here, and I am far from confident it can meet the test. So far, it has FAILED. And Eric Cantopr waws right. I was ready to hold HIM, and other Republicans responsible for where those "talks' for yet another "comprehensive deal" were headed. As this blog stated yesterday, it seems unlikely that any "deal" that is not a SHAM can really be made. That means that Republican, if they really want to control spending (which they have the POWER to do), would be better off to fight spending BILL BY BILL. No money can be spent unless Republicans authorize it. Republicans can try to HIDE behind a "deal" but that is the simple truth. That truth may well lhang them.


You should see why I CRINGE every tie a Republican or conservative talks about a "balanced budget amendment". It is like there are 10 seconds left on the clock in a playoff game, and we (the country) are behind. Instead of figuring out a play to score a toughdown, and win the game, however, we are designing the ideal game plan for NEXT YEAR (when wwe know there will probably be a new coach, new players, and entirely different situation, and our game plan is a mere exeercise in fantasy at this point). Nope. The GAME is THIS NEXT YEAR. If we don't start doing something about spending NOW, there may not be a country left by the time Republicans start getting serious about CURRENT SPENDING.


P.S. No proofreading or spell checking (bad eyesight).