Should the Republican Congress send a balanced budget Amendment to the States?

[johnwk]

.

I happen to be a firm believer in requiring our federal government to balance the budget on an annual basis. To not do so opens the door to accumulating a massive federal debt, as has happened, depriving our nation’s younger generation of their economic liberty in that they are now in debt to the tune of $127 Trillion! See You Think The Deficit Is Bad? Federal Unfunded Liabilities Exceed $127 Trillion

My personal choice for a balanced budget amendment is following what our Founders intended, and is reflected in the FAIR SHARE BALANCED BUDGET AMENDMENT which follows.


The Fair Share Balanced Budget Amendment


“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 The Sixteenth Amendment is hereby repealed and Congress is henceforth forbidden to lay ``any`` tax or burden calculated from profits, gains, interest, salaries, wages, tips, inheritances or any other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 as they intended it to operate! They would also end the experiment with allowing Congress to lay and collect taxes calculated from lawfully earned "incomes" which now oppresses America‘s economic engine and robs the bread which working people have earned when selling their labor!

"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. But if Congress borrows and spends more than is brought in from imposts, duties and miscellaneous excise taxes during the course of a fiscal year, then, and only then, is the apportioned tax to be laid.


"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 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."


NOTE: our founder’s fair share formula to extinguish an annual deficit would be:

States’ population

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

Total U.S. Population


The above formula, as intended by our founding fathers, is to insure that those states who contribute the lion’s share of the tax are guaranteed a representation in Congress proportionately equal to their contribution, i.e., representation with proportional financial obligation!


Note also that each State’s number or Representatives, under our Constitution is determined by the rule of apportionment:


State`s Pop.
------------------- X House size (435) = State`s No. of Representatives
U.S. Pop.


"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."


NOTE: This section respects the Tenth Amendment and allows each state to raise its share in its own chosen way in a time period set by Congress, but also allows the federal government to enter a state and collect the tax if a state is delinquent in meeting its obligation.


"SECTION 5. This Amendment to the Constitution, when ratified by the required number of States, shall take effect no later than (?) years after the required number of States have ratified it.


JWK


“…..with all these blessings, what more is necessary to make us a happy and a prosperous people? Still one thing more, fellow-citizens—a wise and frugal Government, which shall restrain men from injuring one another, shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned. This is the sum of good government, and this is necessary to close the circle of our felicities“. Thomas Jefferson, First Inaugural Address

[Ronin Truth]

What tax rate would be required to balance the budget? Would it hasten, insure and trigger the revolution?

[Zippyjuan]

What tax rate would be required to balance the budget? Would it hasten, insure and trigger the revolution?

I had run the numbers based on the 2010 budget and based on our imports then- if you placed an excise tax or import duty on everything we import (including food and energy like oil) it would have to be a 200% tax on every import to balance that year's federal budget and have no other taxes. That would mean that everything would cost three times as much. But that would also cause how many imports people buy to plummet so the rate would end up being even higher.

"But domestic goods would not be subject to the tax". Correct. But without competition from imports, their prices would certainly be higher as well. No more cheap goods from China to buy. They won't be cheap anymore so US producers won't have to try to match them.

"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."

Impost duties and excise taxes creates the illusion that nobody is paying taxes and that they are only being paid by foreigner who want to sell their goods here. But the truth is that you DO pay those taxes. They will be added onto the prices of everything you buy and be more hidden. But as above, it would fail to raise enough revenues so everybody would face not just higher prices but if taxes were "direct" and applied to everybody evenly, most people would end up paying more in taxes than they do today (about 45% of all federal income tax filers last year owed no taxes). http://taxvox.taxpolicycenter.org/20...al-income-tax/ besides higher prices.

[Zippyjuan]

"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."

Does that give the Federal Government the power to seize property for non-payment of taxes? That is an improvement in the tax system- making it "fairer"?

Let's take another extreme. Let's assume you want to balance the budget with a "fair tax" applied evenly to all individuals. We will include ALL people- no matter what their age. That gives us 330 million people to support a $4 trillion budget. That comes out $12,000 per person. Otherwise we seize your property. Let's suppose it is a family of four. That makes their burden $48,000. Median household income is about $52,000 a year. http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2.../MEHOINUSA672N That leaves you with $4,000 to feed and clothe and buy whatever else you need for that family- $1000 a person per year.

And "median income" means that half the country survives on less than that.

[Ronin Truth]

"Our forefathers would be firing by now."

[Zippyjuan]

Republicans have been calling for a Balanced Budget Amendment for years. It has become a running joke by now. How many balanced budgets have they (or the Democrats) actually submitted? They won't. That is because it would involve painful cuts and perhaps more taxation as well which they won't do if they hope to get re-elected. Can't piss of the voters on anything by cutting "their" favorite program.

But that is actually why they want the amendment if they do support it- to give them cover. "Well, I didn't want to but the law forced us to do it!" The Balanced Budget Amendment idea goes back at least as far as 1980. When efforts to pass one then failed, supporters attempted to get states to ratify a Constitutional Convention to propose one there.

[Ronin Truth]

'Periodic revolution, “at least once every 20 years,” was “a medicine necessary for the sound health of government.” ' -- Thomas Jefferson 3rd US President (1801-1809)

Thomas Jefferson described the Tenth Amendment as "the foundation of the Constitution" and added, "to take a single step beyond the boundaries thus specially drawn ... is to take possession of a boundless field of power, no longer susceptible of any definition."
http://www.answers.com/topic/amendme...s-constitution

"Experience hath shewn, that even under the best forms of government those entrusted with power have, in time, and by slow operations, perverted it into tyranny." -- Thomas Jefferson

"I wish it were possible to obtain a single amendment to our constitution - taking from the federal government their power of borrowing." - Thomas Jefferson

[johnwk]

What tax rate would be required to balance the budget?

The answer to your question is ZERO!

For example, Congress could end the entire food stamp program and at the same time reduce the amount of federal taxes now paid by the people of the states by the same total. This would allow current food stamp money to remain in the states and each state may then meet their own responsibilities [with respect to "food stamps"] as intended under federalism, our Constitution's plan which is summarized as follows:

“The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce; with which last the power of taxation will, for the most part, be connected.

The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the State." ___ Federalist No. 45

One of the immediate savings would be is getting rid of the thousands of federal employee parasites who now administer the food stamp program and live large on the taxpayer's money with their outrageous salaries and pension program which the surfs in the states are taxed to finance.

The federal department of education is another parasitic organization there to redistribute money taxed away from the people of the states and has approximately 5,000 parasites sucking the blood from the people's paychecks, some of whom can barely meet their own economic needs.

We don't need this parasitic infestation which is sucking the life's blood from the American People's pocket!


Consider the countless number of unconstitutional federal agencies and departments being closed down, and reducing taxes in the states by the amount now spent on these unconstitutional agencies and departments and it is easy to realize we would need a zero tax increase! We need to rid ourselves of these parasites which do nothing more than redistribute the paychecks of hard working people!


JWK


“He has erected a multitude of new offices , and sent hither swarms of officers, to harass our people, and eat out their substance” ___Declaration of Independence

[Zippyjuan]

So getting rid of Food Stamps would balance the Federal budget and let us get rid of all taxes (result in a 0% tax rate)? Fascinating math problem.

The SNAP program budget is about $80 billion in a $4 trillion budget with about $500 billion deficit. Only $420 billion more to cut. (and that doesn't make the tax rate zero either- just the amount of increasing taxes to zero for a balanced budget).

You need to make half of this go away to balance your budget:



https://www.nationalpriorities.org/b...-101/spending/

Chart of where the $1.1 trillion in "discretionary" or cutable spending in Obama's proposed budget for 2015 goes. (the rest is considered "mandatory").

[johnwk]

So getting rid of Food Stamps would balance the Federal budget and let us get rid of all taxes (result in a 0% tax rate)? Fascinating math problem.

What is fascinating is your misrepresentation of what I indicated, and also your use of a proposed 2015 budget offered by a socialist pig. When you sleep with a pig, you begin to smell like a pig.


JWK



When will the America People realize we have an Islamic cell operating out of our nation's White House? Will they come to this conclusion when Islamic terrorist activities begin in our southern Border States or cities like New York City?



JWK

[ZENemy]

politicians have been calling for a Balanced Budget Amendment for a century.

Fixed that for ya.

[Zippyjuan]

What is fascinating is your misrepresentation of what I indicated, and also your use of a proposed 2015 budget offered by a socialist pig. When you sleep with a pig, you begin to smell like a pig.


JWK

Sorry- what was mis-represented? Thanks for correction.

If you want to balance your budget, this is where you have to start. You have to get rid of $500 billion which is roughly half of what is shown.

(Presidents can suggest a budget but Congress has to actually write and pass one- then the President gets to sign or veto it).

[johnwk]

Sorry- what was mis-represented?

What I indicated. What I wrote in context.


JWK

[H. E. Panqui]

jwk writes: I happen to be a firm believer in requiring our federal government to balance the budget on an annual basis. To not do so opens the door to accumulating a massive federal debt, as has happened, depriving our nation’s younger generation of their economic liberty in that they are now in debt to the tune of $127 Trillion! See You Think The Deficit Is Bad? Federal Unfunded Liabilities Exceed $127 Trillion



(jwk, it appears you fiddle while Rome has burned to a crisp!..THE UNIT OF ACCOUNT YOU WISH TO SEE "BALANCED" IS DEBAUCHED UPON HONEST SCRUTINY!! Please cease from throwing around number$ from some unaudited, gd, secret-squirrel, vampire bank$ter$ and gd government eCONomic$ appaRATchik$!!.....sorry for yelling but....sheesh!...have a good day!)

[Ronin Truth]

200 trillion debt - LewRockwell.com

http://archive.lewrockwell.com/rep/2...-be-named.html

And that article is from 2010.

[johnwk]

.

I see the Constitution Party is still promoting the State Rate Tax.

"To the degree that tariffs on foreign products, and excises, are insufficient to cover the legitimate Constitutional costs of the federal government, we will offer an apportioned “state-rate tax” in which the responsibility for covering the cost of unmet obligations will be divided among the several states in accordance with their proportion of the total population of the United States, excluding the District of Columbia. Thus, if a state contains 10 percent of the nation’s citizens, it will be responsible for assuming payment of 10 percent of the annual deficit."


Unfortunately, I can’t find one Republican member of Congress or so called “conservative” running as a Republican who supports the State Rate Tax which is included in the Fair Share Balanced Budget Amendment.

JWK


“Honest money and honest taxation, the Key to America’s future Prosperity“ ___ from “Prosperity Restored by the State Rate Tax Plan”, no longer in print.

[Ender]

There is no "money". Money is simply keystrokes on a computer.

A "Balanced Budget" means nothing in the fractionalized money system we currently use. The answer is to get rid of fractionalized banking, return the gold standard, revive real capitalism, and end the FED.

[Acala]

Does that give the Federal Government the power to seize property for non-payment of taxes? That is an improvement in the tax system- making it "fairer"?

Let's take another extreme. Let's assume you want to balance the budget with a "fair tax" applied evenly to all individuals. We will include ALL people- no matter what their age. That gives us 330 million people to support a $4 trillion budget. That comes out $12,000 per person. Otherwise we seize your property. Let's suppose it is a family of four. That makes their burden $48,000. Median household income is about $52,000 a year. http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2.../MEHOINUSA672N That leaves you with $4,000 to feed and clothe and buy whatever else you need for that family- $1000 a person per year.

And "median income" means that half the country survives on less than that.

As I see it, the point of requiring a balanced budget and establishing a mandatory direct assessment to accomplish it is that the people would then feel the immediate pain of excessive government spending and would be motivated to stop it. When the government can borrow money to cover its excesses and postpone the reckoning, it is easier for the people to ignore the problem. That is exactly why the problem has been allowed to get so big.

[johnwk]

As I see it, the point of requiring a balanced budget and establishing a mandatory direct assessment to accomplish it is that the people would then feel the immediate pain of excessive government spending and would be motivated to stop it. When the government can borrow money to cover its excesses and postpone the reckoning, it is easier for the people to ignore the problem. That is exactly why the problem has been allowed to get so big.

Exactly! And that is the brilliance of the apportioned tax if imposts, duties and excise taxes are found insufficient to meet Congress irresponsible spending and borrowing.

Our Founder's apportioned tax among the states, which was intended to be laid if revenue from imposts, duties and excise taxes were found insufficient has great merit, because it requires each States' Congressional Delegation to return home with a bill in hand to give to their own State's s Governor and Legislature who will be burdened with paying for the supposedly "free cheese crap" handed out by the federal government. Suddenly, the Governors and Legislatures and people of each state will realize there is no "free government cheese" from the federal government and they will demand their Congressional Delegation to stop reckless spending and borrowing to avoid the apportioned tax which depletes their own State Treasury.

JWK



“He has erected a multitude of new offices (Washington‘s existing political plum job Empire) , and sent hither swarms of officers, to harass our people, and eat out their substance” ___Declaration of Independence