Balanced budget amendment rejected by House of Representatives

[aGameOfThrones]

The House voted 261-165 on Friday to reject a balanced-budget amendment to the Constitution – falling short of the two-thirds majority needed.

Most Democrats opposed the balanced-budget amendment, but a handful of Republicans joined them, including House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan (R-Wis.), who argued this version wasn’t tough enough.

“I’m concerned that this version will lead to a much bigger government fueled by more taxes,” he told POLITICO. “Spending is the problem, yet this version of the [balanced-budget amendment] makes it more likely taxes will be raised, government will grow, and economic freedom will be diminished.”

Many conservative House Republicans had pushed for a tougher balanced-budget amendment that would require a two-thirds majority to raise taxes, as well capping spending at 18.


Under the terms of the August debt limit agreement, both chambers must vote on a balanced-budget amendment before the end of the year. The amendment doesn’t need to pass and be sent to the states. If the amendment somehow got the two-thirds majority of both the House and Senate, it would need ratification from three-fourths of the states.



Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1111/68695.html#ixzz1e5YSPWDm

//

[Havax]

How did Rand vote?

[Zippyjuan]

More policital theater. They say they want a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution- yet refuse to submit any budget which actually reduces spending- let alone balanced. They are free to do so without the amendment. What is stopping them? Because if they actually did that, the cuts and tax increases would turn of most if not all of their potential voters. The difficulty is in the details- which for political reasons they won't provide- instead using vague terms "reduce waste". Cutting waste is good but won't eliminate $1.3 trillion in overspending. Taking $1.3 trillion out of the economy would also be a major shock and put us into another recession which they want to avoid as well.

[TCE]

How did Rand vote?

It was a House vote, so Rand did not take part.


More policital theater. They say they want a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution- yet refuse to submit any budget which actually reduces spending- let alone balanced. They are free to do so without the amendment. What is stopping them? Because if they actually did that, the cuts and tax increases would turn of most if not all of their potential voters. The difficulty is in the details- which for political reasons they won't provide- instead using vague terms "reduce waste". Cutting waste is good but won't eliminate $1.3 trillion in overspending. Taking $1.3 trillion out of the economy would also be a major shock and put us into another recession which they want to avoid as well.

You don't like the good ole dog and pony show? Of course it is nothing but political theater, but hey, better they debate something relevant as opposed to the usual naming of post offices.. The budget has increased exponentially since 2008 and all of the spending appear to have had a somewhat minimal impact. I would naturally love some major cuts, but the concern is always that they will purposely cut something important while leaving unnecessary spending alone.

[Rael]

More policital theater. They say they want a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution- yet refuse to submit any budget which actually reduces spending- let alone balanced. They are free to do so without the amendment. What is stopping them? Because if they actually did that, the cuts and tax increases would turn of most if not all of their potential voters. The difficulty is in the details- which for political reasons they won't provide- instead using vague terms "reduce waste". Cutting waste is good but won't eliminate $1.3 trillion in overspending. Taking $1.3 trillion out of the economy would also be a major shock and put us into another recession which they want to avoid as well.

Yep and they can do that with a simple majority

[spudea]

Taking $1.3 trillion out of the economy would also be a major shock and put us into another recession which they want to avoid as well.

Disagree. Cutting government spending does not "take" from the economy.

[LibertyEagle]

More policital theater. They say they want a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution- yet refuse to submit any budget which actually reduces spending- let alone balanced. They are free to do so without the amendment. What is stopping them? Because if they actually did that, the cuts and tax increases would turn of most if not all of their potential voters. The difficulty is in the details- which for political reasons they won't provide- instead using vague terms "reduce waste". Cutting waste is good but won't eliminate $1.3 trillion in overspending. Taking $1.3 trillion out of the economy would also be a major shock and put us into another recession which they want to avoid as well.

We are IN a recession, right now.

[matt0611]

From what I've read this BBA was pretty weak. If we're gonna have BBA I want it to be a very strong one.

Does the President need to sign off on amendments to the constitution?
If so, this is pretty much a waste of time, as BHO will never agree to one.

[adams101]

The problem with the balanced budget agreement is the same as the one with making budget cuts (or lack there of). Both party's have literally built the entire $3.7 trillion dollar budget completely around their lobby's and special interest groups. There is not one nickel in there focused on the US taxpayers. Every dollar is a dollar of either paying themselves, vote buying or campaign donation payoffs. EVERY single dollar is.

Our federal government will never change and the only way to start cutting is to move as much of the taxation and spending back to the states who are already bound by balanced budget amendments. The are literally forced to make the cuts. They take what they want and can afford. The rest simply gets cut. The states cannot take on unfunded spending.

No meaningful cuts will every be made on the federal level. It has to be moved to the state level so this can be done. Once you see both party's can't cut a dime for years and now they can't even pass a balanced budget agreement they have become useless. You can say it will cause "this and that" and that is like letting your children keep charging at the mall because they will get mad if you cut them off........ tough. They will get over it and move on.

[georgiaboy]

How did Ron vote?

fixed.

[purplechoe]

We are IN a recession, right now.

If they didn't fudge the numbers the way they do (inflation, unemployment, etc.) people would realize that we're pretty much in a depression right now...

[Zippyjuan]

Disagree. Cutting government spending does not "take" from the economy.

Cuts would mean people getting fired from their jobs and since there are no other jobs to really go to, that will increase the unemployment. Then those people who lose their jobs are no longer spending money at businesses who lose more sales and they in turn lay off more workers. It certainly won't help the economy. Long term it may be a good thing but short term it has the same effect as any other employer laying off thousands of workers.