Will all the anti-incumbent posters please at least read the headline before
posting: "Sen. Orrin Hatch sponsors balanced-budget amendment for 17th
time" In other words, he has been fighting through out his career for a
balanced budget. For all you ardent supporters of Senator Lee, he is an
incumbent now, where is the balanced budget?As for the supposed
votes for unbalanced budgets, we will see if Senator Lee votes against every
single budget once it is hammered out. After the battle at some point a budget
needs to be passed and the work of the people moved forward. You do what you
can. But I will give Senator Lee another month or two to balance the budget. Get the picture? Words are cheap. Getting tough things done in
Washington when you are only one of one hundred senators in half of the
legislative branch of a tri-branch government is a tall order, not to mention
fighting a huge bureaucracy with almost unstoppable momentum and tens of
millions of entitlement recipients who represent a powerful voting block. Ok, I'll give Senator Lee a whole year to solve this problem. Good luck
with that one!
Balanced budget and flag burning - Hatch's proposed legislation are the Susan
Lucci of Congress.
I'll never believe Hatch on this one. He has proposed a lot of spending on
programs over the years as well as support for budgets with huge deficits. It
is easy to preach balanced budgets, but when he has been in charge, he never
followed through. This is a game.
"I'd like to propose that conservatives stop saying they support balanced
budgets until they show the math on how they would balance said budget."Fair enough, but I think liberals should stop saying they support more
spending until they show the math on how they would pay for it.Let
both side show us the math, and then we can decide once and for all if we want
higher taxes, less spending, or a combination of both, instead of always using
the less taxes and more spending option. Right now the one option that shouldn't
be an option is the only one that is ever used.
'Pagan also ignores whitehouse projections that BO will increase gross federal
debt more in 3 years than bush did in 8.' - lost in DC | 7:24 p.m. Jan. 25, 2011
Ah, so we should be upset about what is PROJECTED to happen. Not what actually has. *'Bush Administration Adds $4
Trillion To National Debt' - Posted by Mark Knoller - CBSNews - 03/04/10 Line:'With no fanfare and little notice, the national debt has
grown by more than $4 trillion during George W. Bush's presidency.'
I'm not saying the debt won't go higher. But the comparison of 25% to previous
presidents who added 300% to the debt makes this comparison moot.
Every president since 1910 has added debt to the nation. Why the
sudden outcry now? Because we can't 'afford it?' Then
explain your compliance about debt the last 100 years.
I'd like to propose that conservatives stop saying they support balanced budgets
until they show the math on how they would balance said budget.
Sorry Ernest T. Bass - Clinton never proposed a balanced budget amendment. It
was a GOP controlled Senate that came within one vote of passing a BBA in 1996.
66-34. It was introduced by the guy you say was opposed to it - Orrin Hatch.
It wasn't even an election year for him DN subscriber. I don't think he
believes he can pass it this Congress - I think he is setting the table for the
next Congress when the GOP may have as many as 55 members and a bunch of Dems
looking over their shoulder. The Dems have to defend 23 seats in 2012 and the
GOP only 12 and in 2014 the Dems have to defend 20 seats and the GOP 13. By
2015 the place could have 60-40 GOP advantage and I think Hatch believes at that
point he could get the BBA through. Setting the table and getting ready for the
Why was Hatch opposed to a balance budget ammendment when Clinton suggested
it?Hatch is the worst hypocrit in politics.
You've been in the senate HOW MANY years and this was never important until now?
You're legacy is imbedded with the congress of the last 30 years.As
someone who voted for you in the past- I think you and your colleagues failed
me, my kids, and their kids. You thought of your own party and NOT of
America.I hope to see new ideas and real leadership help America but
it is going to take decades if at all.
newslover - when? 1836?ST, don't be too hard on Pagan. Pagan
doesn't understand that it gets harder to double the higher you get. Pagan also
ignores whitehouse projections that BO will increase gross federal debt more in
3 years than bush did in 8. He came within the price of a Pelosi junket home of
doing it in 2 years. Of course, with a repub congress, he might actually be held
somewhat in check this year.
Old news... Dems already passed a balanced budget. What everyone want to know?
Will Jon Huntsman run for Hatch's senate seat?
Hey, Orrin, you've been there for decades, voting for more and more spending,
and increasing the debt limit every time.Now, you want an amendment
that says we should not do all that.Why not just man up and stop the
spending? Instead, you hide behind an amendment which may never
pass, and has no enforcement teeth.Yup, typical politician, lots of
talk but he won't actually make the tough choices. But, at least he
is starting to talk like he is a conservative again--- must be an election year.
"BBA provisions for any fiscal year when the U.S. is at war or engaged in
significant military conflict.""Significant Military
Conflict" is about as wide open and vague as "Necessary and
Proper." It should be limited to when the U.S. is at war, officially
declared by Congress pursuant to their Constitutional powers. The least we can
do is require that military excursions with no clear purpose be fully funded
under a balanced budget. Then we can force our government to actually have to
chose between sending our troops abroad and other domestic needs. If we actually
need to fight a war to defend our life, liberty, and property, by all means
declare war and go over budget if needs be. But don't stand there and tell me
we're going to spend money we don't have on public works projects for people who
hate our guts, and half of that money will be lining the pockets of corrupt
foreign politicians and our enemies anyway. Is it so much to ask that the money
we waste in the middle east come under a balanced budget?
wow - pagan really has nothing else to do all day that to comment on practically
every single story in the Desnews.
Balaced budget?? HA!!! We will put men on Saturn before that ever happens with
all the Reid/Pelosi types still left in congress.
This is a great idea, but I would propose that exceptions to the balanced budget
rule only be allowed when war is actually declared by Congress.
'Attempting to curb a national deficit that has grown 25 percent in just the
last two years, Sen. Orrin Hatch recently rolled out a constitutional
balanced-budget amendment (BBA).' - Article Wow. That sounds
'really' bad. George W. Bush took our national debt from $5 trillion
to $10 trillion, almost doubling it. Ronald Regan took the national
debt from $1 trillion to $3 trillion. That's tripling it. That's a
200% and 300% addition to the national debt. I will admit, it is
good that Hatch wants to curb the debt. He's been wildly
'successful' at that job for the last 35 years, since 1976. I was
born in 1978.