PDA

View Full Version : Michelle Bachmann gives ok to RINO’s fake balanced budget amendment!




johnwk
01-26-2011, 07:38 PM
.

See: H.J.RES.2 (http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c112:H.J.RES.2:..) Proposing a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution of the United States.
112th Congress (2011-2012) Please note who else are its co-sponsors!

I am so disappointed to find that Michelle Bachmann has signed onto the same fake balanced budget amendment which RINOs and big spenders of the 1980s concocted and panhandled. I am hoping Michelle will withdraw her name from the fake BBA and introduce a bill advocating a BBA which reflects the specific no nonsense method to deal with deficits which our founding fathers approved of, and utilized, which I will present at the end of this post. But first, let us take a look at the fake balanced budget amendment.

(my editorial comments appear in italics)

`Article--

`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: Under Section 1, the amendment immediately states how it may be overruled 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: Under Section 2, the very intentions for the amendment [putting an end to increasing the national debt] can be subverted by allowing Congress to increase the national debt without providing specific taxes equaling the proposed increase in the national debt.

`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: Section 3 is absolutely meaningless and an illusion to portray fiscal responsibility. Have we not just learned with the recent health care proposal debate how projected figures can be manipulated by our Executive to portray legislation in which outlays and receipts are in balance when they are not?

`Section 4. A bill to increase the internal revenue shall require for final adoption in each House the concurrence of two-thirds of the whole number of that House by rollcall vote.

NOTE: While Section 4 discourages taxes to be increased by requiring a two-thirds vote in each House, the amendment encourages Congress to simply increase the national debt by a three fifths vote in both Houses.

`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 under Section 5 is most remarkable. In addition to setting the amendment aside as stated in Section 1, a simple majority vote in 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“. Have we not just seen how this “crisis” scare tactic mentality has been used to plunder our federal treasury under TARP; how it has been used to bail out auto companies which have blood sucking unions, and used to increase the national debt beyond human comprehension?

`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, under Section 6, we find the proposal‘s crown jewel! It is proposed to be etched in stone [our Constitution] that the entire balanced budget act heretofore is to be based upon “estimates”. How sweet of the amendment’s supporters to be so confident in, e.g., the Office and Budget Management, which has just opened the door to Obamacare with its fuzzy math ‘estimates” which are now known, beyond the shadow of doubt, to be nothing more than mathematical alchemy to allow additional unsustainable spending and borrowing.

`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 when total receipts derived from borrowing far exceed those for repayment of debt principal?

`Section 8. The provisions of this article respecting the internal revenue shall take effect upon the date of ratification of this article. The remaining provisions of 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, 2016.'.
___________


Bottom line is, the proposal neither compels an annual balanced budget, nor requires equal taxes to finance proposed increases in the national debt, nor does it make every member of Congress immediately accountable to their State‘s Governor and Legislatures if Congress spends more than is brought in from taxes during the course of a fiscal year.

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

Our founding fathers intentions are expressed in several of our Constitution’s state ratification documents as to what is to be done if Congress finds its normal means of raising revenue insufficient to meet its expenditures, e.g., see Ratification of the Constitution by the State of New Hampshire; June 21, 1788 (http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/ratnh.asp)

Fourthly That Congress do not lay direct Taxes but when the money arising from Impost, Excise and their other resources are insufficient for the Publick Exigencies; nor then, untill Congress shall have first made a Requisition upon the States, to Assess, Levy, & pay their respective proportions, of such requisitions agreeably to the Census fixed in the said Constitution in such way & manner as the Legislature of the State shall think best and in such Case if any State shall neglect, then Congress may Assess & Levy such States proportion together with the Interest thereon at the rate of six per Cent per Annum from the Time of payment prescribed in such requisition-


And so, in order to return to the fiscal discipline our founding fathers intended, which paved the way for America to become the economic marvel of the world, Michelle Bachmann ought to remove her name from the fake balanced budget amendment and introduce her own bill promoting something as follows:

Proposing a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution of the United States.


“SECTION 1. The Sixteenth Amendment is hereby repealed and Congress is henceforth forbidden to lay ``any`` tax or burden calculated from profits, gains, interest, salaries, wages, tips, inheritances or any other lawfully realized money

NOTE: these words would return us to our founding father’s ORIGINAL TAX PLAN (http://townshipnews.org/?p=1360) as they intended it to operate! These words would remove the existing chains of taxation which Congress now uses to enslave America‘s businesses, its industrial and manufacturing base, and they would end the slavish tax which now confiscates the bread which working people have earned!

"SECTION 2. Congress ought not raise money by borrowing, but when the money arising from imposts duties and excise taxes are insufficient to meet the public exigencies, and Congress has raised money by borrowing during the course of a fiscal year, Congress shall then lay a direct tax at the beginning of the next fiscal year for an amount sufficient to extinguish the preceding fiscal year's deficit, and apply the revenue so raised to extinguishing said deficit."

NOTE: Congress is to raise its primary revenue from imposts and duties, [taxes at our water’s edge], and may also lay miscellaneous internal excise taxes on specifically chosen articles of consumption.


"SECTION 3. When Congress is required to lay a direct tax in accordance with Section 1 of this Article, the Secretary of the United States Treasury shall, in a timely manner, calculate each State's apportioned share of the total sum being raised by dividing its total population size by the total population of the united states and multiplying that figure by the total sum being raised by Congress, and then provide the various State Congressional Delegations with a Bill notifying their State’s Executive and Legislature of its share of the total tax being collected and a final date by which said tax shall be paid into the United States Treasury."

[I]NOTE: our founder’s fair share formula to extinguish a deficit would be:

States’ population

---------------------------- X SUM TO BE RAISED = STATE’S SHARE

Total U.S. Population


"SECTION 4. Each State shall be free to assume and pay its quota of the direct tax into the United States Treasury by a final date set by Congress, but if any State shall refuse or neglect to pay its quota, then Congress shall send forth its officers to assess and levy such State's proportion against the real property within the State with interest thereon at the rate of ((?)) per cent per annum, and against the individual owners of the taxable property. Provision shall be made for a 15% discount for those States paying their share by ((?))of the fiscal year in which the tax is laid, and a 10% discount for States paying by the final date set by Congress, such discount being to defray the States' cost of collection."

JWK

johnwk
01-27-2011, 08:03 AM
Just for the record, I have no objections to Congress raising the national debt ceiling so long as in doing so the pay and go thing is used. And this means if the debt ceiling is raised, each State’s Congressional Delegation is required to bring home a bill which requires their Governor and State Legislatures to transfer from their State’s Treasury an apportioned share in extinguishing the deficit created by Congress, or raising additional taxes within their state to meet their apportioned share in extinguishing the deficit and then transferring that money into the federal treasury in a timely manner.

This of course would create a very real moment of accountability for every member of Congress upon their return home during which time they would have to present the bill to their State’s Governor and Legislature…and let the fireworks begin!

And this is why dishonorable members of Congress refuse to support our founding father’s intended method to deal with deficits. The crackpots behind the phony BBA are great at putting our nation in debt, but will do anything to avoid an immediate accountability. And so, they concocted a phony balanced budget amendment to make themselves look fiscally responsible, but the proposal has so many loopholes it looks like a piece of Swiss Cheese.

With regards to Michele, I can’t even begin to express how disappointed I am. However, knowing how Congressional offices work, I am hoping Michele may not have had time to fully analyze the wording of the proposed amendment (H.J. RES. 2) and is relying upon one of her staff members who may have been conned by one of the Washington Establishment’s point men into supporting H.J.RES. 2. They are very, very good at conning staff members!

BTW, you can thank Newt Gingrich for the phony balanced budget amendment. He was behind its birth and promotion back in the 1980s!

JWK

"Of all the contrivances for cheating the laboring class of mankind, none have been more effectual than that which deludes them with paper money. This is the most effectual of inventions to fertilize the rich man's field by the sweat of the poor man's brow."_____ Daniel Webster.

johnwk
01-30-2011, 03:12 PM
I noticed neither Ron Paul nor Rand Paul are supporting H.J.RES.2 (http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c112:H.J.RES.2:..) which turns out to be a fake balanced budget Amendment. I am so distressed that Michele Bachmann has signed onto it. I just cant imagine what was on her mind in doing so.


JWK

johnwk
01-31-2011, 07:44 PM
This is very distressing! It seems tea party participants have already been co-opted by the Washington Establishment GOP con artists who are promoting a fake balanced budget amendment.

SEE: Senate GOP divided over tactics for balanced-budget amendment (http://thehill.com/homenews/senate/141137-senate-gop-divided-over-tactics-for-balanced-budget-amendment)



“Members of the Senate Tea Party Caucus have said they will filibuster the debt-limit increase unless two-thirds of the upper chamber votes for a balanced-budget amendment.”


For a review of the fake balanced budget amendment CLICK HERE (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?276810-Michelle-Bachmann-gives-ok-to-RINO’s-fake-balanced-budget-amendment!&p=3080433&viewfull=1#post3080433)



JWK

HOLLYWOOD
01-31-2011, 07:53 PM
The World's A Stage... And Capital Hill's A Circus.

NYgs23
01-31-2011, 08:03 PM
What more were you expecting? How libertarian did you think these guys would be?

I suggest that even a weak and wimpy balanced budget amendment is better than nothing, but in the end you really shouldn't put much stock in the political process. True reform will come from the bottom up, by changing hearts and minds.

QueenB4Liberty
01-31-2011, 08:07 PM
What more were you expecting? How libertarian did you think these guys would be?

I suggest that even a weak and wimpy balanced budget amendment is better than nothing, but in the end you really shouldn't put much stock in the political process. True reform will come from the bottom up, by changing hearts and minds.

This.

We all knew this would happen.

And the debt ceiling just shouldn't be raised. Period. I mean, if they raise it, it doesn't matter if they do pay as you go or a balanced budget, the point is, raising the debt ceiling mean's we plan to spend that much more money. When we already can't afford any of it.

Michael Landon
01-31-2011, 08:51 PM
`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.

When was the last time we WEREN'T in a "military conflict?"

Blah.

- ML

Sola_Fide
02-19-2011, 09:21 PM
Bump.

Johnwk is right about this. We don't need a balanced budget amemdment. The constitution already makes provisions for balancing the budget.

doodle
02-19-2011, 09:31 PM
MB is a croakpot (sic).

She wants to cut benefits for veterans but does not want to touch foreign aid.

eduardo89
02-19-2011, 09:51 PM
what a joke. i hope this fails miserably...if it passes we can say goodbye to a balanced budget forever

Jack Bauer
02-19-2011, 10:00 PM
`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.

When was the last time we WEREN'T in a "military conflict?"

Blah.

- ML

Since the beginning of WW2 (1939) the US has been involved in the following military conflicts:

WW2: 1941-1945
Cold War: 1945-1991
Korean War: 1950-1953
Lebanon Crisis: 1958
Dominican Republic Conflict: 1965-1966
Vietnam War: 1955-1963
Iran Hostage Crisis: 1979-1981
Grenada Crisis: 1983
Panama: 1989-1990
Persian Gulf War: 1990-1991
Somalia: 1993
Yugoslavia: 1999
Afghanistan: 2001-2011
Iraq: 2003-2011

No conflict years: 1939-1940, 1946-1949, 1954, 1964, 1967-78, 1982, 1984-1988, 1992, 1994-1998, 2000

If you include the Cold War as a military conflict: 1939-1940, 1992, 1994-1998, 2000

That's a grand total of 33 years (46%) if you don't count the cold war or 9 years (12.5%) if you include the cold war, when the US has not been involved in any military conflicts.

Good luck controlling the deficit with THAT provision.

eduardo89
02-20-2011, 01:04 AM
Lee and Senate Republican Whip Jon Kyl (Ariz.) have sponsored the more stringent amendment.

It would limit federal spending to 18 percent of gross domestic product and would require a two-thirds vote in the Senate and the House to approve expenditures in excess of revenues.

That is what needs to pass.... although even with that, we'll have unbalanced budgets passing with 2/3 majorities.

Sola_Fide
02-23-2011, 07:44 PM
.

See: H.J.RES.2 (http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c112:H.J.RES.2:..) Proposing a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution of the United States.
112th Congress (2011-2012) Please note who else are its co-sponsors!

I am so disappointed to find that Michelle Bachmann has signed onto the same fake balanced budget amendment which RINOs and big spenders of the 1980s concocted and panhandled. I am hoping Michelle will withdraw her name from the fake BBA and introduce a bill advocating a BBA which reflects the specific no nonsense method to deal with deficits which our founding fathers approved of, and utilized, which I will present at the end of this post. But first, let us take a look at the fake balanced budget amendment.

(my editorial comments appear in italics)

`Article--

`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: Under Section 1, the amendment immediately states how it may be overruled 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: Under Section 2, the very intentions for the amendment [putting an end to increasing the national debt] can be subverted by allowing Congress to increase the national debt without providing specific taxes equaling the proposed increase in the national debt.

`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: Section 3 is absolutely meaningless and an illusion to portray fiscal responsibility. Have we not just learned with the recent health care proposal debate how projected figures can be manipulated by our Executive to portray legislation in which outlays and receipts are in balance when they are not?

`Section 4. A bill to increase the internal revenue shall require for final adoption in each House the concurrence of two-thirds of the whole number of that House by rollcall vote.

NOTE: While Section 4 discourages taxes to be increased by requiring a two-thirds vote in each House, the amendment encourages Congress to simply increase the national debt by a three fifths vote in both Houses.

`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 under Section 5 is most remarkable. In addition to setting the amendment aside as stated in Section 1, a simple majority vote in 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“. Have we not just seen how this “crisis” scare tactic mentality has been used to plunder our federal treasury under TARP; how it has been used to bail out auto companies which have blood sucking unions, and used to increase the national debt beyond human comprehension?

`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, under Section 6, we find the proposal‘s crown jewel! It is proposed to be etched in stone [our Constitution] that the entire balanced budget act heretofore is to be based upon “estimates”. How sweet of the amendment’s supporters to be so confident in, e.g., the Office and Budget Management, which has just opened the door to Obamacare with its fuzzy math ‘estimates” which are now known, beyond the shadow of doubt, to be nothing more than mathematical alchemy to allow additional unsustainable spending and borrowing.

`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 when total receipts derived from borrowing far exceed those for repayment of debt principal?

`Section 8. The provisions of this article respecting the internal revenue shall take effect upon the date of ratification of this article. The remaining provisions of 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, 2016.'.
___________


Bottom line is, the proposal neither compels an annual balanced budget, nor requires equal taxes to finance proposed increases in the national debt, nor does it make every member of Congress immediately accountable to their State‘s Governor and Legislatures if Congress spends more than is brought in from taxes during the course of a fiscal year.

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

Our founding fathers intentions are expressed in several of our Constitution’s state ratification documents as to what is to be done if Congress finds its normal means of raising revenue insufficient to meet its expenditures, e.g., see Ratification of the Constitution by the State of New Hampshire; June 21, 1788 (http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/ratnh.asp)

Fourthly That Congress do not lay direct Taxes but when the money arising from Impost, Excise and their other resources are insufficient for the Publick Exigencies; nor then, untill Congress shall have first made a Requisition upon the States, to Assess, Levy, & pay their respective proportions, of such requisitions agreeably to the Census fixed in the said Constitution in such way & manner as the Legislature of the State shall think best and in such Case if any State shall neglect, then Congress may Assess & Levy such States proportion together with the Interest thereon at the rate of six per Cent per Annum from the Time of payment prescribed in such requisition-


And so, in order to return to the fiscal discipline our founding fathers intended, which paved the way for America to become the economic marvel of the world, Michelle Bachmann ought to remove her name from the fake balanced budget amendment and introduce her own bill promoting something as follows:

Proposing a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution of the United States.


“SECTION 1. The Sixteenth Amendment is hereby repealed and Congress is henceforth forbidden to lay ``any`` tax or burden calculated from profits, gains, interest, salaries, wages, tips, inheritances or any other lawfully realized money

NOTE: these words would return us to our founding father’s ORIGINAL TAX PLAN (http://townshipnews.org/?p=1360) as they intended it to operate! These words would remove the existing chains of taxation which Congress now uses to enslave America‘s businesses, its industrial and manufacturing base, and they would end the slavish tax which now confiscates the bread which working people have earned!

"SECTION 2. Congress ought not raise money by borrowing, but when the money arising from imposts duties and excise taxes are insufficient to meet the public exigencies, and Congress has raised money by borrowing during the course of a fiscal year, Congress shall then lay a direct tax at the beginning of the next fiscal year for an amount sufficient to extinguish the preceding fiscal year's deficit, and apply the revenue so raised to extinguishing said deficit."

NOTE: Congress is to raise its primary revenue from imposts and duties, [taxes at our water’s edge], and may also lay miscellaneous internal excise taxes on specifically chosen articles of consumption.


"SECTION 3. When Congress is required to lay a direct tax in accordance with Section 1 of this Article, the Secretary of the United States Treasury shall, in a timely manner, calculate each State's apportioned share of the total sum being raised by dividing its total population size by the total population of the united states and multiplying that figure by the total sum being raised by Congress, and then provide the various State Congressional Delegations with a Bill notifying their State’s Executive and Legislature of its share of the total tax being collected and a final date by which said tax shall be paid into the United States Treasury."

[I]NOTE: our founder’s fair share formula to extinguish a deficit would be:

States’ population

---------------------------- X SUM TO BE RAISED = STATE’S SHARE

Total U.S. Population


"SECTION 4. Each State shall be free to assume and pay its quota of the direct tax into the United States Treasury by a final date set by Congress, but if any State shall refuse or neglect to pay its quota, then Congress shall send forth its officers to assess and levy such State's proportion against the real property within the State with interest thereon at the rate of ((?)) per cent per annum, and against the individual owners of the taxable property. Provision shall be made for a 15% discount for those States paying their share by ((?))of the fiscal year in which the tax is laid, and a 10% discount for States paying by the final date set by Congress, such discount being to defray the States' cost of collection."

JWK

Bump.

Sola_Fide
02-23-2011, 07:56 PM
Now I'm beginning to think a tax on consumption (fair tax) might contain that internal check we need on spending. Hmmm.

Are there any fair tax guys here?

2young2vote
02-23-2011, 08:36 PM
"SECTION 2. Congress ought not raise money by borrowing, but when the money arising from imposts duties and excise taxes are insufficient to meet the public exigencies, and Congress has raised money by borrowing during the course of a fiscal year, Congress shall then lay a direct tax at the beginning of the next fiscal year for an amount sufficient to extinguish the preceding fiscal year's deficit, and apply the revenue so raised to extinguishing said deficit."

Can someone please explain the bold part to me. To me it just sounds like "they shouldn't do it, but if they do then they can lay a direct tax on the states." This sounds like a free ticket to just spend as much as they want and make the states pay for it. I read that article about the State Rate Tax and it gave an extremely weak answer as to when the government would be allowed to impose these direct taxes on the states. It basically said "except upon dire emergency." This isn't even close to specific enough.

AZKing
02-23-2011, 09:20 PM
`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.

Only in the US government can interest not be considered an outlay :rolleyes:

VBRonPaulFan
02-23-2011, 11:01 PM
That is what needs to pass.... although even with that, we'll have unbalanced budgets passing with 2/3 majorities.

not necessarily, that would mean we'd only need to focus on keeping 1/3 of our people in office to block all the BS haha.