This is quite amusing and worth reading:
President Obama is pulling out the big guns and pointing them straight at your grandmother. “Obama on Tuesday said he cannot guarantee that retirees will receive their Social Security checks August 3” absent an agreement with Congress to raise the debt ceiling, CBS News reports:
“I cannot guarantee that those checks go out on August 3rd if we haven’t resolved this issue. Because there may simply not be the money in the coffers to do it,” Mr. Obama said in an interview with CBS Evening News anchor Scott Pelley, according to excerpts released by CBS News.
At a press conference yesterday, Obama demanded that Republicans not only authorize trillions of dollars in new borrowing,which at this point seems unavoidable, but agree to what he called “massive, job-killing tax increases” effective in 2013–i.e., after what he expects will be his re-election.
And of course, the press lapped it up.
For this he drew plaudits from what used to be called the mainstream media. “Obama Grasping Centrist Banner in Debt Impasse” read the New York Times headline. The Washington Post’s Chris Cillizza dubbed him “Dad-in-Chief,” explaining: “Boil Obama’s message down and you get this: Adults sometimes have to do things that they don’t want to do. This is one of those times. So, let’s get it done.”
The kids are acting up, so he threatens to starve Granny to death. That’s just how a strong father behaves.
The truth is that the money for Granny is there.
However, according to the Daily Treasury Statements published by the U.S. Treasury Department, the ongoing flow of federal tax revenue since the Treasury declared that it had hit the debt limit on May 16 has been more than sufficient to cover the combined costs of federal spending on interest payments, Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, the Veterans Affairs department and federal workers wages and insurance benefits (including wages and insurance benefits for military personnel).
When was the last time the government shut down and Granny didn’t get her check?
I do like McConnell’s plan for a few reasons.
One, it makes Obama own the debt.
Two, it’ll never pass.
Three, if Obama raised the debt ceiling without any spending cuts, it would prove everything everyone says about Obama’s inability to do anything other than spend, spend, spend. And he still doesn’t get his tax hikes.
And if Granny gets it, it will be because that’s Obama wants.
DrJohn has been a health care professional for more than 30 years. In addition to clinical practice he has done extensive research and has published widely with over 70 original articles and abstracts in the peer-reviewed literature. DrJohn is well known in his field and has lectured on every continent except for Antarctica. He has been married to the same wonderful lady for over 30 years and has three kids- two sons, both of whom are attorneys and one daughter on her way into the field of education.
DrJohn was brought up with the concept that one can do well if one is prepared to work hard but nothing in life is guaranteed.
Except for liberals being foolish.
Mark Levin laid out the perfect plan for the GOP on his radio show last night. (Pay attention, McConnell, this is what offense looks like when you’re “protecting your brand”)
Interest due on the debt in August is about 15% of revenue into the Treasury for August. A little more math, and you figure out entitlements can be covered if approximately half the bureaucracy is given an unplanned vacation. House GOP should just pass a spending bill making debt interest, entitlements, and military salaries spending priorities #1, #2, and #3. Then let Dingy Harry and Veto Barry own defaulting or stiffing Grandma instead of sending half the bureau-weenie army home for a month. The House GOP could even take the rest of July off in good conscience after passing this bill tomorrow.
Repeat monthly until Barry shows us “his bluff” – which will probably be impeachable.
d(^_^)b
http://libertyatstake.blogspot.com/
“Because the Only Good Progressive is a Failed Progressive”
I’m sorry Dr.J, but Mitch McConnell’s plan to raise the debt ceiling with no spending cuts is not “fiendishly clever”, it’s spineless capitulation.
The Great Debt Debate – Sarah Palin 7-13-2011 Part 1 in which she unloads on Obama and McConnell.
Part 2 “I don’t trust this president.”
@John Cooper:
THANK YOU! McConnell should be shunned by Republicans, but he won’t be. He’s a statist and a defeatist and that would get you a one-way ticket to the hangman on the eastern front.
With good reason.
@John Cooper:
WTF cares what this grifter says? She’s not running for President, thus she’s a private citizen who is nothing more than a self-promoter.
let her throw her hat, or bra, into the ring and stop playing both sides.
I care more about what Bachmann has to say that the half-governor.
Ooooooooh, Ivan has a dislike for strong, smart women…and it shows!
Bipartisan Policy Center: U.S. Won’t Default on Debt If Congress Fails to Raise Debt Ceiling–But drastic and immediate cuts would occur.
Consider the article’s arithmetic: The BPC projects $172 billion in federal revenue for August 2011. Assume the treasury pays the following bills first: interest on the debt ($29 billion); Social Security ($49.2 billion); Medicare and Medicaid ($50 billion); active duty troop pay ($2.9 billion); veterans affairs programs ($2.9 billion). Those items total $134 billion. This leaves you with only $38 billion to cover all remaining authorized federal expenses:
Defense vendors ($31.7 billion)
IRS refunds ($3.9 billion)
Food stamps and welfare ($9.3 billion)
Unemployment insurance benefits ($12.8 billion)
Department of Education ($20.2 billion)
Housing and Urban Development ($6.7 billion)
Other spending, such as Departmens of Justice, Labor, Commerce, EPA, HHS ($73.6 billion)
Total to be paid: $158.2 billion.
We’re short $120.2 billion–just for the month of August.
SO… Are republicans going to get out their pencils and line out the people and programs that will not be paid, or would they prefer that President Obama decide?
Consider all of the things that fall outside of that initial August outlay that republicans assure us could still be managed without raising the debt ceiling–payments to the debt holders, granny, soldiers expecting pay checks, and veterans. Anything and everything not in there must come out of the remaining $38 billion. Does the military require anything else besides paychecks for soldiers to keep functioning? Is commercial air traffic control unnecessary? What about border control? The operations of Homeland Security? The CDC? The U.S. Coast Guard? Do we to keep the federal prisons functioning, or open the gates and turn ’em all loose?
The granny argument is fundamentally flawed. Yes, if republicans hold firm on the debt ceiling we can still pay granny. It can be argued that we can still pay anything on the list that we want to–provided a large assortment of other important things go unpaid. So, choose: granny’s Social Security check, or fuel for the Navy? Which do you want to not pay for?
Cut the Department of Education and the Department of Housing and Urban Development. Wholla! There is $27 billion. Hell, school is out now anyway and the DoE hasn’t managed to raise test scores to warrant its cost.
@Greg:
I believe the information that you are referencing is wrong. Either they do not understand the specific line items, and what they entail, or they are receiving mistaken information. Read the tables from the link below, and you might see the difference. Or not.
https://www.fms.treas.gov/fmsweb/viewDTSFiles?dir=w&fname=11063000.pdf
And yes, I understand this is from June, however, the principles should remain fairly constant. For example, ALL federal wages are $14.4 Billion, and should remain around that number from June to August, as will all other monthly outlays such as SS and veteran’s benefit payments.
One thing to notice, Greg, is that for the month of June, the Federal government operated at a net SURPLUS of $17.4 Billion or so(Table II).
I think your analogy is flawed. It isn’t a choice between Granny getting a check or the Navy being able to launch a few airplanes off of their carriers.
@johngalt, #9:
That’s an interesting document. I’m not sure about a surplus. It looks to me as if the total additions may include the money that’s picked up by public debt issues.
I don’t know where the quoted BPC figures originally came from. Their analysis presentation doesn’t say.
@Greg:
Those public debt issues and redemptions are quite involved. Maybe surplus is a wrong word choice that I used, however, if you look at Table III-A, you can see that the issues are less than the redemptions, when discussing those debts applicable to the debt limit. Table III-C shows the $50 Billion or so difference between the total debt issue and total debt redemptions that are not subject to the debt limit. Someone with more accounting knowledge or investment knowledge than I have may be able to explain exactly what that debt really is, and why it doesn’t count towards the debt limit.
Either way, it is much more involved than your article, or any other article I’ve seen, outlines concerning the monthly revenues and outlays, and how it all plays into the debt limit talks.
Well, now… if you read the back and forths here on the “we can do this” vs “we can’t do this” math, one has to wonder if we’re really in debt at all. I mean, all that left over cash? LOL
No, the money for Granny isn’t there because SS is a phantom box with IOUs. Paying back those IOUs requires spending/revenue or borrowing.
The CNS article errs when it assumes a stable income/expenditure as a constant. Monthly revenue is not consistent from month to month, and would be especially high following the traditional tax year reporting’s end. For other revenue sources… corporate, payroll, even monies from lease lands… some might be seasonal.
On the flip side, entitlement spending is far from stagnant. Every day another becomes eligible for SS and Medicare, increasing the demands on the system. While the greatest generation may exit, the baby boomers aren’t dying faster than they are aging. Injuries and deaths on the rise in Afghanistan so VA costs go up. etc etc Point? Just like revenue, expenditures are neither static, nor predictable.
I agree that we can sustain no debt ceiling increase *for a short period* without default. But not for long… especially with increasing expenditures legislated last year to decades ago for entitlements. But to what end? The debt ceiling is not for tomorrow’s expenditures… it’s for those they’ve already spent.
Then there’s the unintended consequences… whether the banks and investors make good on their threats. Didn’t take much for PIMCO to bolt the sanctuary of the US Treasury.
Argue the we can and we can’t all you want, but the full spectrum of the political elite has rare political unity when they promise you it will be raised, or there’s fiscal Armaggedon. Therefore, for all the dancing and speeches, it will be raised. You’ll be sorely disappointed if you think it won’t., It’s the height of political farce.
But I’ll play Greg’s game…
Nice you admit social security isn’t really solvent and that cash ain’t sitting there, dedicated to Granny, Greg.
Pay both. But kick out Congress and make them part timers. Reduce their pensions. Slash the WH staff budget, and eliminate all czars. Limit all POTUS travel to national security emergency needs only, and no hangers on. Just security. Anyone else wants to go, they go on their own dime. And send them off in a dang Prius or Volt to boot… no more frivolous flying around.
DOE, Dept of Ag… all good to go by the wayside. Send EPA home too. Tho who’d hire Lisa Jackson is beyond me. HUD’s more difficult since it’s precariously tied to the fragile housing market, hanging by a thin thread.
IRS should be seasonal, with a skeleton crew the rest of the year. Cut the regs book in half and we can chop that staff down too.
And since Obama never listens to his cabinet advisors, they can charge by the hour for a consulation phone call instead of being on staff. Get Hillary Skype to use. Stop letting bozos like John Kerry travel around the world when his job is to represent Mass… not negotiate with foreign leaders. The joy trips for posturing for Congressional members on foreign soil is a bygone era. If they want to go, it’s unofficial and on their own dime.
You can get rid of NHTSA too, IMHO. What a waste they are.
@Greg:
Here is an excellent article explaining why the raising of the debt limit doesn’t actually solve the problem, and may not even work to extend the pain. Interestingly enough, he uses the same data that you linked above, although the actual numbers don’t really mean all that much.
http://www.americanthinker.com/2011/07/the_debt_ceiling_charade.html
One interesting point is that even if the debt ceiling is raised, with the economic situations in other countries, it will most likely result in the third round of Quantitative Easing by the Fed in order to have that debt be bought up, and give the government the money to function. Unfortunately, that QE will further damage the dollar compared to other currencies, and make the problem even worse in the near future(like, the point at which the ceiling must then be raised again).
Higher taxation will not get close to solving the problem. Only serious spending cuts, of which neither party, particularly the Democrats, seem to be willing to do. And We, the People, are the ones that will suffer because of it, regardless of whether we are liberal, conservative, Democrat, Independent, or Republican.
Note the last line in the article.
The other day I was riding on a bus, I spoke with a fellow passenger. It turned out we were both the same age (54), he was retired after 25 years as a city employee. He was receiving a government retirement pension. Well… I too have a pension, it is a private (me) paid IRA/401-K. Financially, the last couple of years have been hard for me as with many others. So, I needed some money out of my private paid pension and I had to pay a 10% penalty because I am not yet 59 ½ years old. But, he has a public paid pension and he is not required to pay the same 10% penalty and we are the exact same age! This seems very wrong to me, either he should also pay or I should not need to pay, taxes should be an equal burden.
@Mata Harley
Also temporarily layoff the TSA gropers, ATF, Holder and staff and almost every agency on this list except for the military, Veterans administration, social security finance department, coast guard, boarder control, air traffic controllers and federal prison workers.
Then wait the Democrats out. I’ll bet that most in America (aside from those laid off,) will notice very little interruptions in their normal routine.
Mata @12
You’re exactly right, which is why our only remaining option may be a Constitutional Convention under Article V. I just learned this this morning that 32 States have already called for a Constitutional Convention to consider a balanced budget amendment. We’re just two states away…
@John Cooper:
While I like the idea of a balanced budget, or even one that has a real surplus(to pay down the debt, but not the accounting gimmickry that produced Clinton’s “surpluses”), I don’t believe that an Amendment, with a very rigid structure and very tight controls on what can be done and when, is a good idea.
Yes, the current way of doing business has put us where we are, and neither party owns, or is absolved, from any of the blame for it. However, the rigid structure of a BBA does not allow the freedom of movement, within an economy, that’s necessary to deal with economic issues that face a government.
johngalt, why do you think a federal BBA would not work when it is law in many states and proves a viable method for keeping down excessive state spending? Are you assuming that the current crop of pigs feeding at the trough have any resemblance to those 200 years ago who understood that you cannot spend your way into prosperity?
@John Cooper and @johngalt, I believe I vented my disdain at the BBA on my authored post yesterday. Oddly enough, it’s a sleazy bit of legislation that I would have expected coming from Euro-socialist mentalities instead of so called fiscal conservatives.
In the end, it is a Constitutional amendment that legitimizes all Congressional spending, without oversight, and a mandate to raise taxes in order to fund that spending. Nothing more. Additionally, it’s an amendment that can be usurped by Congressional votes at will, whenever they deem something important enough to ignore the Constitution’s amendments.
That’s an interesting concept in itself. I didn’t realize that the Constitution and it’s amendments… which is supposed to be a statement of principles based on our founding concepts… can simply be voted away when Congress finds it convenient to do so.
You will find no support from me on such a draconian red herring.
@retire05:
I will simply refer you to Mata’s writings on it.
johngalt, I am already aware of Mata’s feeling on the BBA. I asked for your opinion and the reason you object to it. You can think for yourself, right?
Also, would you please prove the bill number for the Balanced Budget Amendment?
@MataHarley:
I never stated that I liked the idea of an Amendment, only sound fiscal policy that results in a balanced budget, with the understanding that there are times, such as wars or negative economic effects, which would make a BBA too rigid of a structure to deal with the Federal budget.
I was going to attempt today, in another thread, to list and compare the budgetary increases from 2010-2011 for several departments. I realized, however, that it was useless, as the 2010 budget itself was bloated by outrageous spending. It was supposed to be a response to Greg’s assertion that the choice, if the debt ceiling wasn’t increased, would be between giving granny her SS check or supplying fuel for the Navy.
The sad fact of the matter is, after perusing several department budgets, including Education, Labor, Commerce, Energy and Justice, that the magnitude of spending by our government that runs counter to Constitutional authority to do so, is so large that I cannot wrap my head around it. It isn’t as simple as saying, this dept. needs to be cut, that dept. can be left alone. I understand now why the common US taxpayer doesn’t understand the federal budget, and that politicians speak only in generalities concerning it. The federal government, under both parties, have made things so complicated, with this initiative or that one, this appropriations or that one, justifying budget increases that to any sane person seems totally outrageous and against common sense.
It’s hard to imagine $3. 6 Trillion dollars just sitting there, let alone the tens of thousands of small little programs and entitlements that eat away at that figure. The amount of spending that I consider waste, fraud, and abuse, by our federal government is staggering.
johngalt, can I assume by your refusal to answer my questions you have no opinion on the BBA that is your own? Or that you don’t know the bill number that Mata seems to object to?
And how can the 2010 budget be bloated when we have NO 2010 budget? We are well into over 800 days without a budget.
For those interested, the link to H. J. Res 1, aka the BBA is in my post, and also provided here.
States and federal BBAs. States can’t print currency and, in theory, cannot spend more than they take in. Of the 44 states – including Puerto Rico – that have either a Constitutional or statutory BBA mandate, or a combo of both, (see pg 3 of the PD) in existance, it appears not to have a discernable impact on their fiscal status.
The seven states that do not have any BBA in place are Idaho, Indiana, Texas, Vermont, Virginia, West Virgininia and Wyoming. According to the Daily Beast’s ranking of the states last year, only one of these states were in their top ten most in debt states… Indiana. Second runners up were WV in the #12 position, and VT in #16. The rest… ID, TX, VA and WY were way down on the list. I guess they don’t need no stinking mandate to be a bit more prudent.
On the other hand, every one of the top ten states had, indeed, a combination or either Constitutional or Statutes for a BBA. Not much of a testimony to it’s effectiveness, eh?
Granted, when I was looking thru the Daily Beasts figures on GDP/debt, unfunded pensions by %, some of their rankings didn’t make sense and they did not give a more indepth method of their combined number crunching as criteria. Likely it’s a combination of per capita weighed against GDP/debt ratio and unfunded pension liabilities added in. They did not provide that final figure. But when you consider states we know are in deep jeopardy… i.e. California, who has Constitutional mandates for a BBA and the demand the legislature pass a balanced budget… it’s obviously worthless and there are devils in the details that make it so.
However I don’t equate a state’s right to pass such a mandate.. especially in light of their inability to print money… with a federal attempt to do the same.
Mata, the bill you provided is only ONE of the proposed Balanced Budget Amendment bills. Is there a reason you picked that one? There is one to be placed on the House agenda next week. Want to tell us which one it is?
You also say “The seven states that do NOT have any BBA in place are Idaho, Indiana, Texas, Vermont, Virginia, West Virginia and Wyoming.” Really, Mata? You simply prove that anyone who pays attention to you is getting erroneous information. Texas has a BBA and has for a long time. Just one more instance of you not knowing your butt from a biscut.
As to your DailyBeast article, I can tell you it was wrong about my state. Odd that they chose to quote someone from the Public Service Employees Union. The DailyBeast is to be taken with a grain of salt, as is any publication that hires that lunatic, Megan McCain.
Now, it was announced today that a Balanced Budget Amendment will be voted on in the House next week. Would you like to share with us which one it will be?
And how you can equate a state’s inability to print money with their inability to incur debt is beyond any rational thinking person. Have you never heard of a “credit rating?” Do you know how a state’s credit rating is based? On its ability to BORROW money they don’t have the ability to print.
Well gee… lemme think… could it be because H. J. Res 1 has 134 sponsors/co sponsors, out of the 240 GOP House Reps that’s offered up? Or maybe because it’s the same Goodlatte sponsored amendment that Cantor said they’d be taking up a couple of weeks ago?
@retire05:
I do not know the bill number, nor does that matter. The most recent idea, though, is much like the others, in that it removes flexibility by the government to address issues.
From what I’ve gathered, the latest revival of the idea would require a 2/3 majority in Congress to approve any deficit spending. Not a bad idea, on the face of it, but what happens if we end up in wartime. Iraq very clearly showed that the idealists will do nearly anything, including voting no on deficit spending, even if it was for the purpose of fighting a war. I believe that a requirement such as that one would make it nearly impossible to provide not only adequate, but necessary, defense of the states.
That same super majority would be required for the enactment of any tax increase. Again, another idea that looks good on the surface of it, but in practice would limit the ability of the government to pay down the current debt, or to pay for examples such as the one in the preceding paragraph, if deficit spending is voted down. An impasse would occur, which may be acceptable in the case of social program spending, and indeed, even desired at times, but in the case of the defense of the nation, would result in not enough resources to wage a proper war.
The worst idea, as part of the current version of a BBA, would cap federal spending as a percent of the GDP. And again, while on the surface it looks to be a good idea, it assumes too much. As in, constant growth of the GDP, and a constant flux in entitlement spending under SS and Medicare, as well as unemployment payouts. An economic downturn would result in countercyclical expenses in unemployment payouts, as unemployment rises, that places too high a burden on the government during those times to maintain a rate of spending consistent with the GDP. SS and Medicare spending growth, for example, will, and it has started already with the baby boomers retiring, continue to outpace any GDP growth. This would have been fine had a true “lockbox” been installed at the time of the originating acts of SS and Medicare, however, the current fund portfolios of countless IOU’s in them makes maintaining SS and Medicare payments, along with acceptable federal spending(Constitutional spending, of course), and impossibility under this idea of capping federal spending.
Don’t get me wrong, retire05. I long for the federal government to be fiscally sane, and balance budgets with revenue and outlays. I do not wish, however, to limit the ability of the federal government to provide those Constitutional items, such as defense of the states, by an Amendment that in practice would result in impasse after impasse concerning spending, and do nearly nothing to address the biggest issue with the spending, which is the debt we’ve already incurred.
I’d rather see a complete makeover of the tax system, getting rid of all “loopholes”, tax breaks, tax credits, etc., and make the effective tax rate equal to the stated tax rate. That way, everyone knows where they stand on taxes, what is required of them, crony capitalism would be minimized greatly. no longer would companies or industries, or even social groups, lobby for their tax breaks or credits that give them a leg up on the competition. No special favors for anyone in the area of taxes.
I’d rather see an outlawing of earmark spending.
I’d rather see a thorough investigation by Congress over each and every department’s budget, along with every program associated with them, and renew their “mandatory” budget spending on a 2 or 4 year approval. Right now, the magnitude of “mandatory” spending by each department is staggering. This spending doesn’t require yearly approval to continue, even if the individual spending items are not needed, or are obsolete. This is different than a department’s discretionary spending budget items, which must be approved on a yearly basis. This review of the mandatory budgets by the departments would cut out much waste and abuse in each department.
@retire05:
You are correct that there never was an actual budget. I should have said the 2010 spending amounts. However, each department was still required to make a budget based on the amount of money appropriated to it by various legislation and the mandatory spending of it’s department. I looked at each department’s budget, not the complete federal “budget”.
@retire05, I stand corrected. Had you followed the link you’d see the NCSL has two columns of BBA status.. whether just the governor was required to balance, or just the legislature, or both. I used the governor’s column.
Texas has both a Constitutional and Statute for the legislature, and none for the governor. There’s nine states that do not have a legislative mandate. Hawaii, Indiana, MO, NH, NY, RI, VT, VA, WA and WY.
That means three of these states are in the top ten. So again, the final analysis proves that these state BBAs show little effectiveness on their state indebted ranking. This also means that the majority of those top ten – seven of them – do have some degree of BBAs in place. Works well, eh?
Repeat… 44 states have some form of BBA mandate for governor. 42 have legislative. There is nothing that proves having so has improved their standing in the overall debt ranking.
johngalt, why is it wrong to require a 2/3rds majority to fund any war spending? Do you think that if we were attacked by another nation, even the Democrats would vote against funding defense? Do you agree with our current expenditures funding the bombing of Yemen and Libya, all in violation of the War Powers Act? We could end our involvement in those arenas if we could halt funding for them. And yes, it is important for you to know the number of the bill. How else can you really determine what it contains if you have not read it for yourself. You seem too willing to take someone else’s word for what it contains. Maybe we should pass it so you can know what’s in it?
In Texas, we have an odd system. All agencies are reviewed on a bi-annual basis. Any agency that does not warrant its cost, is eliminated on an effectiveness vs. cost basis.
I am all for a BBA. It is time we put limits on the elites in D.C. who seem to think they are simply playing Monopoly with our money. I am also all for the newly enacted law in Florida that requires drug testing on all welfare reciprients. I warrant their welfare rolls will drop when people learn they can’t do drugs on the Florida taxpayer’s dime.
Odd how the words of James Madison are coming to fruition, isn’t it?
There is only one way out “inflation” our debt is in dollars. Our debt would shrink in real terms and with our progressive tax system, taxes would also go up. Nothing is needed from Washington for this fix to take place. As painful as inflation might be, we really do not have any other fix available.
Mata, perhaps the other states should follow the Texas example. We were facing a $24 billion bi-annual deficit. That hole was closed and no taxes were raised. Also, our governor does not write the budget, legislature does. He simply signs off on it, but has the authority to veto the budget if it is now workable.
Again, understand the current mindset in D.C., I fully support a balanced budget amendment.
It’s interesting that, according to the Daily Beast worst indebted states tally, the #1 on the list – Rhode Island – has/did “followed the Texas example” – and then some – by having a Constitutional mandate for both the Legisture to pass a balanced budget, and the Governor having to submit a balanced budget.
Stellar testimony to it’s effectiveness….
@retire05:
My point is that it doesn’t matter what the number of the bill is, because the idea itself of a BBA for the federal government is wrong, in my opinion. I tend to read more than one source on a subject, retire05, and can gather the essential ideas from those various sources quite well. I am not concerned about the particulars of any BBA, but the idea itself.
Very similar to what I proposed in #26. As it stands now, all agencies and departments within the federal government have mandatory spending amounts, approved at the creation of the agency, department, or program, that increases on an annual basis, with no further approval necessary to continue it’s spending. This, more than anything else, needs to change. Also, it would force those federal departments or agencies to streamline themselves and become more efficient at their purpose, and require them to constantly justify themselves, in order to continue being funded.
My main issue that I have with a federal BBA is with those items, like defense, which are Constitutionally charged duties of the federal government, being hamstrung by a Congress in impasse. And a 2/3 requirement would certainly cause that, as a pol’s idealogue would determine which method of payment for it they would support. Not to mention that any requirement of an absolute cap on federal spending would limit the federal government’s response to fighting a war even more.
Thomas Jefferson suggested that the federal government provide only for a base force for defense, that would be annualized in the federal budget. And that any wartime action should then be added to, but separate still, from a base federal budget. Meaning, that in times of war, the states, and the people, would be required to up their contributions to the federal government in order to prosecute such wartime actions effectively, and that at the end of such actions, the excess contributions to the federal government would end as well. Unfortunately, this isn’t how things have worked out, and any increase in taxation, even after the initial reasoning behind it is over, becomes just another source of revenue for Congress, and the federal government, to spend on social engineering programs.
It is not quite that simple of a question, retire05. One could claim, today, that we are being invaded by Mexico, with the numbers crossing the borders, the violence on the border, the illegals joining in crusades and causes here to allow for further relaxation of immigration laws, etc. Is this not an issue that requires the federal government to stand in defense of our states? And how do the Democrats vote on related issues? No, they would not support any increase in deficit spending, nor probably even a tax increase legislated to pay for increased defense against such an invasion. And the states would be left with what they have in place already, or whatever it would be under a BBA.
And it isn’t just about increased federal funding for wartime action, even if it was against a clear enemy that attacked our country. It is a question of how the idealogue would vote to pay for it. Deficit increase? Tax increase? You don’t see the possibility for an impasse there?
Actually, what is interesting is that many of Madison’s arguments, in the Federalist Papers, against the assertions of those writing in the Anti-Federalist Papers, have been shown to be wishful thinking. For example, a claim was made that the Article I, Section 8 clauses of “general welfare” and “necessary and proper” can be construed by politicians as a license to enact virtually anything they desire. Madison argued to the contrary, asserting that the section specifically delineates what Congress may collect taxes or duties for, in order to spend money on, and that the “general welfare” clause was merely a general heading leading to the specific list immediately listed below it. Who was proven right in their claims?
Madison, Hamilton, and Jay all expressed clear thoughts on the Constitution in the Federalist Papers, but have oft been proven to be wrong in what they claim the result would eventually be. I do not mean that they were wrong in their beliefs and words. Only that the long line of succeeding politicians since their time have stretched, pulled, and outright mangled the Constitution in order to justify all manner of spending by the federal government, much of it on items that are not specifically listed by the Constitution as giving them, Congress, the power to lay and collect taxes for, and then spend on regulating.
Jeeze, little Mata seems to have gotten her Hanes in a wad because I asked her a question. Just shows the lack of conviction on her part. Unless you count Mata to the left.
News flash, Mata; if Rhode Island had followed the Texas example they would not be in the dire straight they are in now. But hey, hang in there with the Dailey Caller. Sooner or later you will luck on an article written by a conservative. Maybe.
johngalt, I am not a Jeffersonian. Since Jefferson did not have anything to do with the writing of the Constitution, I will defer to those that did.
As a Texan, do I consider the lack on Mexico’s part to keep its citizens in its own nation an invasion? Yes. But it is not a declared war. We are not at war with the government of Mexico any more than we are at war with the government of Canada. So your point about Mexico is moot. At the point that the Congress of the U.S. declares war against Mexico, the very bill Mata references would provide for funding of that war.
Hey, Mata, what about H.R. 2, also sponsored by Goodlatte, that has 221 sponsors? Oh, guess you didn’t do diligent research. Again, you don’t know your butt from a biscut.
retire05, I don’t like addressing crotchety small men in any general instances. And for the most part, I simply ignore your presence. You asked a question, I have answered both. I also said that I stood corrected on using the gubernatorial mandates column vs the legislative mandate column. However with 7 of 10 of the top 10 indebted states having varying degrees of BBA mandates, there’s ample proof that it’s existance is moot.
Additionally, Idaho.. which has neither Constitutional or Statute mandates for a BBA… ranks 37th in overall indebtedness. Clear indication that BBAs are a joke, and fiscally conservative elected leadership… who need no stinking mandate to exercise prudence … is the solution.
Nor have I used a Daily Caller link… ??? Happy hour come early for you?
@retire05, careful there, crotchety… that smell you think is blood that gets you all a’twitter, and feeds your personal venom, is really the smell that you’re burning your own biscuits, little man.
HJ Res 1 and HJ Res 2 were both introduced at the same time. HJ Res 2 hasn’t make it out of committee. HJ Res 1 was reported by committee June 15th, passing the House Judiciary Committee on a 20-12 vote. Further along in the process to make it to the chamber floor.
Tell me, Mata, how much did that crystal ball cost you that allows you to determine my gender? Crotchey? I will take crotchey over your arrogant know-it-all attitude any day. Small? I am large enough to kick you ass although I am sure you have 25 lbs. on me.
I can understand why you ignore my presence. You don’t like people calling you down when you show just what a lazy researcher you are. Hey, at least FA provides us with a token statist in you. But I will give you this, I did say Daily Caller when it was really Daily Beast, another left wing POS. Sorry, after a while, all left wing sites begin to look the same.
And btw, I don’t drink. Find it a weakness. But obviously, you have killed a few million brain cells that way. Perhaps you can lay off the sauce long enough to understand that name calling really isn’t a viable debate tactic.
To those not driven by pure emotions, a little factoid. The Daily Beast rankings was not an opinion piece, but merely the most recent collection of state fiscal data, arranged in their order of economic liabilities.
My, my, my, Mata has her Hanes all in a wad.
The only venom being spewed here, Mata, is yours with your name calling. But please, feel free to continue to show just how juvenile you are. It is what I have come to expect from you.
Mata, have you ever worked for any publication? I have, one you would recognize, and I can tell you this, I could twist stats to suit any outcome I wanted. It’s easily done. Take the Daily Beast stat on Texas. Now, I don’t know when they did this, but they listed state debt for 2009 at $30.4 billion. Was that before, or after, the 2009 budget was passed by the Texas legislature? Seems their figures are at least two years old.
And I wouldn’t be taking about “pure emotions” since your posts are rife with them. You need to get over yourself, girl.
retire05, I’m not here to defend any Daily Beast op ed. However none of the statistics cited involved personal opinion. It was the most recent ranking (2010) I could find that was provided by anyone.
If you’d like to dig up another source of state rankings by debts and liabilities as an alternative source, we can then compare those to pg 3 of the NCSL document that shows who has the varying degrees of BBA mandates. However considering that RI, California,, MA,, IL… all states in serious fiscal troubles, also have these BBAs in place, the relationship seems to have no relevance whatsoever. The only relevance is that the states that are in less fiscal trouble tend have prudent fiscal conservatives in office… aka WY, ID and your own TX. Neither WY or ID have any BBAs for legislature, or for the governor.
@Mata #19
I’m afraid you are right. Even I can see a number of holes in that amendment big enough to drive a herd of pigs through.
I’ll go back and read your other post.
Mata, jeeze, how far are you willing to take this? If the Daily Beast article was put together by a HUMAN BEING, it is subject to being biased. You might as well be quoting HuffingtonPost. But alas, I suspect that will come next.
Wow… talk about the lib/prog dodge and shuffle away. Did you miss the opportunity to provide us another source of state fiscal rankings from your superior research? Or do I need to re’extend the invitation for you to provide a current source that fits your personal approval level?
Or are you afraid that your support for a BBA as the solution will still be disproven? With 42-44 states of varying degrees of this, odds aren’t with you, ya know.
@retire05:
Ummm…pretty much all source material is put together by human beings. Should we therefore use your standard to disregard all of it?
Or should we apply objective standards of accuracy and validity to a source before just dismissing it outright?
Mata, seem if you can comprehend this: the debt of your state holds no import for me. I do not pay taxes there, and frankly, if you can’t elect people who deal with state funds in an efficient way, that is your problem, not mine since I have no intention of moving there. You are trying to present the argument that you are against a Balanced Budget Amendment because some states have it an they are still in dire straights. So freaking what? Did it ever occur to you that the problem may be management, and not the legislation itself?
Now, considering that I really don’t give a hairy rat’s ass what the debt for other states happens to be, why would I even want to provide you with an alternate source. You are trying to make apple butter out of shoe leather.
The bottom line is that the pigs have so long fed at the trough that they don’t know how to do anything else. So any legislation that curbs their appitite is fine with me. You don’t spend more than you make, do you? If so, you are being fiscally irresponsible and will wind up in bankruptcy. Is that what you want? You can throw out all these lofty ideas on how to live within our means, but for every idea you have, someone else has a different one. If it is law that our budget must be balanced, there is less opportunity for the pigs to fed. To take in X and pay out Y which is less than X, with a certain amount set aside to reduce the debt, makes sense to rational thinking people.
As to the lib/prog agenda, that has consistantly seems to allow you to fit that mold. But then, name calling does seem to be your forte. Don’t quit your day job, you will never make it as a professional debater. Shall we review the number of adjectives you have used to try to be insulting? And then, let’s compare them to the number of insulting adjectives I have lobbed at you. And let’s be very clear; I am not afraid my support for a BBA will prove to be disproven, since its effectiveness will be a long time in coming.
You are not a conservative, not at least by my standards. You are more statist than anything else. Now, if that hurts your widdle feelings, perhaps you should rethink some of the positions you have expressed on this site.
Now, bring it back at me since being right seems to hold more importance for you than being God. Only problem? You have more chance of being God than you do in being right.
There ya go… the lib/prog shuffle and dodge because it interfere’s with a narrative. Can’t find something that proves your support for a federal BBA is actually a solution? Too bad. Hey… you brung it up to begin with. ooops…. Moving along now….
Oh yes… I don’t give a “hairy rat’s ass” about your opinion on my politics. Maybe you can find someone else here who does.
Aye, have I ever claime to be non-biased? No, for in actuality, I am. I am a Constitutional conservative that feels that starting in 1913 our God given rights were being eroded.
Well, Mata, we have finally come to a meeting of the minds. I find you to be less than interesting save the comic relief you provide, along with the fact that is is oh, so easy to yank your chain, which you can only respond to with insults. But then, maybe you are one of these “sensitive” types.
BTW, what did I dodge? I told you that the state stats have nada to do with the federal government although you want to spin it that way. I gave you my reason for supporting a BBA. You chose to ignore it.
Your choice, but don’t cop an air of superiority on me, girl. You didn’t earn it.
I’d say you’ve pretty well negated your arguments, retire05. That’s what happens when you argue from personal feelings towards me instead of facts.
You were wrong that a BBA makes a notable impact on the state’s fiscal status (which you, yourself, used for your particular state to support your federal reasoned argument). And you were wrong on which BBA was coming to a vote in the House. Given the opportunity to substantiate alternative sources for the former, you preferred to shuck and jive. On the latter, you ignore.
In both instances, you instead return to your personal hatred.
ce la vive… no sleep lost on my part.
@retire05:
You didn’t answer my questions.
Mata, I haven’t negated anything. I presented, in clear, concise English, why I support the BBA. You did not respond to my reasons. And now you have resorted to lying. I did not initially present the argument that since it was fine for the states, the BBA is fine for the federal government. You went that route. And then you use the strawman that since I did not present an alternate source to the Daily Beast, I must be afraid. What an absolute joke you are, Mata.
Wrong about the BBA coming before the House for a vote? Are you drunk? You, yourself, provided a link to that. Or have you killed so many brain cells that you suffer from early on-set Altzheimers? H.R. 1 has been place on the House calender, according to Thomas.
And how have I expressed any hatred toward you? Did I call you any names? Lob any insults toward you? I can, you know, if that is what you desire. But that is not my style, although it seems to be yours.
Perhaps there are those who visit this site and are impressed with you. I am not. I have taken you on before and you finally ran out of insults and ran away. Perhaps that is what you should do again. When you are in a hole, such as you are, you should quit digging.
Great revisionist history, retire05. How about I provide a link to your long, overdue, expressed personal hatred (comment #43), and all the comments that lead up to you finally spilling your guts about your pent up bizarre emotions towards me personally? People, if they give a flying fart, can read. No matter to me. I know a “little man”, who feels he can “kick my butt”, when I see it, and well enough to know that a carpenter ant on my carport deserves more attention.
I guess that should take care of the innocent statement of … And how have I expressed any hatred toward you? Did I call you any names? Lob any insults toward you? I can, you know, if that is what you desire. But that is not my style, although it seems to be yours. “
Archives.. ain’t they handy?
I’m well aware that you support a BBA, and your reasons for doing so. And your using Texas and their BBA as an example.are wrong. You credit Texas BBA legislation instead of your legislators. Shame on you.
Also, you may feel free to point out any time, with actual links and not your presumed accusations, that I have “run away”, instead of ignoring a pathetic little man, emitting spit from a keyboard – and all because of some personal vendetta of unknown origin save an impression made thru a computer monitor.
Mata, quite the lying
bitcharrogant one, aren’t you? You just can’t stand having your clock cleaned by someone who is your better. I understand that, really I do. When, before just now, have I ever called you a name? Where, in post #43, did I call you an insulting perjorative or do you consider being called “girl” an insult? Would you perfer I call you a crotchey old puta?Now, let me give you a few facts, I am not a man, which I have told you before (drugs affect your mind, perhaps?). Yet, you continue to call me a “little man”. As to the ant reference, you more closely resemble a piss ant. You do know what a piss ant is, don’t you?
I don’t understand how you wound up on this blog when almost everyone else is the polar opposite of you. I guess desparation leads people to do odd things.
If anyone has cornered the market on hateful rhetoric, that would be you, girl.
Now, get back to me when you want to be truthful. You have already provided me with my laugh quota for the day.
Correction: I see what #43 you were referring to. So, you acknowledge you got your Hanes in a wad because I pointed out that you are nothing more than a pansy ass who couldn’t have lasted three miles with me? Got it.
really???
archives… ain’t they great? Even those from the same thread….