"Balanced-budget amendments are a waste of time." - Tom Woods

[My First Name Is Paul]

From Tom Woods's latest book, Rollback: Repealing Big Government Before the Coming Fiscal Collapse (http://www.amazon.com/Rollback-Repealing-Government-Before-Collapse/dp/1596981415/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1298923047&sr=8-1) locations 3134-38 in chapter 7 (I have the Kindle version) Woods is debunking the Republican Party's 1994 'Contract with America':


One plank from the Contract was a balanced-budget amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Balanced-budget amendments are a waste of time. There is no way they could be worded that the federal government could not find some way to evade. Faced with a balanced-budget requirement, the federal government will simply take more and more expenditures off budget. On top of that, any such amendment inevitably allows for exceptions. And the Contract's Fiscal Responsibility Act allowed for an unbalanced budget as long as three-fifths of Congress approved it. There's a hurdle they'd never clear.

I was disappointed that so many people jumped to discussing amendment/constitutional convention trivia instead of the proposal itself. People should think critically about everything anyone is proposing, even things proposed from Ron Paul or his son. We have a balanced-budget amendment in California and what Woods describes in Rollback is the same thing that the state of California has done. I am not aware of any evidence that such amendments solve any fiscal-related problems, or any problems, for that matter.

[Pericles]

Gramm-Rudman-Hollings Act

[Sola_Fide]

Good post.

[hazek]

For all the minarchists:

The constitution either gave you the government you have or it was incapable of preventing it. I doubt an amendment would change anything and I agree with Woods.

[freshjiva]

I agree with Woods. You must supplement a balanced budget with sound money and a supermajority vote to raise tax rates. This tri-system would make the system bomb proof.

[Maximus]

It is good politics though, let's keep hammering away

[MaxPower]

I agree that the government can and will find excuses to break with any balanced-budget amendment's requirements, but I support it anyway, because I believe it would at the least slow them down and make it more difficult; no one here would claim that the Bill of Rights, for example, has been inviolate since it was put in place, but I doubt there are many who think we aren't better off with those 10 amendments than without.

[keh10]

I agree that the government can and will find excuses to break with any balanced-budget amendment's requirements, but I support it anyway, because I believe it would at the least slow them down and make it more difficult; no one here would claim that the Bill of Rights, for example, has been inviolate since it was put in place, but I doubt there are many who think we aren't better off with those 10 amendments than without.

+1

[Jack Bauer]

I agree that the government can and will find excuses to break with any balanced-budget amendment's requirements, but I support it anyway, because I believe it would at the least slow them down and make it more difficult; no one here would claim that the Bill of Rights, for example, has been inviolate since it was put in place, but I doubt there are many who think we aren't better off with those 10 amendments than without.

+ 1776.

Pass a balanced budget amendment and a tax rate cap amendment. Problem solved.

[hazek]

I agree that the government can and will find excuses to break with any balanced-budget amendment's requirements, but I support it anyway, because I believe it would at the least slow them down and make it more difficult; no one here would claim that the Bill of Rights, for example, has been inviolate since it was put in place, but I doubt there are many who think we aren't better off with those 10 amendments than without.

So basically your saying your happy you at least have it in writing which of your rights are suppose to be protected even though it means shit?

Do you want to know what I think? I think that's bull shit. We either fight until we have total and complete freedom and security for our rights or we give in right now and accept living our lives as slaves. I'm sick of it personally and I don't want to shoot for the middle anymore.

[hazek]

+ 1776.

Pass a balanced budget amendment and a tax rate cap amendment. Problem solved.

What part of "The constitution either gave you the government you have or it was incapable of preventing it." don't you understand?

[April1775]

On a state level, Wyoming, by law, has to balance their budget every year.
Wyoming has a budge surplus right now.
Wyoming has the strongest state economy in the country right now.

Some would argue that this is a function of Wyoming being the lowest-populated state (a half-million people). That may be part of it. But I think it also has a lot to do with the fact that we balance our budget.

[jclay2]

On a state level, Wyoming, by law, has to balance their budget every year.
Wyoming has a budge surplus right now.
Wyoming has the strongest state economy in the country right now.

Some would argue that this is a function of Wyoming being the lowest-populated state (a half-million people). That may be part of it. But I think it also has a lot to do with the fact that we balance our budget.

What part of Wyoming do you live in? Would love to escape the absolute tyranny that is Illinois some day.

[MaxPower]

So basically your saying your happy you at least have it in writing which of your rights are suppose to be protected even though it means shit?
No, I am saying that I believe the presence of a "Balanced Budget amendment," given sufficiently specific provisions (though it would most certainly not go inviolate, seeing how the State is always straining to break any bonds imposed on its power), would serve as a useful roadblock to government profligacy, in the same way, for instance, that the First Amendment's guarantee of free speech and the Second Amendment's protection of gun rights have actually kept our speech freer and our gun rights stronger than they would be in the absence of said amendments, even acknowledging that they have been violated many times.

A national-level gun confiscation program, for example, has never gotten off the ground in the United States the way such programs have done in culturally-similar Western nations such as England and Australia, and I don't believe it will happen in the foreseeable future, either. Why? I daresay it is because of the Second Amendment, which creates a legitimacy barrier too strong for such a brazen action on the part of the government to go through without incurring a public uprising. Gun rights have been violated many times in our country, and will continue to be violated, but these violations are smaller, weaker and less-ambitious than they would be without such an amendment in place, and thus I am glad for its presence.



Do you want to know what I think? I think that's bull shit. We either fight until we have total and complete freedom and security for our rights or we give in right now and accept living our lives as slaves. I'm sick of it personally and I don't want to shoot for the middle anymore.
I'm not suggesting that we stop fighting before we have real freedom, or that we "shoot for the middle." However, in the process of ascension, one surely has to go through the middle before he can reach the peak. If a balanced budget amendment should pass, I will not cry "mission accomplished!" and tell everyone to go home. There will still be a tremendous amount to be done before complete liberty is achieved, but we will have gained ground toward that end. A title fight is rarely won in a single blow; rather, one must chip away at his opponent with many well-placed clouts to head and body before the finishing touches may be applied.

[Pericles]

For all the minarchists:

The constitution either gave you the government you have or it was incapable of preventing it. I doubt an amendment would change anything and I agree with Woods.
For the anarchists:

As anarchism was the natural state of man, anarchism either gave you the government you have or it was incapable of preventing it.

[April1775]

What part of Wyoming do you live in? Would love to escape the absolute tyranny that is Illinois some day.

Casper. My wife and I moved her from SoCal two years ago. We LOVE it. no state income tax, low sales and property tax, The state is gun friendly, hard working, sparse and beautiful.

It's also colder and windier than Chicago, and our state reps and governor are into what I call "Christian Sharia". ....i.e. while they may be into smaller federal intervention, low taxes, and think everyone should be able to walk around with any sort of gun they like, they also think pot, gambling and porn should be felonies. They hate welfare, but like fed welfare for rich ranchers. Many of them ARE rich ranchers, we call 'em "ranchislators."

Getting involved in politics here is easier than in more populated states. My state rep has been over to my house for dinner, and I've gone shooting with him a bunch. I've been shooting with the governor. Our federal senators personally answer e-mail when I (or any voter here) write 'em with a respectful, cogent question or statement.

Out of 90 state reps, three are libertarian republicans. About ten are blue dog Democrats. The rest are mostly wild west republicans. pretty much Ronald Reagan crossed with John Wayne.

There is a small but loud vocal bit of leftie nanny influence here.....anti-smoking laws are slowly gaining ground, etc, but really, in 30 years this place MIGHT somewhat resemble Illinois in tyranny. but by then Illinois will literally resemble the USSR, so this is a nice place to ride out the slow apocalypse.

Wyoming is a great place to be if you don't smoke pot, don't want an abortion, don't wanna gay marry, do wanna pay low taxes, legally walk around with a Glock on your hip and a loaded AK47 on the seat next to you in your car like I do, while not wearing a seat belt, and yelling "Obama sucks" out the window and having people agree with you.

Michael W. Dean

[Live_Free_Or_Die]

So basically your saying your happy you at least have it in writing which of your rights are suppose to be protected even though it means shit?

Do you want to know what I think? I think that's bull shit. We either fight until we have total and complete freedom and security for our rights or we give in right now and accept living our lives as slaves. I'm sick of it personally and I don't want to shoot for the middle anymore.

I support this message!

[heavenlyboy34]

for all the minarchists:

the constitution either gave you the government you have or it was incapable of preventing it. i doubt an amendment would change anything and i agree with woods.

ftw!!

[Sola_Fide]

For the anarchists:

As anarchism was the natural state of man, anarchism either gave you the government you have or it was incapable of preventing it.

HB,

What is your answer to this?

[hazek]

For the anarchists:

As anarchism was the natural state of man, anarchism either gave you the government you have or it was incapable of preventing it.

Are you suggesting that man has the same mental or technical capability as he had 6000 years ago when the first state emerged? We outgrew slavery among other banal things, didn't we? We can protect our land with just the threat of a few missiles now can't we? Circumstances changed. Once the state is realized for what it is it wont come back, just like slavery wont.

Your example is flawed because people evolve and circumstances change but a written document can't and is either obeyed and gave you what you have or it's not obeyed. And if you can change it, then what's the point in the first place?

[VBRonPaulFan]

Are you suggesting that man has the same mental or technical capability as he had 6000 years ago when the first state emerged? We outgrew slavery among other banal things, didn't we? We can protect our land with just the threat of a few missiles now can't we? Circumstances changed. Once the state is realized for what it is it wont come back, just like slavery wont.

Your example is flawed because people evolve and circumstances change but a written document can't and is either obeyed and gave you what you have or it's not obeyed. And if you can change it, then what's the point in the first place?

I agree, a balanced budget amendment is just another snippet on a piece of paper to ignore. Unless ideologies change and our message reaches more people on a personal level, there will always be a small group proposing things like this to try to get douche bags that want to run your life under control.

Our budget isn't jacked up because the constitution allowed it, it's jacked up because people have fundamentally changed what they view the role of government should be.

[Pericles]

Are you suggesting that man has the same mental or technical capability as he had 6000 years ago when the first state emerged? We outgrew slavery among other banal things, didn't we? We can protect our land with just the threat of a few missiles now can't we? Circumstances changed. Once the state is realized for what it is it wont come back, just like slavery wont.

Your example is flawed because people evolve and circumstances change but a written document can't and is either obeyed and gave you what you have or it's not obeyed. And if you can change it, then what's the point in the first place?

You do realize that if I asked a communist or socialist why if every attempt to implement those ideas in practice has been a failure, what makes him think the next attempt would be a success, he would give me the same answer you just did?

[hazek]

You do realize that if I asked a communist or socialist why if every attempt to implement those ideas in practice has been a failure, what makes him think the next attempt would be a success, he would give me the same answer you just did?

Except that their ideas for a form of a STATE have been tried recently and failed miserably whereas we haven't had anarchy anywhere in the western modern world since the first state was created.

I think that even if you don't believe anarchy is possible (which btw means a voluntary society, not chaos and whatnot) you must admit the fact that we basically haven't had the chance to try anarchy with people who'd have the capability to defend themselves against any state that would try to oppress them.

[Pericles]

.............. whereas we haven't had anarchy anywhere in the western modern world since the first state was created.
...............

This may be a clue that in the competitive models of societal systems, anarchy can't survive. Depending on your definition of "modern", either (A) any attempt to form a society depends on replacing and existing model, or (B) in all of the westward expansions of settlement and exploration, where there were no previous governmental models, a system based on anarchy was not chosen, or (C) in the collapse of states after wars or revolutions, as different or competing systems of governance evolved, anarchy did not survive the competition.

[hazek]

This may be a clue that in the competitive models of societal systems, anarchy can't survive. Depending on your definition of "modern", either (A) any attempt to form a society depends on replacing and existing model, or (B) in all of the westward expansions of settlement and exploration, where there were no previous governmental models, a system based on anarchy was not chosen, or (C) in the collapse of states after wars or revolutions, as different or competing systems of governance evolved, anarchy did not survive the competition.

Please don't be stupid.

Did people have a choice when the state came knocking? No. They either complied or got arrested and if resisted got killed. If you think you're so smart show me an example where a community was asked and willingly entered into the state in the last 100 years. Better yet let's go from the first atomic bomb on because that's actually the point from which I think anarchy is possible at all. Because you need that kind of a fking bomb to protect yourself against states. So was there a community that was asked to join that had an option to refuse??

I can show you at least one that chose not to participate: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waco_siege



If you think that just because the odd 10% who couldn't object to a state because they rather stayed alive that the state won a "competition" between another political system your out of your mind. How would you like it if we both had a race and I'd put a gun to your head and told you I'm going to kill you if you win. What does my win count for after that?


Again.. please don't stupid.