-
Farewell to the Spectator
December 16, 2011 | 8 comments
-
Tentative Praise for Ryan’s New Bipartisan Medicare Plan
December 15, 2011 | 3 comments
-
The Day Ahead: Thursday, December 15
December 15, 2011 | 0 comments
-
Examiner for Romney, National Review Against Gingrich
December 14, 2011 | 39 comments
-
Paul Ryan to Introduce New Medicare Plan with Democrat Ron Wyden
December 14, 2011 | 4 comments
The Spectacle Blog
The House of Representatives failed to approve a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution, 261-165. Only 25 Democrats voted with Republicans to support the amendment.
Four Republicans voted nay: Paul Ryan, Louie Gohmert (TX), Justin Amash (MI) and David Dreier (CA). All four voted no from the right, with Ryan worrying that, in the Washington Post’s words, “the version of the BBA on the floor would have led to larger government.” Dreier voted for a BBA in 1995, but has since realized, again in the WaPo’s words, that “Congress did not need to amend the Constitution in order to balance the budget.”
Dreier is right, which is probably why the vote on the amendment hasn’t drawn too much attention or press coverage.
Update: Here’s Ryan’s statement:
I’m concerned that this version will lead to a much bigger government fueled by more taxes…. Spending is the problem, yet this version of the Balanced Budget Amendment makes it more likely taxes will be raised, government will grow, and economic freedom will be diminished. Without a limit on government spending, I cannot support this Amendment.
And here’s a much longer explanation from Amash:
I appreciate the efforts of leadership and Rep. Bob Goodlatte to improve the version of the balanced budget amendment coming to the House floor. However, I still have serious concerns about how this BBA will function if ratified.
First, its design will cause big spikes and dips in the federal budget, which means it doesn’t sufficiently protect against sudden, dramatic tax hikes and doesn’t lend itself to long-term policy making. This BBA would not permit multi-year averaging of revenues to smooth out the curve, not even through separate implementing legislation.
Second, it allows a simple majority (of the whole) to authorize unlimited deficit spending whenever the country is in a military conflict. Fortunately, the revised version limits deficit spending to the extent required for the specific military conflict.
Third, the balance requirement takes effect five years after ratification, with no gradual phase-in. The way Congress works, it’s unlikely that serious efforts at spending reform will occur until the last minute. With the balance requirement looming, Members of Congress will feel immense pressure simply to raise taxes (massively) to avoid violating the Constitution, or, perhaps more likely, the BBA will be ignored.
Amending the Constitution is a serious matter with monumental implications. I support a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution, but it’s critical that we do this the right way and not just to make a political statement.
View all comments (17) | Leave a comment
More Blog Posts by Joseph Lawler
http://spectator.org/blog/2011/11/18/balanced-budget-amendment-fail
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
PattyMor| 11.18.11 @ 2:58PM
WWBT? Or what was Boehner thinking? A BBA without spending caps is just a receipe for massive tax increases. I dunno, but Boehner operates more like Speaker Bonehead. Nothing important is going to get passed through Harry Reid's Senate. Read that NOTHING productive or useful. So our mission is to make Harry Reid irrelevant by defeating the Senate Dems up for reelection. So all you conservatives, get busy and support a conservative for the Senate. No money? then volunteer.
Rogue Elephant| 11.18.11 @ 3:59PM
Boehner has gotta go. At best, he's an weepy and incompetent nitwit; at worst, he's a corrupt establishment apparatchik who is hostile to liberty and limited government.
aware| 11.19.11 @ 4:31PM
Never trust a man that blubbers in front of other men.
rn| 11.18.11 @ 3:10PM
Agreed PattyMor. But we also have to dump the current Republican leadership in the House. An an absolute minimum, dump Boehner and Rep. Eric Cantor.
Say, where is Mike Pence? What happened to him? Tea Party patriots and conservatives need to be openly, publicly, weekly debating who will assume the leadership in the U.S. House of Representatives.
Otherwise I will personally launch OBO, otherwise known as Occupy Boehner's Office. 24/7 sit in. Call 212-244-3452 to join us or help by sending food.
conservative bob| 11.18.11 @ 4:12PM
Our governmen routinely ignores the Constitution, so exactly what purpose does a BBA serve? Well crafted or not.
Martin Owens| 11.18.11 @ 11:20PM
You are completely correct- California has a legally and ( state) constitutionally mandated requirement to balance its budget. And the politicians ignored it, or lied their way around it. And it continues. The Federal government would be no different.
Lesser Weevil| 11.18.11 @ 4:30PM
The BBA is just a cynical ruse to fool us rubes out here in the "base." Good for Ryan, Dreier, Gohmert and Amash.
Al Adab| 11.18.11 @ 4:44PM
Simple answer is the same old story: Too many Republicans and not enough Conservatives.
Yet they expect us to follow Romney. Why would we?
RJ| 11.18.11 @ 5:13PM
The Balanced Budget Amendment was so full of holes that it wouldn't have been a challenge for the courts to ignore it. This is not a setback for the conservative movement. Instead, the Balanced Budget Amendment was a deflection of reform energy. As for John Boenher and his ill - they remind me of the losers who played basketball against the Harlem Globetrotters; always looking away from the ball so that the Globetrotters could make fools of them. The Boehners of the GOP get rolled on every play and I have come to the conclusion that they are happy with the way things are. They need to be removed from leadership positions.
arch| 11.19.11 @ 12:00AM
arch says
23 democrats see no use in balancing the national budget with our hard earned tax dollars! What kind of national representatives do we have?
aware| 11.19.11 @ 4:39PM
I never saw a bandit gang operate any other way. You just suffer with illusion you can get a member or members of the gang to be your champion against the activities of the gang they profit from.
arch| 11.19.11 @ 12:02AM
Arch says
Why would anyone want to balance the budget when all the congressmen get rich off it? We have a problem here that needs addressing!
martin j smith| 11.19.11 @ 8:09AM
Get rid of Boehner and McConnell. We need new leadersip ( not leadershit )
Oldefarte| 11.19.11 @ 1:57PM
Although I agree in principle/theory with the BBA, same simply is not the solution IMHO because it would require far too much time/expense to accompolish. If passed, it would require ratification by the states which could take ages timewise, if at all possible. The simple solution is to vote for, to elect and to hold their legislative feet to the fire CONSERVATIVE REPUBLICANS to congress and to the WH, which to me is more doable and far quicker/expedient. The tea party is the crux of this solution, and if its present size/membership can be expanded/funded with a continuation of its core principle of electing conservatives [and also to constant monitoring of those elected conservatives once they are installed in DC and become under to political influence of the Pilosis/Reids/Schumers/Durbins etc], that to me is the answer to eliminating this governmental defecit/debt problem that we now have!!!!
Tenn Slim| 11.20.11 @ 8:28AM
Balancing the Budget via a Constitutional amendment looks good in the MSM press. Common sense tells us that the process alone would garantee a USSAR state long before any positive result would come about.
Semper FI
Andy | 11.20.11 @ 10:43PM
MOV to MPEG Mac,
MOV to MPG Mac,
vb| 11.21.11 @ 6:44AM
Maybe putting this to the vote was a good idea to make people think of the reality of such an amendment. I've seen lots of blog commenters who seem to assume that support for a BBA was proof of their conservative creds. It is a lot simpler than crunching the numbers require for real budget cuts.