Senate rejects 2 balanced budget amendments, including one by Se. Orrin Hatch

Return To Article
Add a comment
    Dec. 15, 2011 5:09 p.m.

    What has Senator Hatch honestly done in 36 years of being in the Senate? Honestly we gripe about career politicians , yet we here in Utah support them over and over again. Good night, 36 years is a dictatorship. Come home Senator Hatch, we don't want a Strom Thurmond back in DC representing us.

  • cjb Bountiful, UT
    Dec. 15, 2011 6:37 a.m.

    Government borrowing during bad economic times is a good thing, (assuming there is no rainy day fund which is even better). It helps to keep money circulating and the government assistence to the un-employed helps them to keep eating and a roof over their head.

    Our problem is that we borrow and borrow, no matter what the economic climate is, good or bad. Then we have to pay interest on this borrowed money forever and ever because we never pay it back.

  • lost in DC West Jordan, UT
    Dec. 15, 2011 5:18 a.m.

    the repubs DID try budget reform, and Paul Ryan put forth a plan that would not only balance the budget, but eventually pay off the debt. I beleive the house even passed it, the demogague party had a field day politically and disingeguously attacked them for so doing. They lied about repubs wanting to throw granny over the cliff. they were more concerned about restoring queen nancy as speaker than they were about the good of the country.

    Of course, as I said, it never came to a vote in the senate.

  • Tekakaromatagi Dammam, Saudi Arabia
    Dec. 14, 2011 11:07 p.m.

    They don't need a balanced budget amendment, they need some backbone.

  • Anon 808 Waianae, HI
    Dec. 14, 2011 10:23 p.m.

    I am a huge fan of SE. Orrin Hatch. Both his body of work in the U.S. Senate and his Music writing Ability.

    Mr favorites are the Songs he wrote for Ms. Knight on her Many Different Roads CD. As a matter of fact I am going to play that CD Now.

  • David Centerville, UT
    Dec. 14, 2011 10:18 p.m.

    Look at human nature, and in particular the nature of congress, and I believe that a constitutional amendment requiring a balanced budget will be required to force congress to do its job.

    If there is not law requiring it, then it will not happen.

    If we keep doing the same thing, hoping for a different result, we are fools. Congress has shown that they cannot balance a budget. Forecasts show $1 Trillion annual deficits, indefinitely.

    A balanced budget amendment is required. Perhaps these weren't written well, and most likely we don't have the right people in congress to pass it anyway. But we the people should put people in congress that will get this passed. America needs it.

  • DN Subscriber Cottonwood Heights, UT
    Dec. 14, 2011 9:31 p.m.

    A Balanced Budge Amendment is a waste of time as politicians would find some way to weasel around it anyway. And, it would not take effect for 5 or more years.

    What is needed is different people in Congress, who will actually cut spending (real spending, not just reduce the rate of growth!) and refuse to pass appropriations bills that bust the budget.

    And, we need Senators and Senate leadership who will get off their sorry posteriors and pass a budget (even unbalanced) which they have failed to do for more than 2 1/2 years despite a statutory requirement to do so!

    Hatch has been talking about cutting spending but has failed to do so. Time for him to join ex-Senator Bennett in the unemployed line. Mike Lee may or may not have the courage to do what needs to be done on spending, but we must wait and see.

    If spending is not cut in the next 12-24 months, our nation is doomed! If, it is not already too late.

  • atl134 Salt Lake City, UT
    Dec. 14, 2011 7:54 p.m.

    @lost in DC
    "if the house wrote a balanced budget, clown prince harry would not allow the senate to vote on it, and if by some miracle it passed the senate, BO would veto it. "

    Then at least they would have tried. Fact is Republicans don't really want a balanced budget because they know the minute they propose one, the American people will throw them out of office with the draconian cuts it would entail (I assume they'd continue to refuse to raise taxes). So they play off of the people who actually believe the Republicans want a balanced budget, make a token gesture that they know won't pass, and then rake in votes for doing absolutely nothing. If I were a Republican I'd be offended and demand any representative, senator, or presidential candidate who wants a balanced budget amendment to outline how, if they could get 100% of what they'd want, they would balance it. None of them will do that.

  • lost in DC West Jordan, UT
    Dec. 14, 2011 7:32 p.m.

    Clinton NEVER balanced the budget.
    gross federal debt 1992 - 4,001,787
    1993 - 4,351,044 - Increase of 349,257
    1994 - 4,643,307 - Increase of 292,263
    1995 - 4,920,586 - Increase of 277,279
    1996 - 5,181,465 - Increase of 260,879
    1997 - 5,369,206 - Increase of 187,741
    1998 - 5,478,189 - Increase of 108,983
    1999 - 5,605,523 - Increase of 127,334
    2000 - 5,628,700 - Increase of 23,177

    you CANNOT have a surplus when gross federal debt is increasing

    the last time gross federal debt decreased was in 1969 (Nixon was president)

    But you can see that the deficits decreased when the repubs had the congress; they were largest the first two years when dems had the congress.

    Bush had large deficits, but they were larger in 2007-8 when the dems had the congress than in 2001-6 when repubs had it. Of course, they pale in comparison to BO's MASSIVE deficits.

    if the house wrote a balanced budget, clown prince harry would not allow the senate to vote on it, and if by some miracle it passed the senate, BO would veto it.

  • The_Kaiser Holladay, UT
    Dec. 14, 2011 7:21 p.m.

    If Congress hadn't handed over the right to the Federal Reserve its own Constitutional Privilege of controlling the money supply, there would be no need for a balanced budget amendment.

    If we hadn't decided to leave the gold standard and use a baseless fiat currency that has no intrinsic value, we wouldn't have to worry about a balanced budget amendment.

    I am about as fiscally conservative as it gets, but to every time there is a season. In our lives, we accumulate debt for college, then pay it off as soon as we receive a good job.

    There may be circumstances to which a government may spend more than they make. They should be VERY few and far in between.

    I think we need fiscal responsibility without having to make a law out of it, though I don't consider the proposed amendment to be horrible.

  • WHAT NOW? Saint George, UT
    Dec. 14, 2011 6:45 p.m.

    "...Two proposals for balanced budget amendments were doomed by the partisanship that dominates Congress. All but one Republican voted against a Democratic measure, and every Democrat opposed the GOP-backed version...".

    If there is any doubt about who is responsible for the gridlock in DC, look no further than this direct quote taken from this article.

    And people wonder why Congress has earned a generous 12% approval rating.

  • homebrew South Jordan, UT
    Dec. 14, 2011 6:40 p.m.

    The federal government has balanced its budget only six times in the last half century, 4 times was in the Clinton years. Proof that democratic policies do produce balanced budgets. Hatch voted against Clinton every step of the way. Hatch and Lee have No clue how to balance the budget and preserve the social programs preserved by Clinton. You must reduce millitary spending, and raise taxes on the rich. Ther very 2 things both our esteemed senators have pledged not to do. They are clueless. Hatch has been in washington for almost a half of century, and voted against Clinton every time. Clueless.

  • JustGordon Cottonwood Heights, UT
    Dec. 14, 2011 6:38 p.m.

    This proposed amendment was a bad idea. It would do nothing but hamstring future governments in the time of crisis requiring them to balance the budget when the economic well being or physical safety of the republic was in doubt. It would require the government, since it could not mint/create money to borrow money in another currency. This is exactly what several European nations are not facing and the core of the problem Europe has with the euro as currency.

  • KM Cedar Hills, UT
    Dec. 14, 2011 6:35 p.m.

    You people over there live within a budget and don't spend more than you take in. As for infinity and beyond. I'm not understanding the resistance to a balanced budget ammendment? Is this a bad thing?

  • atl134 Salt Lake City, UT
    Dec. 14, 2011 6:34 p.m.

    If they really wanted a balanced budget they could just write one up right now. They don't want one though so instead they're just going to have fruitless votes on symbolic gestures that in reality mean nothing.

    Dec. 14, 2011 6:12 p.m.

    This amendment is an unnecessary distraction from the peoples work. It should not require a constitutional amendment for congress to do its job. Even if it where to pass it would take years to be ratified. it is time to stop stalling and get back to work Hatch, if you and the rest of congress are incapable of controlling yourselves then step aside.