It is the debtor that is ruined by hard times.
That timely and insightful comment came from our 19th President, Rutherford B. Hayes.
Well, the United States is a debtor. We are $15 trillion in debt, and our debt rises at a yearly clip of $1.5 trillion – with no institutional control to stop it.
Yes, we’re in hard times. We’ve officially had over 9 percent unemployment for three years straight, and I’ve read reports claiming that real unemployment is closer to 15 percent.
We’re not looking at a pretty picture. Yet, some members of Congress see no problem with keeping things just as they are. They’re content to deficit-spend our future away.
They proved this on Friday, with a vote against a Balanced Budget Amendment (BBA) in the House of Representatives. While H.J. Res 2, a BBA introduced by Rep. Goodlatte (VA-06), was supported by a majority of House members, with a final vote count of 261 to 165, it was rejected by the House, because it did not gain the two-thirds majority needed to amend the U.S. Constitution.
Now for those of you who aren’t familiar with BBAs, the concept is simple. A Balanced Budget Amendment does not allow the Federal Government to have higher expenditures than tax revenues. It is pretty much the same principle that you apply to your personal finances. You don’t spend more than you take in.
Most states have constitutions with balanced budget requirements. It’s what the Nebraska constitution has. It’s what the city charter for Omaha has. I know, because before I was elected to Congress, I spent 8 years on the Omaha City Council. On the Council, we had to have a balanced budget, and sticking with it required tough decisions.
I’ve been there when people have come and said “we need new sidewalks,” or “we need new bus routes.” If the money wasn’t in the budget for a particular project, we on the City Council had to do one of three things in response to the demand: 1) raise taxes, 2) make cuts elsewhere in the budget, or 3) say “no.”
This is why Congress needs a Balanced Budget Amendment. Congress has continually proven itself unable to make this type of tough decision. The easiest way out of making this tough decision is to deficit-spend. This is why year after year, Congress plunges our country deeper into debt.
Why has this become the norm in Congress? Simply put, because it’s allowed. There’s nothing to stop it. There were lots of fail-safes built into the U.S. Constitution, and I think that our Founding Fathers never considered that deficit spending would ever occur in our country (other than during wartime), but it has, for decades now.
Well, this deficit spending has to end, and a Balanced Budget Amendment would end it. This is why I’ve long-supported a BBA, and why I voted in favor of it on Friday.
Unfortunately, many of your Congressional Representatives made their priorities clear. While I voted for fiscal discipline, many others said that they did not want to make tough budgetary decisions, the very ones they were sent to Washington, DC, to make. They voted for business as usual.
Some few voted against it, because it did not cut spending, thus allowing the possibility of mandatory tax increases, possibly imposed by the Supreme Court. Ugly.
There was a better bill, but it got shelved. It was too tough on spending.
Besides, it is already unconstitutional to engage in deficit spending, except in time of war. Just read the Constitution.
The second enumerated power is “To borrow Money on the credit of the United States.” Maybe you should actually try reading the Constitution rather than simply project your opinions onto it.
which enumerated power says to tax the living lights out of ‘We the People’?
go on and support Woodrow Wilson now..
Doing the Right Thing the Wrong Way is still Doing the Wrong Thing!
If a Balanced Budget Amendment does not includ limitations on Spending as a percentage of GDP as well as protections from Confiscatory levels of Taxation, it is nothing more than a blank check for congress to fleece the American Public.
This was a BAD Amendment and deserved to go down in flames.
This was a good amendment. It wasn’t perfect, but it was better than what we had. An amendment that capped spending has no chance of passing yet. An amendment that requires expenditures match revenue and allows increased taxes is not a blank check. Congress already has a blank check. An amendment would require Congressmen who want to increase spending to go back to their constituents and justify the increased taxes. It is a naturally self-limiting problem.
– on your own congressional website.
Can you blame the guy for trying to get the word out there? Should we not hear a message if it comes from other districts’ Representatives? I wish we saw more of this.
What you’re endorsing sounds more like close-mindedness. Hard to believe, but people from outside of your area have good ideas too.
– that he repudiated the Norquist Pledge.
Representative TeTrry, what bills did you propose to defund the TSA or the Department of Education? I must have missed the news on the day you suggested we do an across-the-board spending cut.
It is nice that you speak up now, sure…but it would have been totally awesome if you had made your own suggestions earlier. Every Republican should have a list of bills they put forth to cut spending. You don’t need a Constitutional amendment to do what is right. All you need is some common sense and an appreciation for the Americans who are depending on people like you to get things done.
repealing the 16th amendment would do more to correct the problem than any other possible solution..
no need for Ron Paul with that idea..
(oh, and get the ‘missing 13th amendment’ into the Bill of Rights)
people that think a ‘BBA’ is the solution are the problem.. more rules do not equal less tyranny..
of course the real problem is a marxist programed populace.. so, I already know my easy peasy solution can’t possibly happen..
“This was a good amendment. It wasn’t perfect, but it was better than what we had.”
That depends. If it accomplishes nothing, then why bother? People that think something is always better then nothing need to expand their thought process a little.
Was the Duck of Death better off with nothing in his head or a 9mm bullet?
There are no silver bullets here. Those that are looking for a BBA to cure all ills, bring eternal peace to earth and keep their hair from turning white as they age will always be disappointed. Perfect is the enemy of good enough.
What is needed is a BBA that moves the budget process back a year. Spending in arrears restricted to the previous year’s revenue. That is not a silver bullet either but it gets the ball rolling. The gap year will be a problem but there are ways to handle it that should be debated. Current spending MUST be reduced. The Super duper thingie NEVER stood a chance. Too many sacred cows, too many vested interests. The ONLY workable solution is an across the board reduction. Trim a little fat off everybody’s cow. Right now the Cows are being protected by their supporters, which is divisive. “Not my cow. Take Tom’s cow” IF every cow is trimmed some, we all share in the sacrifice. That can be a uniting experience, if handled correctly. Shared sacrifice often draws people together.
Instead we will get a winner take all election in 2012 that promises to be as bloody as it is divisive. Civil War is a low probability possibility. Both sides think they will win and the side that loses won’t be very rational about it.