Constitutional convention for federal balanced budget amendment

[Texashiker]

Article on foxnews,

Did Michigan just trigger 'constitutional convention'? Bid gains steam

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...s-to-meet-change-constitution-gains-momentum/

WASHINGTON – Momentum is building behind what would be an unprecedented effort to amend the U.S. Constitution, through a little-known provision that gives states rather than Congress the power to initiate changes.

At issue is what's known as a "constitutional convention," a scenario tucked into Article V of the U.S. Constitution. At its core, Article V provides two ways for amendments to be proposed. The first – which has been used for all 27 amendment to date – requires two-thirds of both the House and Senate to approve a resolution, before sending it to the states for ratification.

The Founding Fathers, though, devised an alternative way which says if two-thirds of state legislatures demand a meeting, Congress “shall call a convention for proposing amendments.”

Makes sense. If the federal government will not balance the budget and abolish the national debt, the states should force the federal government to do so.

It is pretty clear no president since Andrew Jackson has been interested in balancing the federal budget. Maybe it is time for states to take matters into their own hands.

The federal government should be prohibited from spending more money than it takes in.

 

[IronWing]

We don't have the political intelligence to pull off a Constitutional Convention. Such an endeavor would be doomed by the political shallowness of our times. Once a convention is convened there would be no limit to the damage it could do.

On the issue of a balanced federal budget, that is the last thing the states want. Under the current system state level politicians can call "For shame, for shame!" at Congress while the honey still flows to the states. The feds do the dirty work of tax collection and borrowing for the benefit of the states.

 

[Genx87]

My question to my conservative friends who advocate for a balanced budget on the federal level. What will we do when the next war is started and we literally cant fight it because it would be fought with a deficit?

I point that out to everybody who advocates a balanced budget. It seems to get them thinking that a balanced budget on the federal level isn't a good idea.

 

[Genx87]

We don't have the political intelligence to pull off a Constitutional Convention. Such an endeavor would be doomed by the political shallowness of our times. Once a convention is convened there would be no limit to the damage it could do.

On the issue of a balanced federal budget, that is the last thing the states want. Under the current system state level politicians can call "For shame, for shame!" at Congress while the honey still flows to the states. The feds do the dirty work of tax collection for the benefit of the states.

Hahaha good point. These states realize if the feds cant run a deficit there is a good chance their flow of money goes away as well that helps balance their own budget.

 

[IronWing]

My question to my conservative friends who advocate for a balanced budget on the federal level. What will you do when the next war is started and we literally cant fight it because it would be fought with a deficit?

I point that out to everybody who advocates a balanced budget. It seems to get them thinking that a balanced budget on the federal level isn't a good idea.

This is actually a very good argument for a balanced budget amendment. If the case for war is so weak that Congress can't see fit to raise taxes or cut spending in other areas to pay for it then maybe we shouldn't be going to war.

 

[Genx87]

This is actually a very good argument for a balanced budget amendment. If the case for war is so weak that Congress can't see fit to raise taxes or cut spending in other areas to pay for it then maybe we shouldn't be going to war.

That is true. Except these people who want a balanced budget also seem to desire blowing up other nations. They don't see it as a good idea once their ability to wage needless wars goes away with a balanced budget.

I can see Sean Hannity right now. One clip fighting for a balanced budget amendment using all the coined terms of fiscal responsibility. Then if passed asking why we do we hate american because we cant run a war due to the lack of funding.

 

[Texashiker]

My question to my conservative friends who advocate for a balanced budget on the federal level. What will we do when the next war is started and we literally cant fight it because it would be fought with a deficit?

You realize we have already spent so much money on the military it would take other nations decades to catch up?

 

[MrPickins]

It is pretty clear no president since Andrew Jackson has been interested in balancing the federal budget.

Were you asleep during the Clinton administration?

 

[Genx87]

You realize we have already spent so much money on the military it would take other nations decades to catch up?

Yes and what does that have to do with fighting a future war?

 

[BUnit1701]

Were you asleep during the Clinton administration?

Apparently you were, because it was Newt Gingrich who balanced the budgets, not Clinton.

 

[Genx87]

Were you asleep during the Clinton administration?

Or Truman

 

[Texashiker]

Were you asleep during the Clinton administration?

I voted for Perot.

 

[BUnit1701]

We don't have the political intelligence to pull off a Constitutional Convention. Such an endeavor would be doomed by the political shallowness of our times. Once a convention is convened there would be no limit to the damage it could do.

On the issue of a balanced federal budget, that is the last thing the states want. Under the current system state level politicians can call "For shame, for shame!" at Congress while the honey still flows to the states. The feds do the dirty work of tax collection and borrowing for the benefit of the states.

It is clear you do not understand the process. Article V does not allow for a 'Constitutional convention' such as the one which drafted our constitution. It allows for 'a convention of states to propose amendments'. Each state would pass a bill naming representatives to the convention along with the amendments those representatives are allowed to bring/vote for on behalf of the state. Properly formed bills should also contain language allowing the state legislature to recall representatives who violate the dictates of the bill. Secondly, before any amendment accepted at the convention would become part of the constitution, 3/4 of the states must ratify it, just like if the amendment came from Congress. In this way, there is 0 danger of the 'runaway convention' and the damage such an event could bring.

 

[Atreus21]

Were you asleep during the Clinton administration?

He didn't balance the budget either. To his credit he came closer to it than any other president in decades. But he still spent more than he took in every year of his presidency.

 

[MrPickins]

Apparently you were, because it was Newt Gingrich who balanced the budgets, not Clinton.

That's why Gingrich was in favor of the 1993 increase in the top marginal tax rates?


Edit: That's not to say the GOP didn't have a big influence in balancing the budget. I was merely refuting the claim that no other administration has been interested in it.

 

[JManInPhoenix]

We don't have the political intelligence to pull off a Constitutional Convention. Such an endeavor would be doomed by the political shallowness of our times. Once a convention is convened there would be no limit to the damage it could do.

On the issue of a balanced federal budget, that is the last thing the states want. Under the current system state level politicians can call "For shame, for shame!" at Congress while the honey still flows to the states. The feds do the dirty work of tax collection and borrowing for the benefit of the states.

Agreed. I would love to see a balanced budget amendment but politicians on both sides of the aisle don't have the backbone to do it. Everyone will be screaming for their sacred cows - when in fact serious cuts need to be done across the board with everything having to be on the table.

 

[Texashiker]

That's why Gingrich was in favor of the 1993 increase in the top marginal tax rates?

Sounds good to me.

Regan lowered the tax rate on the upper class, and nobody has been able to get it back up to where it belongs.

 

[MrPickins]

He didn't balance the budget either. To his credit he came closer to it than any other president in decades. But he still spent more than he took in every year of his presidency.

– Democrat Bill Clinton was president in 1998, when the government finally recorded a surplus.
– There also were budget surpluses in 1999, 2000 and in 2001. 2001 was the last year the Clinton administration proposed the budget.

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.co...eck-the-last-president-to-balance-the-budget/

 

[ElFenix]

there's 0 need to balance the budget. a balanced budget amendment is a terrifically bad idea.

 

[SMOGZINN]

Would it even matter is we got a balanced budget amendment? We would certianly be reasonable about the formation of said amendment and add exceptions for times of war, national emergency, recessions, and allow the legislature to suspend the rule by a supermajority vote for other unforeseen situations. This is just common sense, and would be modeled closely after how other countries have successfully done it.

Then before a month had passed one of those exceptions would be declared by our government.

 

[Genx87]

Would it even matter is we got a balanced budget amendment? We would certianly be reasonable about the formation of said amendment and add exceptions for times of war, national emergency, recessions, and allow the legislature to suspend the rule by a supermajority vote for other unforeseen situations. This is just common sense, and would be modeled closely after how other countries have successfully done it.

Then before a month had passed one of those exceptions would be declared by our government.

Well if you add exceptions then is it a balanced budget amendment? The list you proposed is easily abused right out of the gate. Recessions happen every 3-5 years on avg. Wars about every decade. Hell we are in the middle of a 13 year long war right now.

 

[rudder]

there's 0 need to balance the budget. a balanced budget amendment is a terrifically bad idea.

Many states have balanced budget amendments. In Tennessee there is a $200 million shortfall in tax collections... so raises for state employees just got axed. This is exactly what the federal government needs. I know though that this type of amendment would cause more problems with government spending that it would solve though.

The problem is all the federal agencies never authorized to spend money in the first place keep growing exponentially.

 

[fskimospy]

A balanced budget amendment would be a catastrophic mistake both in the policy making arena and the basic economics arena.

 

[juiio]

– Democrat Bill Clinton was president in 1998, when the government finally recorded a surplus.
– There also were budget surpluses in 1999, 2000 and in 2001. 2001 was the last year the Clinton administration proposed the budget.

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.co...eck-the-last-president-to-balance-the-budget/

Those surpluses weren't real. The national debt has gone up year-over-year since 1957. Like Atreus21 said, it was close, but still not quite.

http://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/reports/pd/histdebt/histdebt_histo5.htm
http://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/reports/pd/histdebt/histdebt_histo4.htm

 

[Incorruptible]

It's a good idea but it won't happen. Too many moronic big government supporters would be outraged that they aren't able to steal money from the taxpayer.