Constitutional amendment mandating a balanced budget
Surely, Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid aren't off the balanced budget band wagon because they share some conservatives' It's important to stress that Senator Lee's balanced budget amendment legislation and facsimiles aren't panaceas. But to rely mainly on Congress, which is composed of men and women who, generally speaking, are parochial and self-obsessed, to legislate the national government into boundaries that more closely approximate the pre-FDR era is a reach.When it comes to government, human wiliness, and chicanery, no law -- constitutional or otherwise -- however shrewdly constructed, is foolproof. Congress of latter day Jeffersons and Madisons who legislated limited national government and budget-prudence, where is it written that subsequent Congresses, perhaps comprised of Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi, and Chuck Schumer clones, won't undo the 113The argument can be advanced that virtuous voters would need to keep electing the Jeffersons and Madisons to Congress, but the Republic's history shows that very human voters don't always elect the wisest and most public-spirited to populate and helm the Congress, much less fill the presidency.Imagine how much more formidable it would be to reach two-thirds agreement among Members of Congress to bust the debt limit or increase taxes.The two-thirds requirement in Senator Lee's proposal is a tangible brake on spendthrift government and trigger-happy congressional taxers.As House Republicans, we are committed to our principles of limited, more accountable government; economic freedom; lower taxes; fiscal responsibility; protecting life, American values, and the Constitution; and providing for strong national security.This is an open forum, however, where all Americans are welcome to respectfully offer their opinions, regardless of party affiliation and whether we endorse them or not.for a balanced budget amendment, and some of the usual suspects among the dwindling Blue Dog Caucus have signed onto balanced budget proposals in the House, but not an inkling of support from the liberal ideologues who run the House and Senate Democrat Caucuses. Might it be that liberal congressional leaders fear that Mr.
Obama's spending proposals would have hit the skids had Senator Lee's balanced budget amendment been the law? Lee's balanced budget amendment would have at least greatly complicated matters for spend-happy Democrats and Republican suckerfish.
But to rely mainly on Congress, which is composed of men and women who, generally speaking, are parochial and self-obsessed, to legislate the national government into boundaries that more closely approximate the pre-FDR era is a reach.
Representatives and Senators are vipers, rogues, and greedy - well, not all of them, anyway.
Federal government spending, limited to eighteen percent of the GDP annually, inevitably means that Congresses will routinely spend to the limit, but that's far better than the threat or reality of Congresses gobbling up ever-higher percentages of GDP to patronize constituencies and special interests to build an Olympus on the Potomac.
Campaigns will still be necessary to downsize the federal government by eliminating unconstitutional functions that Washington has assumed over the years or divesting those functions to return them to the states.
Most prominently, the arguments of proponents have focused on the economy and the possible harm resulting from consistently large deficits and a growing federal debt.