Interesting Balance Budget Amendment RSS article forwarded today

C: Thoughts on the balanced budget amendment push? I’m personally against it at a visceral level, and with some thought as well. I think it is largely a push for political cover to allow elected officials to save some face when they have to make hard choices about entitlements. (And other reasons as well.) In any case, I think the unintended consequences of it are very real and dangerous, and this article states many of them clearly.

To be sure, I understand the apparent intransigence of elected folks over many years to govern in a fiscally sound manner–both Republican and Democrat. That doesn’t mean you have to take the priviledge away. I think a more sound public discourse is needed. Something beyond sound byte journalism and 10 second video clips. That is probably hard in a climate of “reality” TV and stardom worship, but I think this is something we have to work our way back to. It probably starts with families and education.

There is a paradox in the position of the “tea party” conservatives that has so far escaped much comment. On the one hand, they think the country would be better off if we governed ourselves according to the principles of the Founders and the Constitution, from which the tea partiers think we have departed drastically. On the other hand, they favor an amendment to the Constitution requiring a balanced budget. Such an amendment, however, would not simply add to the work of the founders; it would positively undo part of it. For the Constitution, as it stands and as the Founders crafted it, empowers the Congress to “borrow money on the credit of the United States.” The Founders, evidently, intended that the government be capable of incurring debt.

…….


Moreover, an inability to borrow would not only hamstring the government in responding to grave public evils; it might also prevent the government from seizing positive opportunities that could produce public benefits for generations. America might, at some point, have a chance to purchase some valuable new territory, perhaps rich in natural resources, that will enhance the nation’s prosperity. Such a purchase, however, might require an immediate transfer of money that would be impossible without the ability to borrow.


via The Balanced Budget Amendment: What Would Hamilton Say? by Carson Holloway on the website Public Discourse

M responded to this request for thoughts on a Balanced Budget Amendment with his top of mind thoughts

M:
Full disclosure:

1. I have not yet read the article, but will this evening or in the morning
2. Until this moment, I have been a die-hard proponent of the Balanced Budget Amendment (with one exception, which I will begin with below).

Historically, my one objection to the BBA has been that I think it might guarantee tax increases and/or leave us undefended. When Congress is unable to make the hard decisions to cut entitlements under a Balanced Budget Amendment mandate, it will resort to defense cuts or tax increases “because the 28th Amendment forced us to do it”. I can promise you that when asked if he’d rather get his government check or have the latest super weapon, one is going to look no more beyond his own living room and say, “screw the stealth helicopter, gimme my dam’ check.” So defense will go by the wayside. However, you could probably cut defense to its 1930 levels and still not balance the budget. Therefore it seems to me that the BBA could be a green light for “mandatory revenue increases”, which is code for tax hikes.

Now, given that having a line of credit is both desirous (even for the most fiscally austere) and embedded within First Principles of the Constitution (OK, I lied – I glanced at the first paragraph of the article), I would propose a modified Balanced Budget Amendment in which continued fiscal irresponsibility would kick in a BBA mechanism that would required future budgets be balance until such time that the total debt is below a trigger point (some percentage of GDP or what have you). That way, you wouldn’t have to tax the hell out of people or completely defund vital (and Constitutionally necessary) programs if we got into a shooting war or have some major series of disasters, etc. But I do believe that we have the better part of a century of data points indicating that our government, and an increasing number of the electorate, cannot be trusted to tow the line when it comes to the fiscal health of the nation.

Now, I may need to change my tune some once I read and research what is presented below. Stand by.

T: So as I stand by for some more thoughts on the Balanced Budget Amendment, what do you think about this possible amendment to the constitution? Worth it or just smoke and mirrors to save an elected official’s ass?

M: BLS Unemployment Rate = ‘blah blah blah’

When we’re told the unemployment rate drops a tenth of a point or whatever they’re saying today, that’s based on the number of people looking for jobs. But what if they give up and don’t re-file for unemployment? What if they’ve now moved from (potential) workforce to welfare cases? As Bloomberg reports:

“The jobless rate declined as 193,000 people left the labor force and the number of unemployed dropped by 156,000. The share of the eligible population holding a job declined to 58.1 percent, the lowest since July 1983.”

Isn’t that last statistic really the one we need to be looking at?

C:

Many commentators have argued that fiscal stimulus has largely failed not because it was misguided, but because it was not large enough to fight a “Great Recession.” But, in a “Great Contraction,” problem number one is too much debt. If governments that retain strong credit ratings are to spend scarce resources effectively, the most effective approach is to catalyze debt workouts and reductions.

http://www.project-syndicate.org/commentary/rogoff83/English

I don’t think happy thoughts by the BLS will help much.

T:

Clearly the unemployment rate is not without fault, one really needs to understand what each ratio truly means and how we ‘foot’ to the current population number. If anyone out there can provide clear instruction on how to do this, I would like to hear from you.

Earlier this month, Governor Jan Brewer sat in the Oval Office with President Barack Obama to discuss the critical issue of border security. The Governor personally related to the President the concerns of millions of Arizonans over the lack of security on Arizona’s southern border. During their visit, President Obama committed to present details, within two weeks of their meeting, regarding his plans to commit National Guard troops to the Arizona border and commit to spend $500 million in additional funds on border security.

Arizona Governor Jan Brewer Website

If you had $15.6 septillion and 94 cents in your account, would you save the world from the economic crisis or build a Death Star, destroy the world, and move on to invade the galaxy?

And if the construction firm set up shop in Connecticut, Chris Dodd could probably have gotten the funds appropriated!

Yes, that’s a whooping 1.4 trillion times the current US Debt. Or a sightly more meaningful number: 124 trillion years of war in Iraq.

Limbaugh has recently added an “Obama’s teleprompter told him to say…” facet to his on-air schtick.  Just a few moments ago he revealed that Obama’s teleprompter even has its own blog!

Go meet ‘TOTUS‘ and see what he has to say.

Here is Barak Obama’s Teleprompter’s Blog homepage – http://baracksteleprompter.blogspot.com/.

Mrs. Clinton was over in Geneva today meeting with the Soviets…er, I mean Russians.  As a symbol of The Admnistration’s desire to begin anew our relationship with them, she used a prop and tactic that would embarrass the most worthless political hack: she gave the Soviet…I mean Russian (sorry I keep making that mistake) Foreign Minister a plastic Office-Depot-Easy-Button-

Credit : http://www.apfn.org

Congress just passed a $700 billion “stimulus” package less than two weeks ago.

Today, the headlines read that the House just passed a $410 billion spending bill and that Obama is preparing a $634 billion health care fund.  All of this on top of Obama’s bold statement that he’ll cut the deficit in half by 2013.

How?

Well, you obviously know how.  What needs to be re-focused is Obama’s historical position on the concept of taxes, socialsim, and the purpose of government in general.  And we can get that from Dreams of My Father.  Allow me to point you to a posting from National Review…from AUGUST 2008 (i.e., plenty of time before the election to wake the voting public up).  I also encourage you to read the Investors Business Daily article this post references.

http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=NGZiMGZlNGRiOWJjYzE5OTEwMWEwZWZhOTQzZjVjMTY=

“…high taxes are morally and practically good, if the government then uses them to provide for the people. How high should the tax rates be?  ”Theoretically,” he wrote, “there is nothing that can stop the government from taxing 100% of income so long as the people get benefits from the government commensurate with their income which is taxed.”  Yes, you read it: a 100% tax rate is fine.  Obama Sr. continued, ” It is a fallacy to say there is a limit (to tax rates), and it is a fallacy to rely mainly on individual free enterprise to get the savings.”

The real betrayal of Specter, Collins, and Snowe

posted at 11:15 am on February 16, 2009 by Ed Morrissey

I have one last thought on the Porkulus events from last week.  This weekend, Mitch and I took a lot of calls on the passage of Porkulus, with many demanding some retribution for Senators Arlen Specter, Olympia Snowe, and Susan Collins.  Usually, both Mitch and I advise against revenge on defector votes.  We both agree that a big-tent party has to have room for some disagreement, and the only way to get to a majority again in Congress is to build a large enough coalition to take charge.  Purity drives lower our numbers and our ability to influence policy.

This, however, is a different matter.  First, the Republicans need to re-establish credibility as the party of fiscal responsibility, and supporting Porkulus is antithetical to that effort.  No matter how big a tent the Republicans need to pitch, they still need to stand for core values — and among them should be fiscal responsibility and smaller government for greater individual liberty.  Porkulus fails on both counts, which is why the House GOP maintained a solid wall of opposition to it.  Specter, Snowe, and Collins apparently don’t share those values.

But in this case, the betrayal goes beyond core values.  Despite Barack Obama’s demagoguery earlier in the week, many Republicans wanted a big stimulus package to come out of Congress as quickly as possible.  Given the chance, Republican partnership would have produced a bill with less long-term spending, more short-term spending, better tax cuts, and a huge reduction in the health-care bureaucracy that comprised almost half of Porkulus. Such a bill would have easily received a hundred Republican votes or more in the House and may have passed on acclamation in the Senate, and it would have sent a message of unity in a time of economic crisis.

In order to get that, Republicans had to shut down Porkulus.  It would have forced Democrats to negotiate with Republicans and get the better bill to Obama’s desk.  All we needed was Republicans to stand firm in the service of their fellow Republicans and to defy Nancy Pelosi’s triumphalism.  The House did its job, as did most of the Republicans in the Senate, even while saying that they would support a real stimulus package.  Instead, Specter, Collins, and Snowe essentially stabbed their colleagues in the back — while Specter whined about the lack of debate on the bill, after he voted for cloture and an end to debate.

That was the real betrayal.

What can the Republicans do to the Porkulus 3?  Not much, really.  The GOP needs them to offer an illusory chance at filibustering legislation, although their failure to filibuster something as bad as Porkulus more or less exposes that as an empty threat.  Republicans need to find credible primary opponents for these three, even if it means losing the seats, because after Porkulus it appears they’re already lost.

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601039&refer=columnist_mccaughey&sid=aLzfDxfbwhzs

“One new bureaucracy, the National Coordinator of Health Information Technology, will monitor treatments to make sure your doctor is doing what the federal government deems appropriate and cost effective. The goal is to reduce costs and “guide” your doctor’s decisions”

In other words, if you’re 60 years old with diabetes, you may just have to live with it instead of getting treatment.  And if you’re 80 with heart disease?  Well, we’ll be sure to send flowers to the funeral.

Especially that last word – TEMPORARY.  Conceptually, this Democrat has it right.  We need to figure out how to put some weight behind his proposal (I admit I have not read it, but if the article is accurate, it’s the preferable solution, compare to Porkulus.)

http://www.dcexaminer.com/opinion/Blue-Dog-nips-Obama-with-a-better-stimulus-idea-39358182.html#comments