-
The Perfect Storm
May 17, 2013 | 0 comments
-
The Perfect Storm: Feb. 2006
May 17, 2013 | 0 comments
-
A President Loses His Power
May 3, 2013 | 102 comments
-
Murder in the Old Dominion
April 2, 2013 | 136 comments
-
The Only Prophylactic Against Voter Fraud
March 16, 2013 | 0 comments
The Tax and Spend Spectator
(Page 2 of 2)
But that agreement did not stipulate which BBA would be voted on in the House or Senate. If one body passes an amendment with the requisite two-thirds, then the other body must vote on the same wording. Otherwise, the House might vote on one amendment and the Senate a different one.
There is a growing agreement among conservatives that the best vehicle for both chambers is what is known as the “Senate consensus amendment” because every single Republican senator, from Maine to Alaska, has cosponsored this amendment. Now, anything with the words “Senate” and “consensus” in the title usually shouts, “lowest common denominator” and “not worth the candle.” But the earth’s axis has shifted. The Senate Republican “consensus” is the toughest of all the amendments being considered. It requires a three-fifths vote to borrow money, a two-thirds vote to increase taxes, limits total federal spending to 18 percent of GDP (we are now at 25 percent), and forbids the federal courts from using the amendment to force tax hikes to balance the budget.
The robust “consensus” amendment is sponsored by every single Republican in the Senate, with chief sponsors being Utah senators Mike Lee and Orrin Hatch and Kentucky senator Rand Paul. In the House the robust amendment is cosponsored by Illinois congressman Joe Walsh and Virginia’s Robert Goodlatte.
The main alternative is the weak amendment that requires a BBA without any limit on spending or the taxing power of Congress. There are two other ideas that have great appeal but are not viewed as options this go-around. Michigan congressman Justin Amash’s amendment limits federal spending to the average of the last three years’ spending. California congressman Tom McClintock’s amendment would simply forbid Congress from borrowing money.
For an amendment to win two-thirds of the House and Senate—if it is to pass this Congress—it must garner the votes of all 242 House Republicans and all 47 Republican senators, plus 48 Democratic congressmen and 20 Democratic senators. Neither amendment could possibly pass that test. But after the 2012 election and after the 2014 election the odds shift.
THE EMERGING consensus strategy is to put forward the robust amendment with spending and tax limitations already endorsed by 47 senators and now cosponsored by 133 House members. It would receive House Republican votes. Few Democrats could vote for such a strong amendment. All those voting against the “balanced budget” amendment because it limited spending and/or makes tax hikes too difficult would be targets for defeat in 2012. Democrats have 23 Senate seats up in 2012 and 20 up in 2014. Republicans could add to their 47 Senate votes all those they replaced in 2012 and all those they scare with scalps taken in 2012.
Ditto the House drive to get to the magic number of 290.
The key negotiation strategy is developing as follows: Republicans will refuse to change the robust language. They will offer to negotiate with any Democratic amendment that is brought to the table by 20 Senate Democratic cosponsors and 49 House Democratic cosponsors. No watering down the robust amendment in the hope of winning five or 10 or “many” Democrats.
Everyone remembers the game Democrats have played with the BBA in the past, allowing those up for reelection to vote yes, while those like Montana senator Max Baucus—who won election promising to vote for a BBA—vote no when not in cycle. (They play the same musical chairs game in defeating repeal of the death tax.)
Those Republicans who actually expect to pass the amendment this year argue for the watered-down version that would maximize Democratic votes. That, of course, would minimize the number of Democrats who could be defeated in 2012 using the BBA issue and collapse Democratic support in 2013 and beyond.
The drive for a Balanced Budget Amendment remains the quest for the Holy Grail for limited government advocates. But as the penultimate scene in Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade reminds us, there is all the difference in the world between grasping the correct Grail and grabbing the wrong one.
About the Author
Grover G. Norquist is the president of Americans for Tax Reform.
Letter to the Editor View all comments (10) | Leave a comment
More Articles by Grover G. Norquist
More Articles From The Tax and Spend Spectator
http://spectator.org/archives/2012/01/14/a-balanced-budget-consensus
Follow us:
ADVERTISEMENT
SPONSORED LINKS
FLASHBACK TO: 1995
-
Pope Culture
A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
-
Why the GOP Does Not, Like, Totally Suck
Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
-
Dames at Sea
-
In the Absence of Guns
In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
-
The Metaphysical Martini
-
Counting the Costs of Clintonism
The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
-
Chuck McHagel
It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
-
The Legacy of Old John and Mother Fresh-Roasted
-
It’s the Best Time of the Year
The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
-
The Bush Crack-Up
Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?
Clip of the Day
ADVERTISEMENT
fmm| 1.28.12 @ 4:30PM
I suggest that the robust amendment be deemed to pass as soon as the GOP takes over a majority of both houses. The dems can't complain since that is right out of their operations manual.
R. E. Portman| 1.29.12 @ 9:42AM
You'd have to do it that way because most Republicans these days don't want a balanced budget either. If they controlled both houses AND the white house, you wouldn't get a balanced budget. Never mind a balanced budget amendment ... you wouldn't even get a balanced budget. Or a serious attempt to balance the budget.
And Norquist wouldn't be pushing for a balanced budget either. He's perfectly happy to push for tax cuts even if they make the deficits worse. Have the spending now, push the pain off onto a future generation. There's nothing Conservative about that.
If Norquist and the rest really cared about balancing the budget, the Constitution as it stands provides everything you need. Our monetary system is unconstitutional. Fix that and you go to the root of the problem.
But they don't care about enforcing what's already in the Constitution, so why should anyone believe they really want a balanced budget amendment? Occasional talk about a balanced budget amendment is just political cover for the status quo.
Nothing stops them from doing what they claim they want to do, without monkeying around with the Constitution. Nothing at all.
aware| 1.28.12 @ 5:13PM
I just wonder at the naivete of those who believe another amendment would be treated with any more sanctity than the ones already in place.
A president who now assassinates American citizens on foreign shores with no due process, and a congress that just voted to give him the power to do the same domestically, are going to let a "balanced budget amendment" tie their hands when it comes to spending the plundered proceeds of an extortion/protection racket?
I don't think so.
aware| 1.28.12 @ 5:15PM
And by the way, if we just enforced the rest of the constitution we wouldn't have to worry about this.
Bob White | 1.29.12 @ 12:19AM
The simplest solution is this: Total all the borrowing the US gov't does and add that total each year to a running sum kept in a ledger for each member of Congress. As soon as a member's running sum exceeds the total outlays of the US gov't for the present year, he or she is no longer eligible to serve in Congress from any state or district. If Congress runs reasonable deficits (say borrows only 5% of the budget each year, the members can stay in Congress for just over 20 years. If Congress runs a balanced budget, the members may stay in Congress forever. But if they borrow 40 cents out of every dollar, as they do today, they will be gone in 3 years. It's a very simple system.
PattyMor| 1.29.12 @ 7:43AM
If they don't respect the current Constitution (as written and intended), then what would make anyone believe that they would respect a new amendment. I think the corruption is so perverse, that major changes will only come after we collapse. Campaign pledges are "just words".
Bill Hussein O'Stalin| 1.29.12 @ 9:40AM
Campaign pledges are not even words because in fact, they are meaningless.
As you point out a BBA would upset the apple cart inside the beltway and the beltway bandits would have to work for a living. The politically elite can't afford (At your expense) for that to occur.
JJ| 1.29.12 @ 12:53PM
The is a reason that the GOP never talks about firing government workers. They have always lived in fear og getting blamed. Firing federal workers would be entirely blamed on the GOP. Without firing close to 1,000,000 federal workers you can NOT balance the federal budget.
So a balance budget is a fantasy just like a safe border. The politicians will never allow it.
weaverofdreams_2000| 1.29.12 @ 1:14PM
Do some simple math. Firing 1,000,000 federal workers would make but the tiniest of dents in reducing the deficit.
Let's assume, for instance, that each of those 1,000,000 is making an averge of $90,000 per year with benefits (most are making far less than that, but let's use that simply because you likely think all of them are making really big incomes) Eliminating them all would save a "mere" $90 billion dollars. Still $1.2 trillion to go.
Cheers
obadiah| 1.29.12 @ 1:25PM
Citizens United demand that governments stop taxing plutocrats.
Citizens United demand that government give lots of money to plutocrats.
The Republican Party (like the Democratic Party) complies with the demands of Citizens United.
Citizens United is the voice of Constitutionally-protected bribers and it speaks for all Parties.