PDA

View Full Version : Have Senators Rand Paul and DeMint sold out to our RINO crowd?




johnwk
11-23-2010, 05:08 PM
After listening to Rand Paul who was on Mike Huckabee’s show this weekend [Nov. 14th, 2010], I was shocked to hear him promoting the phony balanced budget amendment cooked up by RINOs in the 1980s and 90s, which they wanted to use to repeal our Constitution‘s apportioned tax method for extinguishing deficits. This RINO crowd of the 80s and 90s were even trying to convene a Constitutional Convention under the guise of adopting their fraudulent amendment, which would have put our entire Constitution up for grabs and be savaged by every snake and special interest group.

I fear Rand Paul has already been conned by these slithering snakes who cooked up the following fake and worthless balanced budget amendment, cleverly designed to supercede our founder’s method to deal with deficits, and which Rand Paul now supports:

`Section 1. Total outlays for any fiscal year shall not exceed total receipts for that fiscal year, unless three-fifths of the whole number of each House of Congress shall provide by law for a specific excess of outlays over receipts by a rollcall vote.

NOTE: The amendment can be immediately overrule by a three-fifths vote.

`Section 2. The limit on the debt of the United States held by the public shall not be increased, unless three-fifths of the whole number of each House shall provide by law for such an increase by a rollcall vote.

NOTE: The very intentions of the amendment can be subverted by allowing Congress to borrow without providing specific taxes at the same time to extinguish the specific amount being borrowed.

`Section 3. Prior to each fiscal year, the President shall transmit to the Congress a proposed budget for the United States Government for that fiscal year in which total outlays do not exceed total receipts.

NOTE: This is a feel good provision. It sounds great and technical but is it? Have we not just learned with the recent health care proposals, how projected figures can be manipulated by our friends in government to portray legislation in which outlays and receipts are in balance when they are not?

`Section 4. No bill to increase revenue shall become law unless approved by a majority of the whole number of each House by a rollcall vote

NOTE: Well, isn’t this just dandy? Taxes may be increased by a simple majority vote in each House to keep the budget balanced. How sweet of Congress to be so thoughtful to reduce their pain in raising taxes to keep the budget balanced, while making it more difficult, a three-fifths vote, to reduce spending which is really needed to balance the budget.

`Section 5. The Congress may waive the provisions of this article for any fiscal year in which a declaration of war is in effect. The provisions of this article may be waived for any fiscal year in which the United States is engaged in military conflict which causes an imminent and serious military threat to national security and is so declared by a joint resolution, adopted by a majority of the whole number of each House, which becomes law.

NOTE: The flimflamery here is most remarkable. A simple majority of each house may ignore the requirement to balance the budget by simply declaring an existing military conflict has caused an imminent and serious military threat to national security exists. So, the fox gets to say when the chickens are in peril.

`Section 6. The Congress shall enforce and implement this article by appropriate legislation, which may rely on estimates of outlays and receipts.

NOTE: And here it is etched in stone! The entire amendment is based upon “estimates” and nothing is stated what shall be done when those estimates do not pan out and expenditures have exceeded total outlays for the year. And when was the last time a government conjured budget “estimate” was found to be correct?

`Section 7. Total receipts shall include all receipts of the United States Government except those derived from borrowing. Total outlays shall include all outlays of the United States Government except for those for repayment of debt principal.

NOTE: And what happens here when total receipts derived from borrowing far exceed those for repayment of debt principal?

`Section 8. This article shall take effect beginning with the later of the second fiscal year beginning after its ratification or the first fiscal year beginning after December 31, 2014.'.

_________

Now, how did our founding fathers intend to deal with deficits should they occur?


The founder’s intended Congress to lay imposts and duties at our water’s edge as a first means to raise a federal revenue. In addition, our founding fathers also provided the power to lay inland “excise” taxes on specifically selected articles of consumption, preferably articles of luxury. Finally, if imposts, duties and miscellaneous excise taxes were found insufficient to finance the constitutionally authorized functions of our federal government and a shortfall was experienced and Congress had to borrow to meet its expenses, then an apportioned tax was to be laid among the States equal to the shortfall and used to extinguish the deficit.

Our founding father’s fair share formula for dealing with deficits considering subsequent amendments to our Constitution, may be expressed as follows:


States’ population

---------------------------- X SUM TO BE RAISED (the deficit) = STATE’S SHARE

Total U.S. Population

After computing each State’s apportioned share of the tax, each State’s Congressional Delegation was to return home with a bill in hand and place this bill in the hands of their Governor and Legislature, leaving them with the responsibility of paying the bill. Upon receiving their bill the Governor and State’s Legislature were to then transfer the State’s apportioned share from their state treasury into the treasury of the United States or raise additional taxes within the state and then transfer that money into the treasury of the united states to meet the state’s obligation. In the event a state did not meet its obligation in a time period set by Congress, the federal government was to then enter the state and lay and collect sufficient taxes to cover the amount due with interest thereon!


If Rand Paul and Senator DeMint, who also supports the phony BBA are not aware of our Constitution’s method to extinguish deficits, they ought to fire someone on their staff and hire someone familiar with the documented intentions and beliefs under which our Constitution was adopted!

For historical documentation concerning the apportioned tax CLICK HERE (http://files.meetup.com/574256/IB%2309%20State%20Rate%20Tax.pdf).

The unavoidable truth is, our founder’s tax plan provides a specific method to deal with deficits and it does so by creating a very real moment of accountability if members of Congress should have to bring home a bill because of their profligate spending habits, and this would encourage members of Congress to drastically cut spending in order to live within the means provided from imposts, duties and miscellaneous excise taxes on articles of consumption to avoid the apportioned tax.

Keep in mind, the apportioned tax also encourages every state Legislature and Governor to keep a jealous eye on the spending habits of its Congressional Delegation to avoid having to deplete the State’s treasury.

Question is, has Rand Paul already sold out, or has he been co-opted by snakes like Newt Gingrich?


JWK



“The proportion of taxes are fixed by the number of inhabitants, and not regulated by the extent of the territory, or fertility of soil 3 Elliot’s, 243 (http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=lled&fileName=003/lled003.db&recNum=254&itemLink), “Each state will know, from its population, its proportion of any general tax” 3 Elliot’s, 244 (http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=lled&fileName=003/lled003.db&recNum=255&itemLink)

FrankRep
11-23-2010, 05:12 PM
Mike Lee, a Tea Party endorsee, is not planning on wasting any time in his position as Utah’s newly elected Republican Senator, and he is already working to gain support for a Balanced Budget Amendment. by Raven Clabough


Newly Elected Congressmen Lead Push for Balanced Budget Amendment (http://www.thenewamerican.com/index.php/usnews/politics/5160-newly-elected-congressmen-lead-push-for-bba)


Raven Clabough | The New American (http://www.thenewamerican.com/)
10 November 2010


Mike Lee, a Tea Party endorsee, is not planning on wasting any time in his position as Utah’s newly elected Republican Senator. Lee asserts that of the many things the voters emphasized to him on his campaign trail was that they wanted to see Congress “balance the budget.” He plans to do just that, and soon.
Lee told The Blaze, “It’s time for us to start transitioning from a kind of government we don’t want at the federal level to the kind of government we do want, and this is the most important first step toward doing that.”

As a member of Balanced Budget Amendment Now (BBAN), a grass-roots initiative launched on Monday that will fight for a Balanced Budget Amendment to be introduced in Autumn of 2011, Lee is working alongside Kentucky Senator-elect Rand Paul and former Ohio Secretary of State Ken Blackwell.

The Daily Caller writes, “BBAN was formed out of ‘Real Act’, the 501C4 arm of the Renewing American Leadership organization, whose honorary chairman is Newt Gingrich and whose mission is to ‘preserve America’s Judeo-Christian heritage.'”

According to BBAN’s website:



You have heard all of the clichés: ‘talk is cheap’ or they ‘talk the talk, but don’t walk the walk.’ Unfortunately, the first describes the lip service many in Congress give to a Balanced Budget Amendment. They claim to support fiscal discipline but refuse to change their big spending ways. The latter refers to many non-profit groups who support a Balanced Budget Amendment, yet have not aggressively demanded action or held Members of Congress individually accountable for inaction.

We are different, we are solely focused on passing a BBA now, we will not compromise our sole mission for some other legislative agenda priority. We want results now and will push for them now.


The group asserts, “We are going to run a 50 state media and grassroots campaign that forces Congress to vote on October 1, 2011 for a Balanced Budget Amendment.”

In order to institute its plans, the BBAN must gather 5,000-10,000 signatures and postcards from registered voters in every Congressional District, which will then be submitted to House members and Senators.

The Blaze reports, “Starting in April 2011, the group will post a list on its website [names] of those who have pledged to vote for the amendment. For those who have not pledged, the group says it ‘will double and triple our efforts to inform their voting public of their irresponsible behavior’.”

Several Republican Senators have already indicated their support for the BBA, including Jim DeMint and Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, John McCain of Arizona, and Tom Coburn of Oklahoma.

BBAN also asserts, “Those who vote against [the amendment] will be singled out and removed in 2012.”

Furthermore, BBAN states that it will “work with Congress to start a Balanced Budget Amendment Caucus in November 2010.”

According to the Daily Caller, “The Amendment envisioned by the coalition includes three pillars: ending the annual deficit by requiring a balanced budget, limiting federal spending to no more than 20 percent of the country’s GDP and requiring a two-thirds supermajority vote in Congress to raise taxes.”

The federal government is currently consuming more than 27 percent of the GDP, a number that continues to increase. With federal spending capped at no more than 20 percent of the GDP, federal spending would be limited to the postwar historical average over the last 65 years.

More than 80 groups have signed up to be part of the campaign for the Balanced Budget Amendment, including national groups like Americans for Tax Reform, Young Americans for Freedom, and a variety of local grass-roots organizations like Tea Party groups and College Republicans from across the country.

Lee adds, “Americans understand that Congress has been mortgaging the future of future generations who in many instances are not yet old enough to vote.” He contends, “That’s a form of taxation without representation.”

According to a Washington Post poll, more than 60 percent of Americans are in favor of the passage of a Balanced Budget Amendment.

During this year’s midterm elections, Florida voters approved a straw ballot to balance the United States budget without raising taxes by nearly 70 percent. According to the Miami Herald, “The measure dovetails with a resolution the Legislature passed this year to make Florida the 20th state to call for a constitutional convention for the purpose of passing such an amendment. It requires 34 states to call a constitutional convention and 38 to adopt an amendment.”

The referendum read, “In order to stop the uncontrolled growth of our national debt and prevent excessive borrowing by the Federal Government, which threatens our economy and national security, should the United States Constitution be amended to require a balanced federal budget without raising taxes?”

It is the first time in Florida state history that a non-binding referendum appeared on the ballot.

However, not all organizations are onboard with the Balanced Budget Amendment, including The John Birch Society, which has been adamantly opposed to a BBA for over 30 years. Larry Greenley of The John Birch Society notes a variety of reasons for JBS’ stance: “First of all, we think a BBA is a bad idea in itself because balancing the budget under a BBA would be accomplished by either raising taxes … or by decreasing spending; however, the real goal should be to eliminate the unconstitutional spending by Congress.”

He adds:



Second, since Congress has never had the necessary two-thirds majority in both houses to propose a BBA, a movement began in the 1970s to get a two thirds of the state legislatures to petition Congress to convene a constitutional convention (Con-Con) for proposing a BBA as provided in Article V of the Constitution; however, members of the JBS have been working closely with state legislators for about 30 years to convince them against calling for a Con-Con for any reason due to the risk of putting into motion an inherently risky constitutional convention process that could lead to bad amendments.


Tax increases, rather than spending cuts and tax cuts, are virtually a foregone conclusion under a BBA, as Congressmen of both Houses will undoubtedly face "emergencies" they feel they need to spend money on. Also, Congressmen can always resort to "off-budget" spending, meaning such an amendment will be easily bypassed.

For more information on the dangers of opening a Constitutional Convention, please visit Stop a Con Con (http://www.JBS.org/StopACon-Con).


SOURCE:
http://www.thenewamerican.com/index.php/usnews/politics/5160-newly-elected-congressmen-lead-push-for-bba

sailingaway
11-23-2010, 05:35 PM
They don't even have a specific one yet. Rand has spoken of various provisions. They only have a motion to push for one at this point.

And you are all over the internet suggesting that Rand has sold out, most recently, that I saw, on Hannity forums.

I for one do not appreciate it.

Obviously, you have your own preferred amendment. Email it to Rand, and he'll use it or won't.

johnwk
11-23-2010, 05:35 PM
For more information on the dangers of opening a Constitutional Convention, please visit Stop a Con Con (http://www.JBS.org/StopACon-Con).


SOURCE:
http://www.thenewamerican.com/index.php/usnews/politics/5160-newly-elected-congressmen-lead-push-for-bba


As to a second constitutional convention, I will yield to the wisdom of James Madision:


“You wish to know my sentiments on the project of another general Convention as suggested by New York. I shall give them to you with great frankness …….3. If a General Convention were to take place for the avowed and sole purpose of revising the Constitution, it would naturally consider itself as having a greater latitude than the Congress appointed to administer and support as well as to amend the system; it would consequently give greater agitation to the public mind; an election into it would be courted by the most violent partizans on both sides; it wd. probably consist of the most heterogeneous characters; would be the very focus of that flame which has already too much heated men of all parties; would no doubt contain individuals of insidious views, who under the mask of seeking alterations popular in some parts but inadmissible in other parts of the Union might have a dangerous opportunity of sapping the very foundationsof the fabric. Under all these circumstances it seems scarcely to be presumeable that the deliberations of the body could be conducted in harmony, or terminate in the general good. Having witnessed the difficulties and dangers experienced by the first Convention which assembled under every propitious circumstance, I should tremble for the result of a Second, meeting in the present temper of America, and under all the disadvantages I have mentioned. ….I am Dr. Sir, Yours Js. Madison Jr” ___See Letters of Delegates to Congress: Volume 25 March 1, 1788-December 31, 1789, James Madison to George Turberville

And who would attend a convention if one were to be called? Could Madison be right? Let us take a look at what happened in New Hampshire in 1984.

During the 1984 New Hampshire Convention, which was challenged in U.S. District Court, of the 400 delegates 64 were attorneys, eight were judges, four were state senators, and 113 were state representatives and two legislative lobbyists….the very people who are now causing our misery!

The suit went on to charge

“there has been over 175 lawyers, judges, senators and representatives out of the total of 400 constitutional convention (delegates) elected, (who) are already holding a pubic office both in the legislature and judicial branches in violation of the separation of powers doctrine, and this count does not include wives and immediate family members who have been elected on their behalf.”

What we need to do is enforce the documented intentions and beliefs under which our Constitution was adopted, including the Tenth Amendment, and start severely punishing judges and Justices who ignore the documented intentions in order to supplant their personal whims and fancies as being within the meaning of our Constitution.

JWK


"If the Constitution was ratified under the belief, sedulously propagated on all sides, that such protection was afforded, would it not now be a fraud upon the whole people to give a different construction to its powers?"___ Justice Story

Matt Collins
11-23-2010, 05:37 PM
A push for a BBA will only benefit us whether it's actually brought to fruition or not. It will also help to expose those who are serious about fiscal conservatism, and those who are not.

jkr
11-23-2010, 05:39 PM
if i were rand, and im not, i would dig in like a tick and wait a few years...
keep the same rhetoric-honesty works!
then when dey sleep'n !BaM! legislation with allies to VOTE WITH YOU!

RUN for OFFICE!


we will see!

Sola_Fide
11-23-2010, 05:57 PM
It will also help to expose those who are serious about fiscal conservatism, and those who are n
ot.

Exactly.

Because Rand has launched this into the public debate, it will now become a measuring rod. It was almost genius of Rand to do this. Now we are going to find out who truly wants to be on the side of fiscal sanity and those who are fiscally irresponsible.

johnwk
11-23-2010, 07:07 PM
They don't even have a specific one yet. Rand has spoken of various provisions. They only have a motion to push for one at this point.

And you are all over the internet suggesting that Rand has sold out, most recently, that I saw, on Hannity forums.

I for one do not appreciate it.

Obviously, you have your own preferred amendment. Email it to Rand, and he'll use it or won't.

In case you missed it, while Rand was on Huckabee’s show, he was talking about the balanced budget of the 90s and indicated he was upset it didn’t pass. That amendment would have made it constitutional to not balance the budget as I described at the top of this thread.

Look, I am praying that Rand has not been conned by the Capitol Hill RINO crowd, which is very much in favor of the totally ineffectual BBA I described at the top of the thread, and is designed to allow Congress to continue bleeding our nation to death! One thing is certain, if you hear the Republican Party calling for a constitutional convention to adopted a balanced budget amendment, you can be certain evil is in the making as it was in the 1980s and 90s.

Regards,
JWK


America, we have a problem, we have been attacked from within! We are being destroyed from within by a group of DOMESTIC ENEMIES (http://cpc.grijalva.house.gov/index.cfm?ContentID=166&ParentID=0&SectionID=4&SectionTree=4&lnk=b&ItemID=164)who have managed to seize political power and whose mission is in fact to bring “change” to America ___ the dismantling of our military defensive power; the allowance of our borders to be overrun by foreign invaders, the diluting of our election process by allowing ineligible persons to vote; the destruction of our manufacturing capabilities; the strangulation of our agricultural industry and ability to produce food under the guise of environmental necessity; the destruction of our nation’s health care delivery system, the looting of both our federal treasury and a mandatory retirement pension fund; the brainwashing of our nation’s children in government operated schools; the trashing of our nation’s traditions and moral values; the creation of an iron fisted control unauthorized by our written Constitution over America’s businesses and industries; the devaluation of our nation’s currency, and, the future enslavement of our children and grand children via unbridled debt and inflation, not to mention an iron fisted government which intends to rule their very lives!

sailingaway
11-23-2010, 07:46 PM
In case you missed it, while Rand was on Huckabee’s show, he was talking about the balanced budget of the 90s and indicated he was upset it didn’t pass. That amendment would have made it constitutional to not balance the budget as I described at the top of this thread.

Look, I am praying that Rand has not been conned by the Capitol Hill RINO crowd, which is very much in favor of the totally ineffectual BBA I described at the top of the thread, and is designed to allow Congress to continue bleeding our nation to death! One thing is certain, if you hear the Republican Party calling for a constitutional convention to adopted a balanced budget amendment, you can be certain evil is in the making as it was in the 1980s and 90s.

Regards,
JWK


America, we have a problem, we have been attacked from within! We are being destroyed from within by a group of DOMESTIC ENEMIES (http://cpc.grijalva.house.gov/index.cfm?ContentID=166&ParentID=0&SectionID=4&SectionTree=4&lnk=b&ItemID=164)who have managed to seize political power and whose mission is in fact to bring “change” to America ___ the dismantling of our military defensive power; the allowance of our borders to be overrun by foreign invaders, the diluting of our election process by allowing ineligible persons to vote; the destruction of our manufacturing capabilities; the strangulation of our agricultural industry and ability to produce food under the guise of environmental necessity; the destruction of our nation’s health care delivery system, the looting of both our federal treasury and a mandatory retirement pension fund; the brainwashing of our nation’s children in government operated schools; the trashing of our nation’s traditions and moral values; the creation of an iron fisted control unauthorized by our written Constitution over America’s businesses and industries; the devaluation of our nation’s currency, and, the future enslavement of our children and grand children via unbridled debt and inflation, not to mention an iron fisted government which intends to rule their very lives!

He didn't say he was upset THAT VERSION didn't pass. He said 'people say I will never get one [a balanced budget amendment] but we came within a few votes of it in the 90s.' That isn't saying he would use the same one, only that passing one is possible.

johnwk
11-23-2010, 07:55 PM
He didn't say he was upset THAT VERSION didn't pass. He said 'people say I will never get one [a balanced budget amendment] but we came within a few votes of it in the 90s.' That isn't saying he would use the same one, only that passing one is possible.


I got the impression he was disappointed the 90s BBA did not pass. I could be wrong and hope I am wrong!

Aside from that, Sen. DeMint’s deceptive balanced budget amendment has 16 Republican co-sponsors!




Sen DeMint, [SC] introduced the following proposal on 2/4/2010 which has 16 co-sponsors:

Sen Burr, Richard [NC]
Sen Chambliss, Saxby [GA]
Sen Coburn, Tom [OK]
Sen Cornyn, John [TX]
Sen Crapo, Mike [ID]
Sen Ensign, John [NV]
Sen Enzi, Michael B. [WY]
Sen Graham, Lindsey [SC]
Sen Inhofe, James M. [OK]
Sen Isakson, Johnny [GA]
Sen Kyl, Jon [AZ]
Sen LeMieux, George S. [FL]
Sen McCain, John [AZ]
Sen Risch, James E. [ID]
Sen Sessions, Jeff [AL]
Sen Vitter, David [LA]

S.J.RES.27 -- Proposing a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution of the United States (http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c111:S.J.RES.27:..)


JWK