Do You Support a Constitutional Amendment That Requres A Balanced Federal Budget?

[classicman2]

Sen. Allen (R/VA) is introducing one on the floor of the U. S. Senate, even as we speak.

[wendersfan]

<b>grundle</b>? :hscratch:

I favor balanced budgets whenever possible, but I also realize they aren't always possible.

[Ranger]

I favor balanced budgets whenever possible, but I also realize they aren't always possible.
agreed.

i probably wouldn't support that bill, but maybe something that will have more teeth in stopping congress from taking money from the ss trust fund to cover up a deficit.

[X]

Deficit spending will always be required during a recession. Taxing people more in the same year in order to spend that extra money and keep a balanced budget would be stupid.

Now if the government were to sell off some of its assets in order to raise that money I might be interested.

[Ranger]

I seriously doubt the government has enough assets on hand to help lower the deficit.

even if it somehow manages to erase the deficit, the deficit still is likely to grow again so what then?

[X]

I seriously doubt the government has enough assets on hand to help lower the deficit. Perhaps you don't realize the land value of some places such as the Presidio in S.F. and the Golden Gate National Recreational Area.

You also may not realize the value of mineral rights on public property.

[RoyalTea]

running a deficit during a recession and a surplus during booms is a good idea. it helps smooth out the peaks and valleys of the economic cycle.

[Ranger]

Perhaps you don't realize the land value of some places such as the Presidio in S.F. and the Golden Gate National Recreational Area.

You also may not realize the value of mineral rights on public property.
Yeah, but at best I think it all would be worth maybe tens or hundreds of billion dollars.

I believe to seriously repair the deficit by selling off assets, the amount would have to be in the trillions of dollars.

[X]

Yeah, but at best I think it all would be worth maybe tens or hundreds of billion dollars.

I believe to seriously repair the deficit by selling off assets, the amount would have to be in the trillions of dollars.I think the government easily has many trillions of dollars of assets and could generate more if it wanted.

[X]

running a deficit during a recession and a surplus during booms is a good idea. it helps smooth out the peaks and valleys of the economic cycle.I agree. However it seems apparent that the government is unable to hold onto a surplus and just increases spending when the money is available. And then they even promise increases in future years based on that higher amount of spending.

With all the money that's tied up in future entitlement spending I'm afraid there won't be any way to have real surpluses while keeping the economy growing. Unless we just fully open the borders to young immigrants.

[classicman2]

If you Repubs could get your party to accept PayGo, that would be a big help.

It's not going to happen. Therefore, the Republicans need to removed from the complete control of the appropriations and tax process.

[nemein]

It's not going to happen. Therefore, the Republicans need to removed from the complete control of the appropriations and tax process.

As if the Dems can be trusted w/ money :lol: Seriously I think a PayGo type system would be the best thing, I don't think an Amendment would be the right approach and would probably seriously hamper the country in the long run.

[kvrdave]

I wouldn't favor it, but I would favor a line item veto amendment.

[classicman2]

I wouldn't favor it, but I would favor a line item veto amendment.


I don't.

The executive already has (assumed) too much power.

I'll bet you don't want judges legislating from the bench; but, you seem to have no problem with the president legislating. :hscratch:

I assume you've heard of separation of powers?

[kvrdave]

Then don't complain about deficits and pork.

You won't get rid of it any other way. Plain and simple. And if Congress believes the vetoed statue of Robert Byrd should really be funded, they can still override the veto.

[CRM114]

I don't.

The executive already has (assumed) too much power.


Why not? The Congress could override said veto, no?

[classicman2]

Why not? The Congress could override said veto, no?

No.

[classicman2]

Then don't complain about deficits and pork.

You won't get rid of it any other way. Plain and simple. And if Congress believes the vetoed statue of Robert Byrd should really be funded, they can still override the veto.

Why don't you try to respond. If you favor a line-item veto, then you have no problem with judges legislating from the bench.

[JasonF]

I wouldn't favor it, but I would favor a line item veto amendment.

Baby steps, Dave. Let's see if the President can use his regular veto before we hand him the keys to the fancy version.

[nemein]

Why don't you try to respond. If you favor a line-item veto, then you have no problem with judges legislating from the bench.

How does that even compare? The President is already involved in the legislative process via developing agendas, signing blls into law and the power of the veto. Judges are not except in the sense, when needed, of determining whether news laws violate the Constitution, and that's not even a power they have on their own in the sense someone else has to bring up the challenge in order for them to get involved.

[classicman2]

No, he's not involved in the legislative process. He has the constitutional right to accept or veto the legislation. He doesn't have the right to re-write the legislation. He can't say, 'I like this part, but I don't like the other part.' That's the perogative of the congress.

The president doesn't appropriate a dime. With a line-item veto you would, in effect, give him the power to appropriate. Even in congress the authorizing committees do not have the power to appropriate.

Why not just do away with the legislative branch and allow the president to make legislation?

[kvrdave]

10,000 parts to the budget legislation could be brought up as 10,000 items. The president can only sign it or veto it, just as he could if they tried to hide the pork. There is no difference. Your argument would not hold if there were a constitutional amendment to make congress bring up separate legislation for each expenditure, so why does it in this case?

[wendersfan]

A line item veto won't get rid of pork, it will just move the pork around, allowing the executive branch to hold sway even more over the legislative branch.

[classicman2]

I would think after what has occurred with this administration you would be extremely hesitant to give the president, whatever party, more power. He has too much power already.

[VinVega]

Then don't complain about deficits and pork.
Obviously c-man doesn't like deficits, but I think he's defended the concept of pork many times here. "One man's pork, is another man's vital spending for his district." Yadda yadda. You know how it goes. :D

[classicman2]

The only problem I have with deficits is the spending priorities of the party in power that caused the deficits.

I'm merely pointing out the utter hypocrisy of the Republican Party is this area.

[VinVega]

I think the government should strive to balance the budget, but I understand that sometimes it's not possible for one reason or another. Of course the latest batch of Republicans in control don't know what a budget is. They keep cutting taxes and increasing spending. I wish I could work less hours, get paid less and increase my spending in my personal life, but most of us have to live in the real world. Apparently the government does not. ;)

[lordwow]

No. That is possibly the stupidest thing I've ever heard.

[Vandelay_Inds]

Since fiscal policy is one of the main policy tools in macroeconomics, many economists oppose an amendment that would tie their hands if need be to run deficits to stimulate demand in a recession or depression.

Though I question our ability to combine monetary and fiscal policy in an effective way, public pressure should be enough to push elected officials into adopting desirable and responsible budget decisions without the need of draconian measures such as this. If not, democracy is worthless.

So my vote is nay. :)

[classicman2]

Steps for truth and honesty in the budget:

1. Eliminate the unified budget. Take the trust funds off budget.

2. Initiate PayGo

3. Stop the administration's 'playing' with federal receipts. It's not only this administration that has done - all of the prior administrations going back 30 years have done it.

[nemein]

All of which sounds a lot better than a Constitutional Amendment. Of course the chances of these sorts of things being implemented are only slightly less likely than the amendment...

[classicman2]

No, the odds against that happening are very slim at best.

The cardinal rule in Washington - the party in control of the appropriations process (regardless of which party) spends money like it's going out of style.

The party out of power calls for fiscal discipline.

[X]

2. PayGo (AKA spend like hell on things I like and raise taxes on people who I think have too much money to pay for it)

[classicman2]

1. That's not the correct idea about PayGo. The PAYGO or pay-as-you-go rule compels new spending or tax changes to not add to the federal deficit.
New proposals must either be "budget neutral" or offset with savings derived from existing funds.

2. Which party came up with the idea of PayGo?

[X]

And where do those "existing" funds come from? And how does new spending not add to the federal deficit when almost no area of existing spending is ever allowed to be cut? Something must be added. Hmm, I wonder what that is?

[Pharoh]

1. That's not the correct idea about PayGo. The PAYGO or pay-as-you-go rule compels new spending or tax changes to not add to the federal deficit.
New proposals must either be "budget neutral" or offset with savings derived from existing funds.

2. Which party came up with the idea of PayGo?



rotfl

[Pharoh]

To the origianl question, obviously no.

[Ranger]

I think the government easily has many trillions of dollars of assets and could generate more if it wanted.

Say that overall the total deficit is $20 trillion.

I'd love it if they could sell off assets to match that amount and still have a surplus of assets.

though the other problem is that there's no way that the American private sector or world governments can come up with that kind of money - especially in the short-term.

I say if it happens, it probably will have to be done in phases that will last for several decades.

[classicman2]

Speaking of the budget - apparently the President signed a budget reconcilation bill on 2/6/06 that was not properly enrolled. According to Nancy Pelosi (House Democratic Leader), the House Republican Leadership changed some of the Medicare figures after the House had passed the conference report. That 'doctored' bill was the one that went to the President.

It seems like the Repubs will do anything. ;)

[nemein]

http://www.onnnews.com/Global/story.asp?S=4512779

CAPITOL HILL House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi is calling for an ethics committee investigation concerning the budget bill signed by President Bush this month.
In particular, the California Democrat says the version signed by Bush is "invalid" because it only passed the Senate.

At issue is a Senate clerk's error in a provision of the bill involving the period of time the government pays to rent some types of medical equipment. The Senate voted for 13 months but a Senate clerk erroneously put down 36 months. The error was corrected in the Senate's version by the time the bill was shipped to President Bush but it wasn't corrected in the House version.

Earlier, the White House and G-O-P leaders said it was a technical mistake and the matter was settled.

However, Pelosi calls it a Republican "abuse of power." She says G-O-P leaders "chose to ignore House rules precedents."

[classicman2]

It certainly proved to be somewhat embarassing for the Republican leadership today on the floor of the House when Pelosi's privileged resolution was brought to the floor. The resolution was rather lengthy. The House Reading Clerk began reading - the Republican leader made a unanimous consent request that further reading of the resolution be dispensed with. Pelosi objected. The reading clerk continued to read. Again the Majority Asked for unanimous consent that the resolution be...... on and on.
The entire resolution was read.

The Majority Leader called for a vote for the measure to be tabled. The Repubs didn't want any debate on their shenenigans. The measure was tabled.

[nemein]

:lol: Listening to Pelosi trying to get the press to buy into it is certainly amusing. Several times their questions have been along the lines of "if it's just a clerical error what's the big deal" and the reponse has been "do you not see the culture of corruption".

[classicman2]

She's correct. The bill the House voted on (216-214) clearly wasn't the conference report. Therefore, it was not a properly enrolled bill.

Therefore, the president signed a bill wasn't properly enrolled.

Just another indication of how the Repubs run things.

[kvrdave]

rotfl

Yeah. :grunt:

Go back to the gold standard, I say. :grunt:

[Red Dog]

I vote yes, but I also know that the branches of government would ignore it like it does so much of the Constitution, so what's the point.

Also, should the amendment be ignored, is there redress through the courts? For example, would I have standing to sue the government if it ignored the amendment?

[classicman2]

I ask you same question I've asked some others. You don't seem to care for judges legislating from the bench. Why do you want to give that power to the president?

[movielib]

I vote yes, but I also know that the branches of government would ignore it like it does so much of the Constitution, so what's the point.

Also, should the amendment be ignored, is there redress through the courts? For example, would I have standing to sue the government if it ignored the amendment?
I voted "yes" too. Unfortunately, I have to agree with you about the likelihood of its being ignored.

So who's the other "yes" vote?

[Red Dog]

I ask you same question I've asked some others. You don't seem to care for judges legislating from the bench. Why do you want to give that power to the president?


How does requiring a balanced federal budget give power to the President? Seems to me that it requires the Congress and President to come up with a balanced budget (Congress submits and President approves).

[classicman2]

Sorry, Red Dog, I thought you were referring to the line-item veto.

The balanced budget amendment doesn't give the president anymore power.

However, I'm not in favor of amending the constitution unless it's necessary. There are other ways, legislative ways, to balance the budget. You don't need a constitutional amendment to do it.

[kvrdave]

I would think after what has occurred with this administration you would be extremely hesitant to give the president, whatever party, more power. He has too much power already.

I supported it when Clinton had it. :shrug:

[VinVega]

I vote yes, but I also know that the branches of government would ignore it like it does so much of the Constitution, so what's the point.

Also, should the amendment be ignored, is there redress through the courts? For example, would I have standing to sue the government if it ignored the amendment?
You know, THAT would make for a good court drama. I'd put my money on the Red Dog to win that one too. :D:up:

[Red Dog]

You know, THAT would make for a good court drama. I'd put my money on the Red Dog to win that one too. :D:up:


I think I would be more Lionel Hutz than Perry Mason in the courtroom. However, I did watch Matlock at a bar last night - the sound was turned off, but I think I got the jist of it.

[classicman2]

I supported it when Clinton had it. :shrug:

So - you were as confused then as you are now.

[BKenn01]

I could go with yes if it was social programs that where cut to balance it. Watching our govt in action is making Liberatarians look more appealing every day, at least from an economics standpoint.

[classicman2]

I could go with yes if it was social programs that where cut to balance it. Watching our govt in action is making Liberatarians look more appealing every day, at least from an economics standpoint.

:lol:

[grundle]

I voted yes.

[classicman2]

I voted yes.

Of course you did.

[VinVega]

Of course you did.
Well, with 7 yes votes we know that at least 7 libertarians visited this thread.

[classicman2]

Why would a libertarian support it?

I thought libertarians generally were opposed to cluttering up the constitution with unnecessary amendments?

[Red Dog]

For the record, I voted 'who cares' - see my initial post for why.

[grundle]

Why would a libertarian support it?

I thought libertarians generally were opposed to cluttering up the constitution with unnecessary amendments?

Because it limits what the government can do.

[VinVega]

Because it limits what the government can do.
It just means they have to pay for what they do. What if they decide that they want all their social programs, they're just going to make people pay for them?

I guess I was wrong about the 7 yes votes. I wasn't thinking clearly.

[classicman2]

Because it limits what the government can do.

No, it doesn't!

Where did you get that idea?

[movielib]

Why would a libertarian support it?

I thought libertarians generally were opposed to cluttering up the constitution with unnecessary amendments?
Forn the same reason I support school vouchers. It's a step (albeit small) in the right direction.

[classicman2]

Forn the same reason I support school vouchers. It's a step (albeit small) in the right direction.

There are legislative measures available that would accomplish the same thing without amending the constitution.

[Red Dog]

There are legislative measures available that would accomplish the same thing without amending the constitution.


That presupposes that the legislature would take that step. An amendment would require it, so there is a difference. However like I said, I figure it would just be ignored anyhow.

[Red Dog]

I thought libertarians generally were opposed to cluttering up the constitution with unnecessary amendments?

Where did you get this idea? Something you thought of yourself?

The only blanket libertarian rule on constitutional amendments is that libertarians are opposed to constitutional amendments that would further restrict individual rights.

[classicman2]

Gramm-Rudman-Hollings actually worked.

[Breakfast with Girls]

This thread should have been titled, "Who wants to be mocked by Classicman?" This thread is like a tiger pit. :lol:

[slappypete]

If you favor a line-item veto, then you have no problem with judges legislating from the bench.

I don't see the connection between the two. With the line-item veto you have elected officials in congress passing a law that gives the President of the United States the authority to eliminate portions of a bill, which Congress can then override.

In the case of judges legislating from the bench (which I think is one of the most exaggerated problems in the country) you theoretically have unelected officials overriding decisions of the elected officials with no basis in the law, which can't be changed by congress unless they pass a constitutional ammendment.

I would support a balanced budget ammendment. I like the idea of selling off federal assets, we should start with Alaska. The Feds easily meet the requirements for the long term capital gains rate, so they'd get to keep most of the profits, and with oil at such high prices it's value has probably peaked. The Military could start generating a better return on investment by invading Canada so we can sell that off too.

[classicman2]

This thread should have been titled, "Who wants to be mocked by Classicman?" This thread is like a tiger pit. :lol:

Who have I mocked?

I'm simply asking why you would favor a constitutional amendment for a balanced budget, when there are legislative remedies that are available.

The congress has it within its power to balance the budget - really balance the budget.

The constitutional amendment that Allen proposes would retain the unified budget. Therefore, even if it was adhered to, it wouldn't be a real balanced budget.

[classicman2]

In the case of judges legislating from the bench (which I think is one of the most exaggerated problems in the country) you theoretically have unelected officials overriding decisions of the elected officials with no basis in the law, which can't be changed by congress unless they pass a constitutional ammendment.

U. S. Constitution

Article III, Section 2: the Supreme Court shall have appellate jurisdiction, both as to law and fact, with such exceptions, and under such regulations as the Congress shall make.

[grundle]

It just means they have to pay for what they do.
Yes.

And when people are on the fence about something, this may be enough to make then mote "no."


What if they decide that they want all their social programs, they're just going to make people pay for them?
That's better than sending the bill to people of the future who have no choice in the matter.


I guess I was wrong about the 7 yes votes. I wasn't thinking clearly.
I never think about anything that I post here. What does that have to do with anything?

[grundle]

No, it doesn't!

Where did you get that idea?

People who don't have credit cards are less likely to waste their money on stuff they can't afford.

[Nesbit]

This is ridiculous. You mean the government, who most of us don't trust as a whole, would have to have the money to fund projects, bills, pork, etc? That is carazy.

Like others have said it would be ignored anyways so even if it was passed it wouldn’t make much difference.

[classicman2]

People who don't have credit cards are less likely to waste their money on stuff they can't afford.

:hscratch:

Here's your statement:Originally Posted by grundle
Because it limits what the government can do.

[grundle]

Forn the same reason I support school vouchers. It's a step (albeit small) in the right direction.

I am against using tax dollars to pay for private schools. I worry that if the government funds private schools, the government will end up controlling their curriculum, and will force them to hire unionized teachers with degrees in "education" who can never be fired, and will prevent them from expelling students who are violent.

On the other hand, it really gets the radical left into such a hissy fit. So I guess it all balances out.

[Nesbit]

:hscratch:

Here's your statement:Originally Posted by grundle
Because it limits what the government can do.

He is saying that a person without credit cards is limited in what they can do just like this would limit what the government can do. Where is the confusion?

[slappypete]

U. S. Constitution

Article III, Section 2: the Supreme Court shall have appellate jurisdiction, both as to law and fact, with such exceptions, and under such regulations as the Congress shall make.

I never said that the Courts do not have the authority to overturn acts of Congress or make judgements on law. You claimed that the line-item veto is the same as legislating from the bench. I believe it's an overused term, and usually just means that the court ruled in a way that someone disagrees with, but legislating from the bench is generally meant to imply that the court is creating law where none exists. That is clearly not the role of the court system.

The line-item veto would require an act of congress, you can debate whether a particular act is constitutional, but there is no debate about whether congress can create law in general. I don't see how congress granting the line-item veto to the President is the same as the courts unilaterally deciding to do something that they are not charged by the constitution to do.

[classicman2]

But what he says isn't true. The government can still 'borrow' money from the trust funds. A balanced budget constitutional amendment won't prevent that.

[gimmepilotwings]

Yes I do, but there should be times when Congress has a right to repeal it, as it times of war.

[classicman2]

Yes I do, but there should be times when Congress has a right to repeal it, as it times of war.

How about catastrophes like Katrina?

There'll have to be so many exceptions that it would be rendered useless.

[Red Dog]

How about catastrophes like Katrina?

There'll have to be so many exceptions that it would be rendered useless.


Well there you go.

You could have saved everyone a lot of time by just saying my Senator is a schmo. You'd have my support.

[movielib]

I am against using tax dollars to pay for private schools. I worry that if the government funds private schools, the government will end up controlling their curriculum, and will force them to hire unionized teachers with degrees in "education" who can never be fired, and will prevent them from expelling students who are violent.
Your worries are not unfounded, I think. Still, I think vouchers promote freedom of choice in education more than they pose possible dangers so I'm (somewhat reluctantly) for it as an interim step. They've worked pretty well in Milwaukee.

I do not see it as using tax dollars to pay for private schools. I look at it as allowing parents to get back some of their own money to pay for schools of their own choice.

[classicman2]

Yahoo News

Bush seeks "line-item" veto on spending

By Caren Bohan

Seeking to rein in spending, President George W. Bush will announce legislation on Monday requesting a line-item veto, the power to cancel specific items within spending bills, the White House said.

White House spokesman Scott McClellan said the proposal to Congress was "designed to rein in wasteful spending, reduce the budget deficit and improve accountability within Congress."

He said the proposal was written in a way to head off problems raised by the U.S. Supreme Court when it rejected as unconstitutional a previous version of the line-item veto in 1998.

Many presidents have sought such authority on the argument it would help cut down on wasteful spending in the budget. In a rare yielding of some of its powers of the purse strings, Congress passed legislation granting a line-item veto to then-President Bill Clinton.

The Supreme Court struck down the law in 1998, ruling by a vote of 6-3 that Congress did not have the authority under the Constitution to give the president that power.

"We believe that what he's proposing today does address any constitutional issues," McClellan said of Bush's proposal.

He added that unlike the Clinton era line-item veto, in which spending items were canceled after Congress passed a bill, Bush's proposal would involve the president canceling out spending items and then sending the bill back to Congress for another vote.

Bush, who has never vetoed a spending bill, has been criticized by many conservatives for the surge in federal expenditures on his watch. Republicans worry the record deficits could hurt them in this year's midterm election in which Democrats are seeking to regain control of both houses of Congress.

The Bush administration has forecast a fiscal 2007 budget deficit of $439 billion, an all-time high.
___________________

:lol:

:lol:

Is he serious? What's that about Kool-Aid?

[JasonF]

I'm confused. Based on the way the proposed line-item veto is described -- "canceling out spending items and then sending the bill back to Congress for another vote" -- Bush already has the power to do this. All he has to do is veto the entire bill (as he does now), and issue a veto message that says "I vetoed the bill because of this line item, this line item, and this line item. Send me an identical bill without those line items, and I'll sign it."

The first step, of course, is vetoing a bill.

[classicman2]

I'm confused.

Join the crowd. ;)

[wendersfan]

The first step, of course, is vetoing a bill.Let's not do anything hasty. ;)

[X]

It sounds like the president could eliminate the items he wants from a bill but retain the others. If Congress didn't agree to the result they'd have to put back in the removed items.

So the president does the major work in eliminating what he doesn't like and puts the burden on Congress to put the stuff back in if they want it that much. That's more effective than having Congress take out what the president doesn't like. Whether it will work is a different matter.

[classicman2]

This idea will not pass constitutional muster either.

[kvrdave]

It would be nice if it does, though.

[nemein]

It would be nice if it does, though.

I don't. The process is already in place to do this sort of thing and if he was really worried about spending he would have used the veto, specified why it was vetoed and let it go back for review/rework. A line item veto just seems superfluous, unless it had something other special power (like it couldn't be overridden by Congress) but then it would definately be unconstitutional.

[nemein]

So the president does the major work in eliminating what he doesn't like and puts the burden on Congress to put the stuff back in if they want it that much. That's more effective than having Congress take out what the president doesn't like. Whether it will work is a different matter.

Honestly it sounds essentially the same to me. If the President vetoes something and says why it was vetoed it goes back to Congress to let them decide whether or not to rework it or pass it as is. Whether the veto is overall w/ comments about why, or specific line items just doesn't really seem to make a difference. Maybe I'm overlooking something though.

[X]

Honestly it sounds essentially the same to me. If the President vetoes something and says why it was vetoed it goes back to Congress to let them decide whether or not to rework it or pass it as is. Whether the veto is overall w/ comments about why, or specific line items just doesn't really seem to make a difference. Maybe I'm overlooking something though.The previous version needed a 2/3 vote by Congress to overrule the president. This version would allow them to stick back the items by a majority vote. And the rest of the bill doesn't become law until it's worked out. At least as I understand it.

It seems to me that if particular pork was added to enable the important provisions of a bill to pass and then only the pork is removed it could be hard for a legislator to add the pork back in. What would he use as rationale? Most other legislators would have to agree to add it back in.

[classicman2]

It would be nice if it does, though.

No, it wouldn't!!

I can't understand people. The executive branch already has assumed too much power; and people like you seem to want to give the president more power. How much power is enough for you'll?

[classicman2]

I await the Bushites' arguing that this is necessary to conduct war against terror. :)