The GOP Dilemma on the Vote for a Balanced Budget Amendment
The addition of a balanced budget amendment to the U.S. Constitution is kind of the “Holy Grail” in American politics. An elusive goal, it is nevertheless something a large majority of the country supports in the belief that it will somehow put an end to the cycle of tax and spend, spend and tax that has defined much of the last forty years.
The last time such an amendment was seriously considered, back in 1995, it failed to pass by one vote in the United States Senate. Thanks to the agreement congressional Republicans cut with President Barack Obama over the increase in the federal debt ceiling, as part of the pressure applied by advocates of the “Cut, Cap and Balance” approach, it’s coming up for a vote once again.
It’s not going to be easy to get it through Congress. Unlike most pieces of legislation, a constitutional amendment needs the approval of two-thirds of the House and two-thirds of the Senate before it can be sent to the states for ratification. But this is only the beginning of the problem.
Republicans, who are currently more likely to back the amendment than Democrats, are divided over which amendment should be offered when it comes up for a vote in the House sometime this week. All 47 GOP senators and most of the coalition groups whose support is needed to flood Capitol Hill with affirmative messages are for what is called the “strong BBA” — a measure that includes provisions to limit the Congress’s ability to tax and spend. The House, on the other hand, seems to favor the “clean” or “historic” version of the amendment, which only requires that the budget be balanced.
The “clean” version, however, splits the coalition. There are those who think the political imperative right now is to show as many votes in favor of a balanced budget amendment as possible in order to build towards its eventual passage. And there are, obviously, more members of the House who are willing to vote for the weaker version than for the more robust version.
as much as i like a balanced budget, am yet to see a proposed amendment that would withstand judicial interference or the government twisting the numbers (like limiting the size of government to x% or y%.
how about something really simple if you want an amendment, something like…
“Barring a two-thirds vote of Congress, the Federal Government cannot issue any debt instrument of any kind whatsoever, nor can it guarantee repayment of any debt, pulbic or private, whatsoever.”
(the two thirds override vote will be needed for national emergencies)
clean, simple, clear. not a lot of wiggel room in this.
Peter I love your proposal. too bad we dont have some brains in washington,
It might be possible to polish the wording a bit, but conceptually it’s outstanding. Bravo!
Append this: “Except by a two-thirds vote of both chambers of Congress, no income or sales tax rate shall be raised, nor shall any tariff or excise tax be imposed or increased.”
Good ideas for people who have a conscience and America’s best interest in mind, however this is not what these amendments are for. They are for those who are the antithesis of American, e.g. those whose agenda is to rob, pillage, steal and usurp our wealth and sovereignty for personal gain, private/special interests and power.
“…clean, simple, clear. not a lot of wiggel room in this.”
Really, now…let’s think about this one. What is the definition of a “national emergency” for which there is an exception to the rules? Can this be decided by the POTUS? Who determines the amounts and when these conditions are justified?
Wiggle is all we’ve seen coming out of any public sessions of the Congress for decades, let alone the ones which are held in committees behind closed doors.
I would suggest any such clauses for emergencies or contingencies be omitted completely. If such an emergency condition arises, it can be dealt with by a 2/3rd majority just the same. To put it bluntly, there should never be anything of this sort that should be considered, not unlike a condition of WAR, wherein the full force of our military is committed. Sound familiar?
Which version? Neither. They will either be good stewards or they won’t. They are Constitutionally required to make a budget. They don’t. All kinds of things these rotten people do not do that they are supposed to. They do all kinds of things they are not supposed to. An Amendment will do exactly nothing. The only solution is an informed people who themselves are not corrupt.
This is all an effort to get Congresscritters to behave. They won’t. It will be used to hamstring Republicans when they are in charge. The Democrats will ignore it.
Marc
Absolutely….see comment #5.
There is a LOT not to like in a BBA.
The US is spending 30% more than under Clinton and running up the national debt.
However we can’t cut any discretionary programs or:
“Children will go hungry” “Old people will be thrown over a cliff”
This is why the OWS gang are there. The slackers who want something for nothing
Liberals – Democrats – Progressives – Socialists
They disdain success yet command a larger and larger % your money
They castigate you for you success and demand more in the name of SOCIAL JUSTICE
Financial parasites – Social parasites – Community Organizers – Democrats
Communists, and there was never anything progressive about theses people. A fact we will all live with in the coming years.
Some of us remember the days when pretty much everybody knew that progressive was a synonym for communist and a communist wasn’t a good thing to be. Those days are gone.
“which leaves people scratching their heads over the seeming unwillingness of the GOP House leadership to stick with the tougher language, the version that separates the men and women from the boys and the girls.”
John Boehner is a big girl.
Re the BBA is NOT something we want!!!
I have long supported the BBA, but I could never figure out why such conservative constitutional scholars as Robert Bork opposed it, Bork even calling it a “conservative bromide.”
Here are the problems:
First: a BBA fundamentally changes our structure of government. As designed the Federal government is limited to enumerated powers. There is a circle around it. “Go here and nowhere else, and only go there for the GENERAL welfare.” The bBA changes that to “go anywhere but stay within a certain percentage of GDP.”
What was unconstitutional becomes Constitutional. Personally, I’ll take Madison’s idea of how to limit government.
Second, do you really believe that the same people who are ignoring the Constitution now will suddenly become constitutionalists because a BBA is passed?
Not a chance. Throwing off the Constitution as it is allows this beast to throw off its chains.
Finally, and this is important: the control of the budget moves from the people via their House, to the unelected Courts. Right now, we have a say and can still fix it. Constitutionalize what is happening, and its gone.
Is an America in Name Only what you REALLY want to leave to your posterity?
No it doesn’t- unless an Amendment explicitly contradicts something already in the Constitution, the previous rules stand. Any Balanced Budget Amendment would impose an additional restriction on what the Federal Government is allowed to do, without removing any imposed by the Enumerated Powers and the Bill of Rights.
Myth Buster
Au Contraire
Friend…if a Constitutional amendment was passed that nullified free speech and imposed a state religion, and the States ratified it, you can bet your sweet bippy its the law of the land.
Likewise, if the States ratify an amendment that limits govt to %GDP, the enumerated powers are gone.
Besides…why take the chance with that one…the Constitution is not the problem, as an amendment would suggest. Its those who arrive in DC to act unconstitutionally, and those who sent them there for that purpose.
No, the Enumerated Powers would stand, because the BBA limiting them to a percentage of GDP DOES NOT CONTRADICT THE LIMITATIONS IMPOSED BY THE ENUMERATED POWERS. I’m not saying you couldn’t repeal the 1st Amendment (or any other) in the manner you suggested, but rather saying that a BBA DOESN’T DO THAT. The BBA would tell them, “Not only are you restricted to the enumerated powers, but you can’t spend more than X% of the GDP either.”
It’s the same with authorizing expenses for a business trip: you are only permitted to be reimbursed for certain authorized expenses, and you also have a maximum dollar amount you can be reimbursed (so that while you may be authorized to expense transportation, that doesn’t mean you will be reimbursed for renting a limo). Imposing a maximum budget doesn’t legitimize unauthorized use of that budget, even if the combined authorized and unauthorized use is still under budget. No spending company money on porn for business travelers, and no spending money on wealth redistribution for Congress.
Myth Buster
Look…I think we are on the same page basically.
Can we agree that the problem is not the Constitution but the disregarding of it?
The Federal government is doing things under the General Welfare Clause, the Commerce Clause, that were NEVER intended, and in fact, were flat out rejected in the Federalist and others.
If drunk driving laws are not being enforced, and the police are drinking on the job, where is the problem?
How about the following amendment?
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people. And this time we really mean it!
Yes, the Constitution being ignored is the main problem, and the reason the Constitution is being ignored is because the people are letting the politicians get away with it. That said, it’s important not to make baseless charges that make us sound like lunatics. Following the logic of your argument, the 22nd Amendment abolished the age, citizenship and residency requirements for the Presidency- an argument no one takes seriously.
Right you are Sir…1000%.
Consider these:
The natural cure for an ill-administration, in a popular or representative constitution, is a change of men. –Alexander Hamilton The Federalist Papers Federalist No. 21, 1787
Noah Webster – “When you become entitled to exercise the right of voting for public officers, let it be impressed on your mind that God commands you to choose for rulers, just men who will rule in the fear of God. The preservation of our republican government depends on the faithful discharge of this duty; if the citizens neglect their duty and place unprincipled men in office – the government will soon be corrupted; laws will be made, not for the public good, so much as for selfish or local purposes; corrupt or incompetent men will be appointed to execute the laws; the public revenues will be squandered on unworthy men; and the rights of the citizens will be violated or disregarded. If a republican government fails to secure public prosperity and happiness, it must be because the citizens neglect their divine commands and elect bad men to make and administer laws.”
Your second argument is the correct one. We can pass all the amendments we want to pass, but if the government ignores them, what we have really done is weaken the rule of law. And the government WILL ignore anything that makes it tougher for them to spend money we don’t even have. Good luck trying to reign in the Federal Reserve, too. We are already so so from our Constitution that Amending it will mean nothing. All we can do is try to elect people who will adhere to the Constitution. I fear that, soon enough, we won’t even have that option. What a complete mess our generation has made out of our country. But we always knew we would end up like this and we went ahead with it anyway. I congratulate us all.
Jim
Right you are…elect people for the EXPRESS purpose of restoring us to a Constitutional Republic.
Lots of places to begin…10th Amendment would be as good as any.
The BBA is a hoax on an unprecedented scale.
Madison gave us the tenth amendment, but Jefferson gave us this:
…Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes…But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object, evinces a design to reduce [the People] under absolute despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new guards for their future security…
— The American Declaration of Independence, July 4, 1776
Ditto…with this understanding.
When a people have the right to change their government, as in amending it, there is no need for revolution as described there.
That provision was put into the Constitution for that very reason, just as Jefferson said.
Now…in this same light, consider this from George Washington’s Farewell Address:
“This Government, the offspring of our own choice, uninfluenced and unawed, adopted upon full investigation and mature deliberation, completely free in its principles, in the distribution of its powers, uniting security with energy, and containing within itself a provision for its own amendment, has a just claim to your confidence and your support. Respect for its authority, compliance with its laws, acquiescence in its measures, are duties enjoined by the fundamental maxims of true Liberty. The basis of our political systems is the right of the people to make and to alter their Constitutions of Government. But the Constitution which at any time exists, till changed by an explicit and authentic act of the whole people, is sacredly obligatory upon all.
“The very idea of the power and the right of the people to establish Government presupposes the duty of every individual to obey the established Government.” —George Washington, Farewell Address.
Once we get rid of this idiot president, the next step will be to reform congress not by passing any more legislation. As has been pointed out, these people just ignore the law and or exempt themselves from the laws whenever they need an out. Soooo it looks like the heavy lifting is once again going to come from the voters who are working in the private sector. I say that because the voters working in the public sector will always vote for their gate keepers in congress to keep the government heavily unionized and Bloated–not to mention lazy undisciplined and inefficient.
Hopefully the job will be half done when barry obama exits and then it may take a few more years to replace these scum bags with some patriots who will fight to save this country from the socialists and unionists who want to destroy it.
Any idiot who wants to see our future need only look at the melt down in Europe which has just begun. This is where the USA is heading if we don’t get rid of the liberal menace in our society.
Tommy Gunn
The way to appropriate funds is as a percentage of the previous month’s US Tax Revenues up to a maximum of 100% as declared by Congress.
This keeps everyone happy, by allowing them to blame everybody else, and still balances the budget. Each cabinet member should get a percentage of the previous month’s tax revenues to spend instead of a defined amount where they want to spend every penny to ask for more next year.
The problem is the budget is voted on to predict spending of money a year ahead and when Tax Revenues decrease, as in 2009, our debt rises and we no longer have a balanced budget.
Let the politicians dicker about hundredths of a percent of a balanced spending, instead of trillions of dollars of new debt.
That doesn’t work because tax revenues are nowhere near uniform throughout the year. They vary dramatically from month to month, with the highest peak in April and smaller peaks in January, July and October. Months with five Fridays are also going to have distorted income/outgo compared to the rest of the year. Now a percentage of the revenues from the previous quarter or year could be a viable option, but it won’t work if you try to do it on a monthly basis.
Any reason for not voting a balanced budget amendment is outright unadulterated bullshit. It is the big lie come to life.
These crooks traitors and tyrants could vote one in in a New York minute if they wanted.
That is the key = want.
They don’t want, because then the well dries up. Pooof! No more cash cow. No more power. Money is power.
What they want:
Unfettered access to every penny they can get their greasy diseased meathooks on.
The only dilemma these traitors face is how to rig the system again to their advantage.
And screw the American people.
Up their arses!
There is going to be a fight here soon.
Gonna have to be.
It is us against them.
One thing for sure, they all are never going to give up the power and wealth they have stolen.
Ask them?
Mt. Top
I felt the same as you…
But, take a look at my entry #5…and if that is not enough, google Publius Huldah and check out her blog. She is a constitutional lawyer. Get her take on the BBA.
Oh…might want to get Judge Bork’s too.
More smoke and mirrors deception by our “so called” representatives. A BBA is a terrible idea, almost as bad as the Super Committee idea (intentioned to force higher taxes). Congress and the Courts routinely ignore or go against the Constitution now; why would or, more to the point, could anyone believe this Political dog and pony show. The next Amendment to the Constitution should be one forcing the Politicians and Courts to abide by and enforce the Constitution after voiding all amendments after the tenth. A BBA will only force the American people into slavery to ruling class Politicians and their Courts.
So you want to go back to awarding the Vice Presidency to the runner-up, legalize slavery, lengthen the lame duck session and eliminate the protocol for declaring the President incapacitated? Think before you make such a blanket statement!
The problem, as we all know, is not a lack revenue, but excess spending. So approaching the issue as a budget balancing act allows us to fall into the clutches of the big spenders.
The solution is to limit the ability of Congress to raise revenue without a super-majority. This was taxes or borrowing increases could only be for a genuine emergency. Tax cuts would require a mere majority vote, and the sunset provision would require super-majority reauthorization of the entire administrative state. Current debt would reach the limit of inability to pay the debt service without tax increases. No exception is made for a “state of war”, though obviously a super-majority could be cobbled together for such a vote, because the craven Congress critters would just make such a state perpetual. Here’s some suggested language for the Amendment:
Spending Limitation Amendment!
Section 1. Congress may not increase the limit on the public debt of the United States without the approval of two-thirds of the members of each House.
Section 2. Congress may not levy a new tax or increase the rate or base of an existing tax without the approval of two-thirds of the members of each House.
Section 3. Congress may not appropriate or spend funds for any purpose nor authorize any financial guarantee without the approval of two-thirds of the members of each House.
Section 4. State and local governments must be compensated for the necessary additional costs of any new federal mandate specific to those governments. In the absence of such compensation, state and local governments need not implement such mandates.
Section 5. Congress may not delegate its authority to make laws. No rule or regulation shall have the force of law without the approval of two-thirds of the members of each House. All rules and regulations not meeting this requirement shall cease to have the force of law four years after this Amendment is adopted.
This obviously hamstrings the Congress’ ability to meddle in the economy, and forces hard decisions and votes at every turn. But by forcing such votes continually, with veto proof majorities, the truly necessary business of the people via Congress will be achieved, and the national government will be trimmed back within Constitutional limits by attrition.
Make Section 5 a majority, just like an ordinary law. Also, add these:
Section 6. No monies shall be appropriated to any government department or program for a duration exceeding two years. (This prohibits the entire concept of “mandatory spending,” with the exception of debt service. Entitlements will be subject to reauthorization not less than once per Congress.)
Section 7. Notwithstanding any previous appropriations, no money may be withdrawn from the public Treasury if doing so requires exceeding the limit on the Public Debt of the United States imposed by Congress. In the event appropriations exceed both revenues and authorized borrowing capacity, debt service and pensions must be paid first, and the remaining appropriations shall be pro-rated in such manner as Congress may, by law, direct. In the event Congress does not pass such a law, the President shall impound sufficient funds to prevent exceeding the limit on the Public Debt.
And what will be the enforcement mechanism for this Amendment? The courts? Those guys aren’t even elected. Sorry, but I no longer have any faith in our federal government. Basically, they suck.
That’s why any conservative-controlled Congress needs to dust off and start wielding the judicial impeachment power with some relish. It shouldn’t matter whether a judge is considered conservative or liberal: if he or she issues a ruling that legislates from the bench rather than applies existing law, he’s gone. One strike and you’re out.
Just want to add one little thing. Make them call a spade a spade. Keep the Congress Critters from calling a tax a “fee” or whatever the buzzword might be in the future. I have no idea how this can be done but we’ve got to stop them any way we can.
One definition of “tax” is to apply a compulsory payment for the support of government.
In other words, any fee or charge mandated for governmental support is by definition a tax.
Do not let the perfect become the enemy of the good. A strong BBA is preferable to a clean BBA, which is preferable to no BBA. Under a clean BBA the people’s natural aversion to taxation will serve to limit spending. For decades the politicians have been asking the people if they wanted government spending at 20% GDP or taxes at 18% GDP. The people have answered with a resounding yes. Force them to choose and you may see slightly more taxation, but you’ll also see much less spending. You’ll also put an end to the generational transfer of wealth that will be paid for by those who have no say in the decision.
Also, is there any reason there cannot be votes on both? They don’t really contradict one another, the strong version simply extends the clean. Offer them up and make everyone campaign on their vote.
At the risk of sounding more like a libertarian than I am, since I suspect most everybody here believes the US Government pretty much ignores most of the Constitution already, what would make anyone beleive they wouldn’t ignore a BBA?
Having done and lived with quite a few government budgets, I assure you it is the formost exemplar of the old saw about how liars figure. We have both a BBA and term limits already; they are enforced on the first Tueday after the first Monday in November in the even years.
This is pretty much my position. They ignore the Constituion anyway. Another amendment is just another pimple to ignore.
A better amendment would be one that makes it possible to recall nationally elected officials (and Supreme Court justices), other than having their co-criminals impeach them.
If there was any justice in the world, we should have been gathering petitions to recall Obama as soon as he unilaterally declared the Chrysler bondholders would take a back seat to him paying off the unions. Lawless.
First, all budgets are balanced. In order to spend a dollar the U.S. government must have a dollar. So if the deficit is $2.00 and its income is $l.00 the government must borrow $l.00. The only place to get it is from the private sector somewhere: Tax, borrow, spend, or compel you to spend. Now which would you rather have? A ten trillion dollar that is balanced or a one trillion dollar budget that is unbalanced. I would take the second. So chasing after a balanced budget amendment does absolutely nothing to rein in the government.
You’re never going to get government spending to decrease on its own. You’d be trying to convince people to give up something of tangible value for something of intangible value, which is completely contrary to human nature. Different forms of paying for government spending cause different amounts of pain to the public. Direct taxes are more painful than indirect taxes, which are more painful than borrowing. A BBA eliminates the easiest way for politicians, and the people who elect them, to have their cake and eat it too.
Amendments like “Balance Budget” are just more excuses for a Congress and President that refuse to do the job they are elected to do, namely responsibly govern the country. The blame also rests squarely on the electorate and the media, wanting and promoting Government solutions for every problem instead of personal responsibility and reliance.
Assuming the Constitution is amended with either version (or some other) and the Congress actually honors the Law every time a budget is drawn up, our nation still has a $15 trillion debt that it can’t pay except by printing more Federal Reserve paper. Peter Roff started at the wrong end of the problem; as long as politicians have the power to manufacture money, they will. But when that power is taken away, government must then either tax or borrow. Indebtedness will then become self-limiting.
Right, because there were never asset bubbles, economic crashes, sovereign defaults or currency devaluation on the gold standard.
Specie currency isn’t any better than fiat currency, it simply suffers from different problems.
The debt can be dealt with by either balancing the budget and allowing normal growth to reduce it to a manageable proportion of the economy, or by (quelle horreur) spending less than revenue and applying the surplus to retire debt.
Jeff, you are right. But asset bubbles, economic crashes, sovereign defaults and currency devaluations are not intrinsic flaws of gold as money. They derive from national currencies pegged to gold, combined with fractional gold reserves. The expansions of credit that lead to these calamities are accomplished with the aid of a political money mill called the Central Bank (our Federal Reserve). Private gold money, denominated as the mass of pure metal contained, with 100% reserves, would not cause the events you named. Unless, of course, somebody cheats.
The problem with specie currency is that there is only a limited amount of it. The last estimates I saw said that there is about $5 trillion worth of gold in circulation, worldwide. The US economy is $15 trillion. The global economy is around $63 trillion. To go on a gold standard globally would require the price of gold to increase by a factor of at least 13. Suddenly the clamor for a gold standard makes sense.
Furthermore, on the gold standard the only people who create wealth are gold miners. All other economic activity simply redistributes that wealth. The economy will also be limited by the rate of gold extraction, something that will necessarily decrease over time. Fiat currencies are subject to inflationary crises, specie currencies are subject to deflationary crises.
Finally, it is wrong for the government to set commodity prices. Why does this change for gold?
Jeff,
I posted a main comment instead of replying to your last-posted message in reply to me. Please check out comment #19 (I posted #18 as well but #19 answers yours better). You will notice at least one error right away, where I say the world’s trading nations possess 120 metric tons of gold. It should read 54,740 metric tons, as of 2008, according to the World Gold Council. This data includes only central bank reserves and private investment holdings, and I believe this makes for a reasonable monetary base. To revise my arithmetic, and adjust for future economic growth, assuming your current valuation of $63 trillion for global wealth, we have 54,740/63 = 868.89 tonnes per $trillion, not far from a billion grams of gold per trillion dollars. An appropriate unit of account would be a milligram of gold, if we regard a dollar as parity.
Jeff,
Your first argument is self-refuting; it assumes that an international gold standard should commit the old errors with national currencies pegged to some weight or mass of specie. To do so would, per your first reply, simply trade one set of problems for another. One does not price gold in dollars, or euros, or pesos, or whatever. One FIXES the international unit of account to an agreed-on mass of gold. True, the value of gold (in goods) will rise by a large factor. It’s a store of value, you see. Why is that a problem? A unit of account of 1/1000th gram of gold would require reserves of 63 metric tonnes to represent your figure for the global economy. There is that much and more in the reserves of trading nations and private hoards. Hence the old argument you present, “there isn’t enough gold,” is circular reasoning. If you use the official U.S. gold value of $40 per ounce, it looks even worse.
The benefit is that gold fulfills every object required of money. Paper does not, and sensible folks would refuse to accept it, except legal tender laws more or less require us to do so.
As for your second argument, gold is a commodity that can be used to purchase other forms of wealth, as well as consumable goods. But petroleum, coal, and natural gas are fungible media for trade as well as other commodities. Every producer of goods: miners, ranchers, farmers, manufacturers, and so on, create wealth or add value. Gold is historically the optimum medium of exchange, and has come to represent wealth wherever it is used as money. Every argument that has been constructed to oppose its use has originated from politicians.
As for your last item, I heartily agree that a free market should set prices. The U.S. Constitution, Article I, Section 8, provides that Congress shall have the power, “To coin Money, [and] regulate the Value thereof,…” Many believe this expresses the primacy of the U.S. unit of account, but that is not true. The amount of gold available as money is primary, and that is what determines prices of goods in terms of specie. To prove this to yourself, consider that the U.S. Mint produces a Gold Eagle coin with face value (legal tender value) of $50. But you can’t get the coin for that amount; the Mint charges slightly more than the current free-market price for gold bullion, about $1800.
The chronic devaluations that occur under the gold standard are due to the fallacy implied by your last question. Any attempt to thwart the real market price of commodities (or goods) will ultimately fail. Devaluations are just one example.
Jeff,
I recommend you ignore my previous long-winded reply. Here is the concise version:
G: “The problem with specie currency is that there is only a limited amount of it.”
M: Only a limited amount? That isn’t a problem; it’s a feature. It is why you would be able to buy a Starbucks Frappuccino® for 5 milligrams of gold. A U.S. gold eagle (one oz.) keeps you in caffeine and cream for at least a decade, assuming you drink only three of those per day. Or, kick the Starbucks habit, then buy yourself a new Toyota with that coin.
G: “The global economy is around $63 trillion. To go on a gold standard globally would require the price of gold to increase by a factor of at least 13. Suddenly the clamor for a gold standard makes sense.”
M: Sounds like conspiracy to me. Actually, there are about 120 metric tons of gold in the reserves of the large trading nations. If we chose an international unit of account of two milligrams of gold, those reserves represent almost twice the value you quoted (in dollars) for the global economy. You needn’t protest about a two mg unit being too small. It’s just relative, you know.
G: “Furthermore, on the gold standard the only people who create wealth are gold miners. All other economic activity simply redistributes that wealth.”
M: Gold is the medium of exchange, a commodity that is a form of wealth, but not the only one. I picked cotton when I was young. My sack held 75 pounds and I was paid two cents per pound. That was $1.50 per sack, and I was paid in silver coin. That silver today would be worth about $40. The farmer who raised that cotton was creating wealth; if he wasn’t, he could not have paid me that much money to pick his crop. As for such activity “redistributing wealth,” it is actually a trade: my labor adds value to the cotton, and so it adds wealth. To accept money for labor is not redistributing wealth so much as acquiring a medium of exchange. Needing no raw cotton ourselves, my fellow pickers and I insisted on money.
G: “The economy will also be limited by the rate of gold extraction, something that will necessarily decrease over time.”
M: Production of goods isn’t limited by the amount of gold, but the prices of goods are. If rates of production go up faster than increase of gold stocks, prices of goods will go down. Elementary! But that doesn’t limit the “economy,” or aggregate growth, which is measured by overall production. Since the purchasing power of gold goes up as production does, the costs of raw materials and labor should fall in time. Eventually manufacturers catch up. Or not; some may simply close their doors, providing a richer market for those still producing. Should this scenario not set well with you, read Hayek or Mises.
G: “Fiat currencies are subject to inflationary crises, specie currencies are subject to deflationary crises.”
M: Actually, both paper and specie are subject to both inflation and deflation. The question is: Which is more likely to produce calamity (CRISIS is not an adequate term). Again, I will refer you to history. Check out Murray Rothbard’s book on the Great Depression, or the one by Milton Friedman. You can download Rothbard free from mises.org.
G: “Finally, it is wrong for the government to set commodity prices. Why does this change for gold?”
M: The Constitution did not grant power to Congress to fix the price of gold, except as the ratio of dollars to gold weight. But this is not the same as fixing the gold price in terms of other goods. I agree, that would be wrong.
Wake up Americans ! No more bush old gang. No more Obama . See the fact on newt Gingrich The real Newt Gingrich .www.vimeo.com/6445068 Perry,newt,romney will follow Obama spending and Other Gop want more spending. See Rick Perry on you tube : China Loves Him. The only one that can save America is Ron paul . Michele Bachmann is close second. Both are feared by the establish Gop and democrates.The media is afraid of them.Both have better plan than the establishment Gop and democrates.
27 Reasons Why Newt Gingrich Would Be A Really, Really Bad President
In recent weeks, the poll numbers for Newt Gingrich have absolutely skyrocketed. Many now believe that he has a legitimate shot at winning the Republican nomination. But the truth is that he would be a really, really bad president. Gingrich is a big time Washington insider who believes in individual health care mandates, who supported the bailouts, who was instrumental in cramming NAFTA down the throats of the American people and who is either soft or wrong on just about every single issue that conservatives care about. His personal life has a history of being a mess, his finances have a history of being a mess and his campaign was such a mess a few months ago that most observers considered his candidacy to be completely dead. He has been a member of the Council on Foreign Relations for two decades and he has been spotted attending meetings at the Bohemian Grove. He sounds good during a debate, but it really boggles the mind that anyone would consider voting for someone with such a nightmarish track record.
The funny thing is that a lot of Tea Party activists are now jumping on board the Gingrich bandwagon. A couple of years ago, the Tea Party movement was very much anti-establishment and Tea Party activists declared that they were sick and tired of “fake conservatives” and “RINOs”.
Well, other than Mitt Romney, there isn’t anyone left in the Republican field that is more of a “fake conservative” than Gingrich is. Gingrich is a big time “RINO” that represents just about everything that the Tea Party is supposed to be against.
It just seems inconceivable that a big chunk of Republicans would actually be thinking of voting for Gingrich at this point. Yes, four more years of Obama would be a complete and total disaster for America, but so would a Gingrich administration.
The following are 27 reasons why Newt Gingrich would be a really, really bad president….
#1 In 2008, Newt Gingrich did a television commercial with Nancy Pelosi in which he stated that they both agree that “our country must take action to address climate change”. He now calls making this commercial “a mistake”, but this is yet another example of the lack of sound judgment that Gingrich has shown throughout his entire political career….
#2 Newt Gingrich also worked with Nancy Pelosi to promote the idea of a national sales tax on energy.
#3 In a 2007 interview with PBS, Gingrich endorsed the idea of a “cap and trade” scheme to limit carbon emissions….
“I think if you have mandatory carbon caps combined with a trading system, much like we did with sulfur, and if you have a tax-incentive program for investing in the solutions, that there’s a package there that’s very, very good. And frankly, it’s something I would strongly support.”
#4 During this campaign, Newt Gingrich has loudly denounced Obamacare, but in 2008 he wrote a book entitled “Real Change” in which he endorsed an individual mandate for health insurance.
#5 In fact, earlier this year Newt Gingrich stated during an interview on NBC’s Meet the Press that he still believes in an individual mandate. The following is from an exchange between host David Gregory and Gingrich during the show….
MR. GREGORY: All right, let me ask you about another hot-button issue in the Republican primary, of course, and that’s health care. Mitt Romney having to defend his proponent–that he was a proponent of universal health care in Massachusetts, and specifically around this idea of the individual mandate where you make Americans buy insurance if they don’t have it. Now, I know you’ve got big differences with what you call Obamacare. But back in 1993 on this program this is what you said about the individual mandate. Watch.
(Videotape, October 3, 1993)
REP. GINGRICH: I am for people, individuals–exactly like automobile insurance–individuals having health insurance and being required to have health insurance. And I am prepared to vote for a voucher system which will give individuals, on a sliding scale, a government subsidy so we insure that everyone as individuals have health insurance.
(End videotape)
MR. GREGORY: What you advocate there is precisely what President Obama did with his healthcare legislation, is it not?
REP. GINGRICH: No, it’s not precisely what he did. In, in the first place, Obama basically is trying to replace the entire insurance system, creating state exchanges, building a Washington-based model, creating a federal system. I believe all of us–and this is going to be a big debate–I believe all of us have a responsibility to help pay for health care. I think the idea that…
MR. GREGORY: You agree with Mitt Romney on this point.
REP. GINGRICH: Well, I agree that all of us have a responsibility to pay–help pay for health care. And, and I think that there are ways to do it that make most libertarians relatively happy. I’ve said consistently we ought to have some requirement that you either have health insurance or you post a bond…
MR. GREGORY: Mm-hmm.
REP. GINGRICH: …or in some way you indicate you’re going to be held accountable.
MR. GREGORY: But that is the individual mandate, is it not?
REP. GINGRICH: It’s a variation on it.
#6 Newt Gingrich has made some very curious statements about Obamacare. For example, he recently made the following statement about the Obamacare law….
“Now there are about 300 pages that are pretty good”
#7 The truth is that Newt Gingrich is very, very soft on health care. Just consider the following excerpt about Newt from a recent Washington Post article….
In 2005, he sat down with then-Sen. Hillary Clinton to make common cause over health care. He said he and Clinton “have the same instinct” on health care and praised the notion of a health-care “transfer of finances” from rich to poor. “I risk sounding not quite as right wing as I should,” Gingrich said at the time. “I’ve spent enough of my life fighting,” he added.
#8 Newt Gingrich voted for higher taxes on numerous occasions. While he was Speaker of the House, the amount of taxes collected by the federal government from the American people increased from $1.001 trillion to $1.511 trillion. Would the amount of taxes extracted from us increase by another 50 percent during a Gingrich presidency?
#9 In 2008, Newt Gingrich stated that he would have voted for the TARP bailout if he was still a member of Congress.
#10 In 2003, Newt Gingrich boldly promoted George W. Bush’s prescription drug bill. Because of that bill, the federal government is now facing an additional 17 trillion dollars in unfunded liabilities.
#11 Newt Gingrich is a big time Washington insider that is often paid huge sums of money for doing next to nothing. Gingrich has said that he was paid $300,000 for “work” that he did for Freddie Mac, but according to Bloomberg he actually earned somewhere between $1.6 million and $1.8 million between 1999 and 2008.
So what did he do for Freddie Mac? Gingrich claims that he warned Freddie Mac about the housing bubble, but the report by Bloomberg disputes this….
None of the former Freddie Mac officials who spoke on condition of anonymity said Gingrich raised the issue of the housing bubble or was critical of Freddie Mac’s business model.
It turns out that much of the “work” that Gingrich was expected to do never actually got done….
Former Freddie Mac officials familiar with his work in 2006 say Gingrich was asked to build bridges to Capitol Hill Republicans and develop an argument on behalf of the company’s public-private structure that would resonate with conservatives seeking to dismantle it.
He was expected to provide written material that could be circulated among free-market conservatives in Congress and in outside organizations, said two former company executives familiar with Gingrich’s role at the firm. He didn’t produce a white paper or any other document the firm could use on its behalf, they said.
#12 Newt Gingrich has also had a very “cozy” relationship with the ethanol industry. The following is from a recent NewAmerican article….
The cozy relationship Gingrich has with the ethanol industry led to his consulting business winning more than $300,000 in fees from the ethanol lobby after he left Congress. The Wall Street Journal noted April 27, 2011 that “Professor Gingrich says his ethanol support is grounded in his lifetime of studying history and intellectual problems, but what about that $312,500 from the ethanol lobby?… We’ve never suggested Mr. Gingrich has been bought off, though of course there wouldn’t be an ethanol lobby to hire Mr. Gingrich if there weren’t politicians like Mr. Gingrich willing to prop it up with taxpayer dollars, tariffs and mandates.”
#13 Newt Gingrich is a firm believer in the job-killing “free trade” agenda of the globalists. Newt Gingrich voted for NAFTA and he is a staunch supporter of the WTO. He once made the following statement on the floor of the U.S. House of Representatives….
“What we’re being told is that free trade with Mexico would devastate the U.S. economy. With its low wages, Mexico would unleash a flood of cheap imports into our markets. There would be a mass exodus of U.S. factory jobs, as hordes of American companies fled across the border…. All this is scare talk.”
#14 Newt Gingrich is pro-amnesty for illegal aliens. He has made statements on numerous occasions where he has advocated a “pathway to citizenship” for the millions of illegal immigrants that have been living in this country for an extended period of time.
#15 In 1995, Newt Gingrich actually promoted the idea that the War Powers Act should be repealed.
#16 Newt Gingrich seems very confused when it comes to abortion. Just consider the following statements….
A- “I believe most Americans are pro-choice and anti-abortion.”
B- “I think that abortion should not be legal, and I think that how you would implement that I’m not sure.”
C- “As with any public policy, the more strongly public opinion is swayed in defense of unborn life, the more our laws should and will change as a result.”
#17 The following is how author Dick Williams described Newt’s attitude toward pro-life issues when he became Speaker of the House in 1995….
Gingrich is opposed to abortion but does not believe the nation is ready to enact a constitutional ban. In the first three months of 1995, while the Contract With America was being debated, he angered some Republican congressmen by detouring them from anti-abortion amendments to bills and by putting aside their arguments that a welfare reform package might lead to an increase in abortions.
#18 Newt Gingrich supported the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994 that put a significant number of new restrictions on gun owners.
#19 Several of the Republican candidates are suggesting that the Department of Education should be shut down, but back in 1979 Newt Gingrich voted for the creation of the Department of Education under President Jimmy Carter.
#20 News Gingrich has said that he believes that we should have Singapore-style drug tests for Americans.
#21 How can we trust Newt Gingrich to manage America’s finances when he has done such a horrible job managing his own finances. According to Politico, Gingrich once owed a debt to Tiffany Jewelry that was somewhere between $250,000 and $500,000. Politico tried to find out if this debt was still active but Gingrich was not willing to talk about it….
When asked by POLITICO whether Gingrich has settled this debt, and why he owed between a quarter-million and a half-million dollars to a jeweler, Rick Tyler, Gingrich’s spokesman, declined to comment.
“No comment,” he said in an email.
#22 How can we trust Newt Gingrich to run America when he can’t even run his own campaign? A few months ago, the senior staff of his campaign resigned en masse. It is literally a miracle that the Gingrich campaign has lasted as long as it has.
#23 For someone that preaches against debt, he sure seems to be able to rack it up. Back in July, it was reported that the Gingrich campaign was a million dollars in debt.
#24 Newt Gingrich was once fined $300,000 by the House Ethics Committee. An article in Esquire detailed why he received such a large fine….
His bitterness only deepened when the House Ethics Committee started investigating GOPAC’s donations to his college class and caught him trying to hide his tracks by raising money through a charity for inner-city kids called the Abraham Lincoln Opportunity Foundation. Another charity of his called Earning by Learning actually spent half its money supporting a former Gingrich staffer who was writing his biography. Gingrich even gave out the 800 number for videotapes on the House floor. The Ethics Committee found him guilty of laundering donations through charities, submitting “inaccurate, incomplete, and unreliable” testimony, and making “an effort to have the material appear to be nonpartisan on its face, yet serve as a partisan, political message for the purpose of building the Republican party.” Seven years after he had destroyed Jim Wright for a lesser offense, the committee punished Gingrich with the highest fine ever imposed on a Speaker of the House, $300,000.
#25 Newt Gingrich has been a member of the Council on Foreign Relations since 1990. This alone should immediately disqualify him from consideration for the Republican nomination.
Former Congressman John R. Rarick once said the following about the Council on Foreign Relations….
The CFR, dedicated to one-world government, financed by a number of the largest tax-exempt foundations, and wielding such power and influence over our lives in the areas of finance, business, labor, military, education and mass communication media, should be familiar to every American concerned with good government and with preserving and defending the U.S. Constitution and our free-enterprise system. Yet, the nation’s right to know machinery – the news media – usually so aggressive in exposures to inform our people, remain conspicuously silent when it comes to the CFR, its members and their activities.
The CFR is the establishment. Not only does it have influence and power in key decision-making positions at the highest levels of government to apply pressure from above, but it also finances and uses individuals and groups to bring pressure from below, to justify the high-level decisions for converting the United States from a sovereign constitutional republic into a servile member of a one-world dictatorship.
#26 Newt Gingrich has been spotted attending meetings at the Bohemian Grove. I wonder what all of those evangelical voters that Newt is courting would think if they learned of the pagan rituals and mock child sacrifices that take place there every year?
#27 Many Republican voters are deeply troubled by the fact that Newt Gingrich has actually cheated on two different wives and is now married to a third wife. The following is how a recent CBS News article described his marital history….
When he was speaker of the House, Gingrich had an affair with Callista Bisek, then a young committee staff aide, while married to his second wife, Marianne Gingrich. He divorced Marianne in 1999. Eighteen years earlier, he proposed to Marianne while he was still married to his first wife, Jackie Battley, who has said that Gingrich told her he wanted a divorce while she was in the hospital recovering from cancer surgery.
When his second wife asked him how he could give speeches on family values while he was cheating on her, Gingrich is reported to have said the following….
“It doesn’t matter what I do,” he answered. “People need to hear what I have to say.”
Newt Gingrich doesn’t just have skeletons in his closet – he has a whole family of skeletons in his closet.
Hopefully the American people will realize that Newt Gingrich would be an absolute disaster as president.
This country is rapidly running out of time, and the 2012 election represents one of the last chances that we have to turn this nation around.
If America elects Newt Gingrich, we will stay on the same road that Clinton, Bush and Obama have been marching us down.
We simply cannot afford that.
Please choose wisely in 2012 America.
Don’t pass any cotton picking balanced budget amendment. It would just give the Congress another amendment to ignore and then we won’t even have the threat of a balanced budget amendment for them to consider. Just stop re-electing people who won’t balance our spending with our revenues! It is that simple folks. We want all this government interventionism or we wouldn’t have it. See the Republicans wringing their hands about more taxes to cover some of this extra spending? They know that if they cut the spending, they can’t get re-elected in this country. That is the problem, and that won’t be fixed by any balanced budget amendment.
Since it does nothing to cap spending or taxes, the House balanced budget amendment is worthless, and even then the Dems will not vote for it. The only way to achieve a strong balanced budget amendment is to bypass Congress as originally contemplated by the framers when they provided for the initiation of constitutional amendments by the States as well as Congress. Unfortunately the framers ignored James Madison’s advice and required that the States go through a constitutional convention to initiate a constitutional amendment. Such a convention is fraught with unanswered issues and has never been called, and will never be called. Therefore, we need to take a step back, go back to the drawing board, and amend the Constitution to conform with Madison’s view that States should be able to initiate constitutional amendments without going through the cumbersome hurdle of a convention. Then a strong BBA could be initiated and adopted by the States by bypassing Congress. This would also open a path for other needed constitutional measures to enable us to get control of the leviathan that our national government has become. See http://www.timelyrenewed.com.