Conceptually, I am good with a Balanced Budget Amendment. As long as
it also applies to the spending on Wars of Choice. Under this scenario, Iraq
and Afghanistan would not have happened.
Honestly I don't put much faith in conspiracy theories and ideas that the
political boogieman is behind every door. But the idea of a "limited"
constitutional convention strikes me as laughable. Once convened, it can go
anywhere those attending want. They can agree to stay limited beforehand but
what they do once they get there is a different matter. Be careful!
There is a lot of analysis that a Constitutional Convention could in fact not be
limited to any one particular issue. There is nothing that would prevent
delegates from proposing anything at all. Good grief, a review of the history
of the Articles of Confederation and the attempt to modify them which eventually
led to the Constitutional Convention is itself compelling on this point. If you
love the Constitution, a convention would put it in jeopardy.On the
issue of the budget, JoeBlow makes an excellent point. The military was used
during the Bush years not for the benefit of the United States and our security,
but for the benefit of private interests. We have paid a dear price for that.
We the people were used. Finally, economic theory matters. Despite
the propaganda of the GOP, looking at the past 60+ years, they are the party of
big spending and huge deficits. All you have to do is compare the Clinton era
approach, where a modest tax increase led to balanced budgets and economic
prosperity, immediately followed by Bush, who undid it all and the result was a
severe recession and enormous deficits. There are the real time lab results.
I like what I'm reading here.The Federal Government needs a
wake-up-call. They need to realize that when they sign us up for more debt...
they are signing up many States that don't want to accept that debt (Fiscal
Conservative States). And they should not be cramming stuff like this down
those State's throats without consulting them (or their
representatives).The Constitution clearly expected the Federal
Government to consult the States before making big decisions like this (this
concept was not only in the Federalist Papers).I think this would be
a good approach, and may get us back on the right track (as far a increasing
national debt goes).===Debt is an awful task master.
It's kind when you want the money you don't have... but I would not
want to enslave my family to it. I would not want to enslave my nation to
it.We need to find a way to live within our means (as a nation, and
as a union of individual States).Most State's are not allowed
(by their Constitution) to run a deficit... why does the Federal Government
CONSTANTLY run in deficit mode?
So, the “conservative movement's brain [has a plan] to move the
nation back toward the limited government the Constitution's Framers
thought their document guaranteed.”Actually what the Framers
thought the US Constitution guaranteed was a central government much STRONGER
than the one that preceded it under the Articles of Confederation, and
that’s exactly what they gave us. But “Conservatives” insist
on undercutting the Founder’s great legacy.The Great Right
Wing Hive Mind is proposing a Balanced Budget Amendment, that would be a
disaster for the nation . . . A BBA replete with a whole bunch of tricky text
that Republican Congressmen can hide behind as they serve their plutocratic
masters.Aside from enriching plutocrats at the expense of everyone
else, the biggest problem is that a BBA strips the government of its ability to
move quickly.When an asteroid hits Provo, will FEMA have to wait
for approval from southern Tea Party Congressmen before it can act?Like most things “Conservative,” a BBA is a bad idea, although it
will inevitably further enrich the rich at the expense of everyone else.That’s the “Conservative solution” to everything.
So a few conservatives are all excited about an entirely impractical and
unworkable solution to a non-existent problem. Since this is never going to
happen, I put this in the category of 'fantasy daydreams.' Hey, I
have a few of those myself.
That's fine by me George, BUT2 problems with that...1. Presidents who start stupid wars of agression on foreign nations
based on lies, mis-truths, and phony baloney.2. You will NEVER get
it passed due to our Government officals being managed and controlled by bribery
by Corporations -- and who are 100% dependant on Corporate Welfare.
Re: ". . . compare the Clinton era approach, where a modest tax increase led
to balanced budgets and economic prosperity, immediately followed by Bush, who
undid it all . . . ."Are liberals are still peddling this
thoroughly discredited historical newspeak? Every responsible historian agrees,
Clinton's massive tax increase singlehandedly killed off the Reagan surge,
leaving President Bush with a serious recession, that was only undone by --
cutting Clinton's unsustainable taxes.Given such liberal
perfidy, and the Obama regime's proven history of contempt for the
Constitution and rule of law, most conservatives are extremely wary of giving
liberals any opportunity to carve in stone the illegal mischief wrought over the
Obama years. It's the reason we fear the calling of a convention.The better approach is, of course, to defeat, once and for all, a weakened,
desperate liberal mob. The philosophy underlying liberal lunacy has never
attracted more than a tiny minority of American voters. It's only their
cynical, unethical, tax-funded vote-buying that has sustained the liberal
movement well past its dotage.Election of conservatives representing
real America, not machine politics, would dry up liberals' source of bribe
procuradorfiscal,Just to be clear, there are machine politics in
both liberal and conservative circles (depends on the region). You get the same
thing. Folks interested in getting reelected vs. doing their job. Each have
their pet issues and projects. Each has no problem with bending the federal
govt. to their will because, after all, they are right.
Re: "Just to be clear, there are machine politics in both liberal and
conservative circles . . . ."Au contraire. Machine politicians
are, by definition, not conservative. While machine politics are certainly at
work in both major parties, that doesn't prove conservatives embrace
machine politics.Real conservatives are interested in preserving,
conserving the Constitution and American rule of law. To machine politicians, of
any political stripe, such conservation is a matter of surpassing
indifference.They are, by definition, concerned with establishing a
regime to win and exercise political power. That scoundrels dedicated to machine
politics may call themselves conservative, does not make them so.To
illustrate, Carl Rove is no more conservative than James Carville. Each is
professionally dedicated, not to living a particular political ideology, but
with exploiting ideology to political advantage. That makes them both
liberals.While conservatives concern themselves with principle and
ideas, liberals like the President and those of his regime, concentrate on means
and methods of gaining and exercising political power.Liberal
purists may convince themselves they act for the greater good, but they're
still concerned, not with preserving the Constitution, but with power.
There's only 2 ways to balance the budget. That's either spend
less... or take in more. or both.HOW you do it doesn't
matter... when all the political shouting is over... you have to do one or the
other or both...Any other way is just smoke and mirrors...
Hey procuradorfiscal - Your recounting of history is from some parallel
Universe . . . Right?Because none of what you descibed happened in
this one . . . Impressive verbosity though.
@procuradorfiscal – “While conservatives concern themselves with
principle and ideas, liberals like the President and those of his regime,
concentrate on means and methods of gaining and exercising political
power.”Wow!! We’re drinking Kool Aid out of
the fire hose today… no sippy cups here.
Procuradorfiscal,You present a "No True Scotsman"
argument.The truth is many of the most staunch Tea Partiers would
gladly have the support of such a machine (those who do not already) in order to
keep them in power forever.
Re: "The truth is many of the most staunch Tea Partiers . . . ."There's your actual "no true Scotsman" argument.The real truth is, most staunch Tea Partiers are pretty doggone hard to
classify into a single group or ideology. Herding them is akin to herding cats.
That's the primary reason Tea Partiers are the target of so many attacks by
political hacks and machine politicians.On all sides.They just won't stay on the liberal plantation and passively do what
those that consider themselves their political taskmasters tell them to do. And,
you can't buy them off with a cynical, disingenuous promise of deranged,
unsustainable mountains of taxpayer dollars being shoveled in their
direction.Unlike way, way too many Democrats and, sadly, even too
Procuardorfiscal,I do not share your optimism that any class of
politicians is immune from the lure of power.
Sounds good but I'm not sure the American people are ready for the
reprecussions. (Cuts to defense spending, domestic programs or whatever
political hue you are etc.) It all seems fine when we think about cuts to
others political priorities until it hits one of ours. Heck, the Republicans
and Democrats both whine about modest sequestration cuts already.
@procuradorfiscal"While machine politics are certainly at work in both
major parties, that doesn't prove conservatives embrace machine
politics."They're addicted to Koch.
This is about the stupidest proposal I have ever seen come out of a think tank.
Article VI of the Constitution says that debts from before the adoption of the
Constitution will continue to be valid after the Constitution. That seems to
say that national debt in our day is also valid under the constitution.
However, I doubt that includes national debt that we have no intention or
ability of ever repaying. I don't see anything in the Constitution that
legalizes such thievery.