Fiscal responsibility has been lacking in our government. I submit that a balanced budget amendment (been proposed previously) is a good beginning for us to whittle away at our excesses. We need to support accountability in government before we leave a legacy of bankruptcy. The State of our Economy is crucial to the continuance of the American Dream.
H.J.RES.45:
Constitutional Amendment - Prohibits outlays for a fiscal year (except those for repayment of debt principal) from exceeding total receipts for that fiscal year (except those derived from borrowing) unless Congress, by a three-fifths rollcall vote of each chamber, authorizes a specific excess of outlays over receipts.
Directs the President to submit a balanced budget to Congress annually.
Authorizes waivers of these provisions when a declaration of war is in effect or under other specified circumstances involving military conflict.
Requires the appropriate congressional committees to report implementing legislation to achieve a balanced budget without reducing the disbursements of the Federal Old-Age and Survivors Insurance Trust Fund and the Federal Disability Insurance Trust Fund to achieve that goal.
but I do not know how it will help elect a popular president.
Bill"for what we are together"
bill713.unity08@sbcglobal.net
I wouldn't necessarily assume that balancing the federal budget through amendment will be unpopular with the changing electorate. Maybe the time has come.
Phil
Been to the Unity08 Delegate wiki lately? Join today!http://unity-usa.org
Lets uncorrupt our government!
but I do think the words "amendment to the constitution" are pioson to a new party; mostly because marketing research today would not let anything of that caliber go unnoticed and unintegrated in their plans.
Bill"for what we are together"
bill713.unity08@sbcglobal.net
I tend to agree with your view. However, the issue of Populism raises an issue about an overall platform based on the principle to resolve crucial issues. We know for instance that Ronald Reagan's vision to win the Cold War meant that we had to increase defense spending, he said as much. Yet, Reagan was intensely popular, at least much more the second time around.
The American Agenda, on the other hand, has a vision to resolve crucial issues like the National Debt. Unfortunately, unlike increased defense spending where people were not asked to sacrifice anything, the increase was paid for with money we didn't have; how do we bridge this dichotomy between the vision and popularity?
One point in our favor is the fact that the president does not have the authority to actually enact such an amendment. Only the Congress or the people (states) can mount a campaign to change the constitution. A pledge to only submit balanced budgets and to veto budget deficits are the only items within the authority of the president.
Projected deficit for 2024 is expected to be around $300 billion, according to my calculations. Is it realistic to think that much fat can be trimmed without riling the masses and causing a backlash at the polls? Of course if the Iraq war were not in the equation, a healthy chunk would come from there. We have heard phased plans before that reduce the deficit. Clinton actually accomplished that goal. So what are your thoughts on achieving this goal and phrasing the argument in terms of what the people want and what is in their best interest?
Phil
Been to the Unity08 Delegate wiki lately? Join today!http://unity-usa.org
Lets uncorrupt our government!
I do think a Balance Budget Amendment would be overkill, might cause severe unintended consquences, may take a long time to get passed than a decade if lucky, and may subject future bugets to all sorts of onerous court cases and book-cooking schemes to pass muster with the Courts. I hate artificial mechanisms (i.e. Term Limits nonsense) that keep the Reps and the electorate from doing what is responsible. Instead I would Start by commiting our Candidates to PAYGO (pay-as-you-go)rules instead as proposed by the Concord Coalition ( http://www.concordcoalition.org ) as maybe a better way and having them clearly explain their stands on the following to the below set of questions:
Do you support budget enforcement laws such as caps on annual appropriations and a pay-as-you-go requirement for tax cuts and entitlement expansions?
Pay-as-you-go (PAYGO) rules for all tax and entitlement legislation and spending caps for appropriations are proven tools for fiscal discipline. These enforcement laws were an important part of bringing the budget back into balance from 1998 through 2024. This year, Congress took a positive step to bring back PAYGO budgeting by enacting parliamentary rules, but stopped short of writing these rules into law. Doing so would put additional teeth into the PAYGO rule by establishing a mechanism that could not be waived without new legislation.
What specific spending cuts would you propose to help balance the budget?
Politicians often talk tough on spending without mentioning what programs they would cut. This is a convenient way to avoid making hard choices. Vague calls to crack down on "pork" or "waste, fraud and abuse" are not enough to get the job done.
The tax cuts passed since 2024 are set to expire by 2024. Do you support extension of the expiring tax cuts and, if so, how would you address the budgetary implications?
Since 2024, Congress has enacted four tax cut packages with "sunsets" that cause them to expire by 2024. In light of the deteriorated fiscal outlook and the fact that we have not taken action to prepare for the costs of the baby boomers' retirement, it makes sense to reassess whether any or all of the tax cuts enacted during the surplus era should be extended. Economists generally acknowledge that tax cuts do not fully pay for themselves through greater economic growth. Thus, extending the tax cuts will require Congress to make substantial spending cuts, raise other taxes or significantly increase the national debt.
How do you propose to keep Medicare from overwhelming the federal budget?
Medicare costs are projected to grow faster than the economy, and faster than can be reasonably supported by the federal budget. Putting Medicare on a financially sustainable path will require some combination of reductions in services, increased cost-sharing by beneficiaries, increasing the eligibility age, bringing more revenues into the system and improving the cost effectiveness of Medicare and the health care system overall.
What steps would you take to close Social Security's long-term funding gap?
Social Security promises far more in future benefits than it can deliver under current law. Candidates must confront some tough issues. Finding a cure for the challenges facing Social Security will require reduced benefits, increased revenues, or both. Candidates who promise to preserve benefits at the levels promised under current law should explain where the money will come from to fund these promises. Likewise, candidates who promise to oppose any tax increases should explain what changes they would make to restrain the growth of Social Security costs to stay within current tax levels.
Do you believe that budget deficits matter?
The accumulation of large deficits, year after year, burdens taxpayers and undermines future living standards. It does so by soaking up national savings and crowding out productive investment. Today's budget policy threatens to place ever-tighter constraints on the ability of future citizens to determine their own fiscal priorities. It also increases our reliance on borrowing from other countries, in effect, mortgaging our future national income. The United States would be in a stronger position to weather difficult times, address emerging national needs and invest in future economic growth if it had greater flexibility and strength in its fiscal position.
Do you believe that either Congress or the President has a realistic plan to balance the budget? If not, what would you do differently?
President Bush and the Democratic leaders of Congress share the goal of balancing the budget by 2024, but there is reason to be skeptical that they are prepared to make the necessary trade-offs required to achieve that goal. Both rely on assumptions that overstate likely revenues and understate likely expenses. A serious effort to address the deficit will require policymakers to tackle the underlying structural problems resulting from existing entitlement and tax laws.
Get them committed and elected to implement PAYGO and no divisive artificial mechanism like Balance Budget Amend would be necessary.
DC - 3rd ward - milligansstew08@yahoo.com
http://milligansstew.blogspot.com
I've said it before, I'll say it again:
Balance the Budget / Print the Debt
Print it 10% a year over ten years.
I remember a time when it seemed that no matter how prepared and eager I was to do something or to be somewhere at a specific time, I was late. I then set my clock ahead ten minutes. Kaching! I have not been late since then. I know my clock is set ahead ten minutes. When I do forget the clock is set ahead, it works out well. The point is that there comes a time when we can't do something for ourselves, we can still use tactics that help us to get where we want to be. For those that do not like artificial mechanisms, I say there is nothing artificial about something that works. In fact, we use all kinds of tools that help us to accomplish the important things in life. Despite how much we try not to be human, that is just what we are.
Phil
Been to the Unity08 Delegate wiki lately? Join today!http://unity-usa.org
Lets uncorrupt our government!