-
SEQUESTER: The Horror!
March 1, 2013 | 4 comments
-
SOTU Preview: Human Props, Budget Fights, and Wedge Issues
February 12, 2013 | 0 comments
-
Hello, I Must Be Going
August 14, 2012 | 18 comments
-
Weekend Political Wrap-Up, Paul Ryan Edition
August 12, 2012 | 16 comments
-
Esquire Blogger Sees Paul Ryan, Shreds His Safety Net
August 11, 2012 | 13 comments
The Spectacle Blog
I’m inherently skeptical of any political strategy that involves amending the Constitution, especially as a way of dealing with a controversial issue. Republicans frequently use conservative constitutional amendments as a way of looking like they are doing something on an issue they actually plan to do nothing about. So I can’t say I’m terribly impressed by the congressional GOP’s push for a balanced budget amendment.
Some form of balanced budget amendment would be an important structural reform of the country’s fiscal policy, and the amendment being touted by the “Cut, Cap and Balance” Republicans is much tougher than the versions that failed in the 1990s. But to do anything meaningful, a balanced budget amendment would have to be more than voted on. It would have to be approved by two-thirds of Congress and ratified by the states.
That’s a tall order. The Constitution has only been amended 28 times, counting the Bill of Rights (and not counting judicial amendment of the Constitution or the precedents set by a long history of bipartisan unconstitutional activity). If a BBA got close to passing, expect all the demagoguery currently directed at the Ryan plan — which would be unconstitutional under such an amendment — to be thrown at this measure. Nevertheless, a vote on a balanced budget amendment that is either unsuccessful or doesn’t appear likely to be followed by ratification would be a questionable concession in exchange for raising the debt ceiling.
View all comments (16) | Leave a comment
More Blog Posts by W. James Antle, III
http://spectator.org/blog/2011/06/30/is-the-balanced-budget-amendme
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
H/T to National Review Online
ADVERTISEMENT
Teflon93| 6.30.11 @ 10:03AM
It's the Wimpy Strategy---I will gladly pay you Tuesday (NEVER) for a hamburger (DEBT CEILING INCREASE) today.
Republicans will fall for it because they are suckers.
Occam's Tool| 6.30.11 @ 5:18PM
This is not the first time the Dems have done this. They famously did this (tax raise in exchange for non-existent spending cut) to the Yale Phi Beta Kappa George HW Bush and nailed him during his term.
Teflon93| 6.30.11 @ 5:37PM
They did it to Reagan as well. Didn't Clinton pull it with the GOP Congress in 96 or so too?
Same old playbook. Republicans keep watching them score because they don't want to DO anything; merely look like they're trying.
Timothy L. Pennell| 7.1.11 @ 7:34AM
The Balanced Budget Amendment SCHEME, is just that. It's a diversion, put out by CAREER POLITICIANS, on the Republican side, because they're AFRAID to do the HARD WORK. They're AFRAID FOR THEMSELVES, if by drawing a line in the sand, they will be exposed to criticism, instead of being afraid for THIS COUNTRY, and OUR CHILDREN, and OUR CHILDREN'S CHILDREN.
It's never gonna happen. It takes too long. And we don't need it. Just do what we sent you to do.
CUT SPENDING.
If you're not up to the job? We'll find someone who is.
COUNT ON IT!
PattyMor| 6.30.11 @ 10:20AM
Well it all depends on whether you plan to actually follow the true dictates of the Constitution. If not, its just another piece of paper. And you can always hire a raft of lawyers to craft schemes to get around any constraints.
Michael L. Hauschild| 6.30.11 @ 10:44AM
Teflon93 (as usual) has hit the nail on the head. They will give up all for some pie in the sky scribble addendum on the very document they ignore; ignore at their incumbency peril I might add. DeMint said what they needed to hear, "raise the debt ceiling you will not be re-elected."
Clint| 6.30.11 @ 11:46AM
This Is More Big Government Ruling Elite TARP,Too Big To Fail, Quantitative Easing Keynesian Crap.
"If the debt ceiling is not increased, the Treasury can prioritize interest and debt payment to avoid a default and essentially put the government on a stringent pay-as-you-go basis. Would that involve extreme cuts in government spending? Certainly. But it could be done, if it had to.
Let's remember that the Treasury still rakes in quite a bit of money in revenues — it took in $604 billion (seasonally adjusted) in the third quarter of 2010. In FY 2010 the annual debt service was some $414 billion, working out to an average of about $104 billion per quarter. Although the numbers won't be quite the same going forward, the debt service will soak up only about one-sixth of the incoming revenues."
The Tea Party Rebellion Escalates.
Carpe Diem.
Conservative Bob| 6.30.11 @ 11:47AM
What are you carping about why our congressional leaders will soon announce that they have agreed to cut 100-trillion out of the budge between now and the end of FY 2112? Most of the savings will occur in the out years of course.... a modest concession was made to increase taxes on the wealthy redefined as the filthy rich non-union types making more than 35K working in the private sector. The tax portion will take effect immediately.
In other news Pigs were seen flying over the capitol again this morning..
All American American| 6.30.11 @ 11:54AM
NO raising the debt ceiling under ANY circumstances!!!!!
Oldefarte| 6.30.11 @ 12:24PM
Jim, I completely agree with your point of view on this subject. The linkage of the BBA to the debt/defecit debate is IMO stupid and counter-productive. The vital issue is [or should be] to seriously reduce the government's spending/expenses, which if substantially effective quantatively, will lower the nation's debt [and possibly negate the need for raising the debt ceiling in the process]. The BBA is a noble idea but as you state correctly, it would be time consuming and extremely difficult to accompolish. The government simply does not have the time needed for such a lenghty endeaver, as the defecit/debt issue needs to be solved immediately if we are to survive as a nation. If/when same has been successfully accompolished, then possibly political consideration should be given to a BBA proposal, but not now!!!!!!!!!
Al Adab| 6.30.11 @ 12:34PM
Because any BBA would need state ratification it would be a poor trade even if passed by both houses of Congress first. States will never ratify. What needs be is a dollar for dollar reduction in spending congruent with any ceiling increase. One trillion increse, one trillion spending decrease; 100 billion increase, 100 billion spending cut. That would be a fair trade. Get this under control we are dying in the provinces.
David W| 6.30.11 @ 4:31PM
At first I thought it might be a good idea. But then I thought better. An amendment saying anyone over 18 can vote is one thing (simple, can't be screwed with). But I'm afraid that enough weasel words could be add to totally screw the amendment up....
Occam's Tool| 6.30.11 @ 5:13PM
Dear Folks:
As you know, at Midnight tonight, Minnesota goes on government shutdown, unless the state legislature can come to agreement with our governor. (T'is not to affect me, as I am CRITICAL personnel.)
Today, on entering Minnesota on return to Alabama, Cindy and the kids came to a rest stop. It was closed. My wife explained that there was going to be a government shutdown unless the state could get its money in balance. Whereupon my young financial genius (Rebekah) said:
"They're going to be raising taxes on rich people, aren't they? We're going to be paying more in taxes. I don't know why! We didn't spend that money!" [ Incidentally, I haven't received a pay raise since I started work in 2008. I do not forsee a raise until past 2013, if then. I have planned my needs carefully, considering this. OT.]
I tell you, a good child brings shepn nakhes every day. Both my babies do, but I love watching a young intellect get her mind around correct principles.
I hope everyone has a great summer.
RJ| 6.30.11 @ 8:09PM
I am an attorney who has drafted contracts for 25 years. When I reviewed the Balanced Budget Amendment last winter, I was surprised at how loosely it is written. We all know what courts do with clear Constitutional terms that they don't want to follow. The BBA will not be much of a challenge for them to ignore.
jgo| 6.30.11 @ 9:37PM
The trouble is that these "balanced budget amendments" are all extremely easy to game.
I mean, look at the 2nd amendment (of the 12 known as the Bill of Rights), just ratified in the 1990s, requiring an election to intervene between the time of a congressional pay raise being enacted and it going into effect... but the corrupt critters had already nullified it, by enacting automatic raises.
A balanced budget amendment would require an out, an exception for emergencies, like the USA being invaded. They'd just say that if there are more than 20 new illegal aliens entering the USA in a year, it's an "emergency". Or maybe the senate cafeteria runs out of the expensive wine; now THAT's an emergency.
Then you have the percentage of GDP nonsense, or maybe I should write "the percentage of nonsense" nonsense. So, they redefine "GDP" every week and voila, no limitations, let the games continue.
Eliminate the Socialist Insecurity Abomination, National Socialist Health Care Perversion/Obummercare, Medicare, Medicaid, HUD, FHAH, NEAH, CPB, Fannie and Freddie and Sallie. Cut the DoEs. They've already cut and tried to pervert NASA.
What's scaring this American is that they've been refusing to cut these abominations for so long!
Trinacria12| 6.30.11 @ 11:17PM
In the opening scene of The Godfather II, Michael Corleone responds to the corrupt US Senator from Nevada, who had just informed him that he had until the end of the week to consider his offer to approve a casino gaming license in exchange for an up-front bribe and a weekly cut of the profits:
"You can have my answer now, Senator. My offer is this: Nothing. Not even the $25,000 application fee for the gaming license, which I would appreciate you paying for personally." Long story short, Mr. Corleone got his gaming license.
Perhaps the republicans would do well to take a page from the Corleone playbook, here ("You can have our answer now, Mr. President. Our offer is this: Nothing. Not the increase in the debt ceiling, not the tax increases, not even the elimination of the corporate jet tax, which we would personally appreciate you paying for by reductions in government spending...").