Comments Subscribe to Personal Liberty News Feed Subscribe to Personal Liberty
 

The Left Baits A Trap for Us

July 22, 2011 by  

The Left Baits A Trap for Us

A lot of good people have fallen for a very bad idea. I’m referring to the notion that a balanced budget amendment will somehow help solve the fiscal disaster our country faces.

I just got a promotion from Regnery Publishing, one of my all-time favorite book-publishing companies. I can’t count the number of truly important titles it has issued, from Witness to the whole “politically incorrect guidelines” series. My shelves are filled with things it has done, including numerous best-sellers.

But the most recent email I got from Regnery stopped me short. The subject line read, “Amending the Constitution Is Our Only Hope.”

Our only hope to save our Republic? I hope Regnery doesn’t mean it. Because the amendment process is long, arduous and often unsuccessful. (And frankly, even when it’s successful, it could turn out to be a mistake.)

The subhead continued, “Washington Is Incapable of Controlling Spending. There Is Only One Solution Left.” No, Regnery isn’t advocating armed insurrection. Or even tar and feathers. The copy insists, “By doing what our Founding Fathers would do: adopt a balanced budget amendment.”

If the Founding Fathers had wanted to do it, they would have done it. I happen to think they did a darned good job on the 10 Amendments they did give us. (I also think most of the ones that followed made things worse for this country, not better. But that’s a column for another day.)

The email from Regnery is for a new book by Senator Mike Lee (R-Utah) called The Freedom Agenda. I haven’t read it, but I guess I’d better. The ad for it says the book “proves why a balanced budget amendment is the only way to rein in spendthrift politicos and cut back government overreach.”

I couldn’t disagree more. We don’t need a balanced budget amendment, as I’ll show you in a moment. And I think passing one would be dangerous. Let me explain why.

A balanced budget amendment, even if approved by two-thirds of the states, doesn’t mean that government spending will be reduced by a single penny. In fact, just the opposite is likely to occur. Because of automatic increases that are already included in much of our legislation, unless Congress decides otherwise, Federal obligations in the future are much more likely to increase than decrease.

One important example is interest payments on the national debt. For a variety of reasons, from the real estate collapse to meddling by the Federal Reserve, interest rates in this country have been kept artificially low for years. But what happens when they start to climb?

Look at the numbers, folks. Our acknowledged Federal debt is somewhere north of $14 trillion. Our average interest payments for all of that borrowing come to about 1.5 percent. While that’s a bargain today (where can you borrow money at such a low rate?), it still means we taxpayers have to fork over about $200 billion a year, just to pay the interest on the national debt.

What happens when that rate starts to climb? Right now, Ireland must promise to pay 14 percent to get anyone to lend it money. Greece has to fork out even more. I’m not saying our interest rates will ever get that high. But what happens when they double or triple from here, as I believe is all but inevitable? Where is the money going to come from to pay them?

I agree that we should balance the budget. But not if the politicos in Washington decree that we need to increase revenue to do so.

The most important thing isn’t to balance the budget; it’s to slash spending.

If a requirement gets added to the U.S. Constitution that Congress must pass a balanced budget, one horrible alternative seems frighteningly clear to me: We will be forced to raise taxes to comply with the law.

I can see the editorials in The New York Times and The Washington Post. The editorial writers won’t be so juvenile as to gloat; but I wager they will smirk a bit. Because they will know that we have fallen into a trap that they baited for us.

Yes, I think a balanced budget amendment could be dangerous. But I’m against it for a second and more basic reason: We don’t need it.

Thanks to the foresight of our Founding Fathers, the solution is already in the U.S. Constitution. Article 1, Section 7 of that marvelous document requires that all spending bills originate in the House of Representatives.

If the House doesn’t approve it, the President can’t spend it. Period.

Does Congress really want to reduce spending? The answer is obvious: Don’t authorize the expenditure. Want to force the Department of Education (or any other Federal agency) to spend less? Don’t vote them more money. Want to force the Transportation Security Administration to stop groping old ladies and young children? Cut off its funds. Want to trim the military budget by a few hundred billion dollars? Reduce the appropriations and let the bureaucrats in uniform decide which bases to close and which troops to bring home.

Until last year, getting the House to reduce expenditures for anyone and anything seemed like a hopeless dream. Heck, when the Democrats were in charge, they wouldn’t even abolish the subsidy to mohair producers. (This sweetheart deal went back to World War II, when the military wanted to make sure it had enough cloth for all the uniforms it required. They switched to synthetics more than 50 years ago, but like old man river, the subsidy just keeps rolling along.)

Unlike last year, there is a Republican majority in the House this time. I know; I know; we’ve had one before. And under every previous Republican president, including Ronald Reagan, Federal spending just kept climbing.

I think this House is different. There are a bunch of tough-minded freshman who reject the old adage that you have to go along to get along. They aren’t going to meekly accept any deal that requires higher taxes and more borrowing. I hope I’m right about this. And I hope you’ll do everything you can to make certain your representative is in this group.

We know that Barack Obama won’t play fair. He’s already threatened to cut off Social Security checks to older Americans if he doesn’t get his way. Senator Jim DeMint (R-S.C.) pointed out that even if Social Security tax receipts don’t cover all of the checks some month, the Social Security Trust Fund can sell some of the government bonds, bills and notes it owns. The Trust Fund holdings are enormous; even if it had to sell some at a discount, it could raise enough money to cover its checks for years.

And please don’t say anything to me about the government defaulting on its debts. There is more than enough money coming in every month for Uncle Sam to pay the interest on all those IOUs, as I’ve proven in previous columns.

Should the Federal government be forced to live within its means, just like thee and me? Absolutely! Do we need a Constitutional amendment to do this? Absolutely not.

The Constitution is fine just as it is. Congress already has all of the remedies it needs, if it will only use them. If the present Congress doesn’t have the intestinal fortitude to do so, then let’s get some new faces with stronger backbones next year.

Until next time, keep some powder dry.

–Chip Wood

Chip Wood

is the geopolitical editor of PersonalLiberty.com. He is the founder of Soundview Publications, in Atlanta, where he was also the host of an award-winning radio talk show for many years. He was the publisher of several bestselling books, including Crisis Investing by Doug Casey, None Dare Call It Conspiracy by Gary Allen and Larry Abraham and The War on Gold by Anthony Sutton. Chip is well known on the investment conference circuit where he has served as Master of Ceremonies for FreedomFest, The New Orleans Investment Conference, Sovereign Society, and The Atlanta Investment Conference.

Facebook Conversations

Join the Discussion:
View Comments to “The Left Baits A Trap for Us”

Comment Policy: We encourage an open discussion with a wide range of viewpoints, even extreme ones, but we will not tolerate racism, profanity or slanderous comments toward the author(s) or comment participants. Make your case passionately, but civilly. Please don't stoop to name calling. We use filters for spam protection. If your comment does not appear, it is likely because it violates the above policy or contains links or language typical of spam. We reserve the right to remove comments at our discretion.

Is there news related to personal liberty happening in your area? Contact us at newstips@personalliberty.com

  • Cawmun Cents

    “Pull the plug now….we are already circling the drain.”-CC.

    • http://Moreexpensive,moreunknowproblems. Lewis Munn

      No, put the plug in solidly…if we are circling, we will hear soon the awful sucking sound that the reservoir is empty! And it is too late for anymore swimming to work.

      • FreedomFighter

        “We need true tax reform that will at least make a start toward restoring for our children the American dream that wealth is denied to no one, that each individual has the right to fly as high as his strength and ability will take him.”–Ronald Reagan

        We only need review American history to find what works for America – low tax, small goverment, less regulation and protectionist tarrifs for core industry as a matter of national security.

        Its JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS…

        The current ruling elite, a missmash of communist-Marxist-socialist, and missguided economcally suicidal evironmentalist are doing none of the above.

        Laus Deo
        Semper Fi

        • skipfoss

          What we neeed is a flat tax with no deductions for anyone everyone pays 15% across the board and we could eliminate the IRS except for a few book keepers because our employers would be the tax collectors and have the book keepers colect and verify the tax from compaies and corp. That sould cut several billion off the books by riding our selves of tax enforcers,then start looking at some of the depts and see how many that need to be eliminated because most of them are redundent. Shut down the Dept of education and give it back to the states where it belongs shut down the dept of labor and again give control back to the states,cut out the NLRB it has never been need except to cover the Unions ass and push their agenda of controling all jobs in the USfor their leaders profit there several hundred depts that can be eliminated and never be missed except for the Trillions of savings

          • http://al@bellaproducts.com al metcalf

            Beg to differ, we do not need any Income Tax for the Federal Government. The income tax was a scam to begin with and it was implemented for the express purpose of redistribution of money across the classes of people.
            The supposed original targets of the income tax was the wealthy people and ‘income’ was defined as gain in value without labor. Under this definition rental income, interest income, dividends, capital gains etc were all taxable. Value paid for labor was defined as Compensation for labor and was not income. In fact even yet today we have the Workmens Compensation Board within the Federal Government.
            As with all things Political as soon as the Income Tax Act was passed the movers and shakers started the process of redefining ‘Income’ and shortly the real targets of the law started paying taxes into the pool of redistribution and the supposed targets started getting special laws that started removing their money from taxation.
            But be that as it may, we should not have the federal govt collecting taxes from the citizens of the country. It gives the federal govt access to too much wealth with no method of ever resisting the robbery, as our founding fathers knew in the beginning. That is why the Constitution did not allow the Feds to tax the citizens to begin with. The Fed had to collect its operating funds from import, export and excise taxes.
            Today our biggest drain on the economy is exactly what is not allowed in the Constitution. Redistribution of private wealth.
            Think about this. Since the founding of this Nation we have spent just under 5 Trillion dollars, in 2008 dollars, in every war we have ever fought and this includes the War for independence.
            Since 1964 when Johnson started the ‘War on Poverty’ we have spent 17 Trillion dollars, again in 2008 dollars, and we now still have more poverty now than we had in 1964. These numbers do not include what has happened since 2008. To include that spending, and really it should be included as the economic mess we are in was a result of the CRA, another do gooder, democratic Socialist give away operation, that backfired just like they all do.
            How do we get a handle on this issue. We must dismantle the Federal Bureaucracy of overlapping agencies and political corruption and the sooner the better. Then we have to revoke the Federal Reserve Charter and destroy that cancer. Then we can make our nation over as the Founders dictated.

          • Melissa

            I like your thinking. It’s a good start. When do we get out of the UN?

          • eric siverson

            A flat tax would easily put the poor at the highest % rate , social security is a poor mans tax , tobacco and alcoho; is another poor mans tax so are cusinos and gambling . With the housing or property tax coupled with the gas tax and state sales tax . It would propbabley be better for most lower income peole to just give up and refuse to work at all . the extension of unemployment for a extra yr did just that But the ridh got to keep thier tax breaks for another yr so both political parties agreed they both got something . The long range fibacial position of the country only got worse . but both political parties gave thier supporter what they wanted ,

          • People’s Rights

            FreedomFighter, I agree with you and Mr. Wood.

            The Republican party is about to fall into Obama and his Administration’s TRAP.

            - Raising the debt ceiling causing Americans to loose their wealth and natural resources (oil, Fort Knox’s gold, gold, silver and minerals).

            -After the resources are gone they still want America to make payment on 500 billions which will be written in a new Amendment. As some people call it “… The best part is the promise of a $500 billion “down payment.” Much of this is to be achieved by caps on “discretionary” spending between now and 2015.” What a trick! We have a constitution, and we can’t enforce it? Why do need another Amendment which will only benefit a few????

            - The gang of six was formed to trap the GOP into doing what the elites want.

            From Dail Reconing: “The U.S. now only owes the equivalent of 340,000 tonnes of gold – still more than the total sum of gold ever mined (twice as much, in fact, according to best estimates) and way above the 8,113.5 tonnes the United States Treasury says it holds between Fort Knox and the New York Fed.”

          • http://deleted People’s Rights

            We have a constitution, and we can’t enforce it? Why do need another Amendment which will only benefit a few?

            You’re right, Mr.Wood said, “THE LEFT BAITS A TRAP FOR US, …… and WE DON’T NEED A BALANCED BUGET AMENDMENT.” We don’t need a balanced budget amendment.”

            A balanced budget amendment will not solve the fiscal disaster, but it will only cause bigger problem. The gang of six was formed to trap the GOP into doing what the elites want.

            THE RULING ELITES HAVE BEEN DOING THIS FOR CENTURIES, and THE GOP HAS FALLEN FOR THEIR TRICKS EVERY TIME. The GOP seems to have no clue that they are being screwed again. Someone needs to tell them.

          • John

            Skip, a 15% sales tax on all goods sold, with the elimenation of all other tax, all over the country is the perfect solution. Groceries, and medical supplies as the only non-taxable items. Then you can give 5% to the federal government, 5% to the states governments, and city and county 2.5% each. In that scenario, our governments will stay as small and inofinsive, and every one will have incentive to work and be proud to make thier own way, instead of have government be thier babysitter.

            However, do not send this proposel to the current government, as they would say that the people want a value added tax to go along with the current tax laws, and not eliminate all other taxes. Thay are already stealing from us, and we let them.

          • kb says

            In addition, we need a constitutional cap on the % of GDP that can be consumed by the government, say 10% instead of the 24% we’re at today.

          • mickey

            Al, I agree we have no Constitution that says we have to pay income taxes. Think about it, if they do make an amendment, we will have a a Constitution that makes tax mandantory.

            They don’t want 15%, they want 23%. When that 23% isn’t enough, they will raise that.

            The blowback of unemployment created a cash society. Those on unemployment, collecting $1600 a month plus food stamps, are working for cash on the side. Add another $1000 or so a month and some are making more money on unemployment than if they worked and had taxes deducted.

            Take some more “cash” avenues and find that people are revolting against food prices, spending 25 cents for seeds, thus taking more money out of the economy. The stupidity of raiding raw milk producers is leading to more people buying their own goats for milk, again not putting money back into the tax base.

            Every time the government “regulates” people take another avenue.

            No, no, and no do we want a Constitutional amendment. That would only legalize something that is now illegal.

        • skipfoss

          There was one more thing I ment to put in there for elimination and that is the FED they have no business except for stealing money from our government I have never seen any justification for their existance,De Oppreso Libre

          • Jana

            As far as I am concerned the left includes the 3 Rhinos in the Senate as part of the ‘gang of 6′. They pulled the oomph out of the talks between Boehner and Obama today.

            When will the people wake up and vote these idiots out??? The founding fathers never intended for us to have career politicians in office.
            I don’t think Amending the Constitution is the ONLY hope, but it would have been a good start.

            Call me disgusted!

          • Melissa

            I look forward to remonetizing silver

          • Gene

            Skipfoss; The FED is a unconstitutional entity and only exists to steal from the WORKING MAN/WOMAN and pay to the class A shareholders (the ultra-rich of both America and Europe). The FED also steals through setting the originating cost of loans, as well as regulating the giant banks of America. Anyone holding class A shares is a enemy of the Constitution and anyone supporting a FED is also an enemy. There was no Contitutional admenmendt establishing the FED only legislation and that legislation was upheld by the socialist Supreme Court. Remember: “each case (in law sic)shall be judged on it’s own merit. That means every transaction of the illegal FED requires a court case to “forgive” the legislation and allow further operation of the FED. Only the population, in general, and working in unison will be able to rid us of the cruelity and evil of the American Central Bank!

        • eyeswideopen

          Your corporations are raping middle class America and you stand with them, why is that?http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/43860044/ns/business-stocks_and_economy/

          • Jerome Stutzman

            Have you ever noticed that blind people have their EYESWIDEOPEN! And yet they don’t see what is infront of their nose. And putting MSNBC links on here is a waste, I once had them as my homepage but as many have found out it is socalist garbage.

          • DaveH

            Okay, Eyes, here’s your chance to put your spin on some reality.
            Please explain to us why the five countries on this list, who have the biggest Governments, also have the weakest economies. I mean, any logical person would have to wonder “if Government is good for the economy, how unlucky can these five countries be to have such poor economies when they are doing the right thing?”:
            Venezuela, Eritrea, Cuba, Zimbabwe, and North Korea.
            And for the intelligent readers out there — Yes, there are some “bad” Corporations out there. Those being the ones who lobby Congress hard for special Government protections (i.e. Crony Capitalists). Often their protections come from regulations which might seem good to the unsophisticated readers, but in reality make it difficult for their smaller competitors to survive. The Big Companies can afford to hire the lawyers and accountants to wade through the myriad regulations. The Small Companies can’t. And there is nothing more beneficial to Big Companies than to have their competitors stifled.

            Look up close at any country on this list by picking the country name:
            http://heritage.org/index/ranking

          • DaveH

            Here is an example of one of Government’s finest Crony Capitalists — Archer Daniels Midland (ADM):
            http://mises.org/daily/3934

            ADM (under Dwayne Andreas) was cozy with Politicians on both sides of the aisle for many decades. Dwayne has contributed millions to the campaigns of both Democrats and Republicans.

          • DaveH

            And here is a study that claims Ethanol produced from corn (can you say ADM?) isn’t even worth the energy that is necessary to produce it:
            http://www.news.cornell.edu/stories/July05/ethanol.toocostly.ssl.html

            This folks is an example of Environmental politics at its finest.
            As Government Grows, Corruption Flows.

          • Humpty Dumpty

            Hahahahahaha, good one Jerome!

            Oh my, so eyeswideopen what’re you gonna do? Posting more liberal websites for us to go to? He has been doing this for a long time.

          • Humpty Dumpty

            Here’s another good one.

            The Associated Press (AP) wrote an article titled:
            “Boehner: GOP ready to act alone on debt deal”

            And Mr. T said: “How exactly is Boehner and the GOP going to ACT ALONE when they don’t control the SENATE or THE WHITE HOUSE?

            It’s so stupid that it’s actually funny!

        • http://deleted People’s Rights

          What a trick! We have a constitution, and we can’t enforce it? Why do need another Amendment which will only benefit a few????

          You’re right, Mr.Wood said, “THE LEFT BAITS A TRAP FOR US, …… and WE DON’T NEED A BALANCED BUGET AMENDMENT.” We don’t need a balanced budget amendment.”

          A balanced budget amendment will not solve the fiscal disaster, but it will only cause bigger problem. The gang of six was formed to trap the GOP into doing what the elites want.

          THE RULING ELITES HAVE BEEN DOING THIS FOR CENTURIES, and THE GOP HAS FALLEN FOR THEIR TRICKS EVERY TIME. The GOP seems to have no clue that they are being screwed again. Someone needs to tell them.

          • People’s Rights

            From J. Sinclair

            “RAISING THE DEBT CEILING DOES NOT FIX THE PROBLEM”

            “The idea that an increase in the debt ceiling is a solution to anything is nonsense. The event would be simply a can kick forward for a very short period of time. Increasing debt is not a solution to a debt problem. It actually makes the problem worse It is an act of extending your Federal credit card borrowing line so you can use it to pay your mortgage.

            Calling increasing the debt ceiling a solution to a debt problem is too stupid to be stupid. The unwind is deeply entrenched since the failure of OTC derivatives in 2008. There has been no meaningful intervention in this economic downward spiral at the level of the cause. The downward spiral therefore continues unabated.

            All downward spirals go to zero unless an intervention takes place at the level of the cause of the problem in the first place. OTC derivatives are what turned a four year correction into the greatest economic accident in human history.

            OTC derivatives only go one way in size and that is up. Changing the way nominal value is determined does not solve the problem. All that does is add camouflage to the problem. It does not solve it.

            $1600 in gold is simply another round number which will create drama, but no opposition to the increasing price.

            Nothing additional is required for a higher price of gold. The damage is done. The debt of the entire Western world is beyond out of hand. The so called solution, just like raising the debt ceiling, will be acts of kicking the can down the road.

            We have come to the end of the road. The result of no financial discipline anywhere in the Western world is unfolding.”

          • No Justice

            Well said. Politicians all say they are bending over backwards to solve this debt issue, but yet they still want to borrow more money from he Fed to enrich the few.

            From Sen. Obama’s Floor Speech, March 20, 2006

            “The fact that we are here today to debate raising America’s debt limit is a sign of leadership failure.

            It is a sign that the U.S. Government can’t pay its own bills. It is a sign that we now depend on ongoing financial assistance from foreign countries to finance our Government’s reckless fiscal policies. … Increasing America’s debt weakens us domestically and internationally. Leadership means that “the buck stops here.”

            Instead, Washington is shifting the burden of bad choices today onto the backs of our children and grandchildren. America has a debt problem and a failure of leadership. Americans deserve better.”

        • John

          Freedom fighter, short comment, your right.

        • Robert Smith

          From FF: “We only need review American history to find what works for America”

          Let’s look at REAL history like when Eisenhour was president.

          The economy was boomin like no other period in our history. Even when the rich were paying 90% taxes the economy worked!

          Clinton gave Bush a BALANCED budget.

          Rob

        • Arron

          Big or small government has little to do with it. It is HONEST or CORRUPT government that really matters. However small the government may be, if it is hijacked into pumping billions of free dollars into the coffers of the mega corporations — in the form of tax breaks, subsidies, taking over all their losses & risks while letting them keep all profits, creating laws to let them use people’s savings in instruments shrouded in secrecy, making it harder and harder for average people to have recourse against malpractices, etc. The simple matter of fact is that people have no say in any of these matters that costs billions to us taxpayers.

      • Cawmun Cents

        I am very sorry Lewis,but I for one refuse to keep these tax and spend congressfolk up and running.Yank the rug out fromunda them,and give them no more ammunition by which they can rule us with.Let the Fed systen go belly up,and get back to where we once belonged.-CC.

        • Harrisburg

          They do it again at the expense of the very hard working Americans who have funded the program.

          The GOP should campaign against raising the national debt limit. Just say no to any measure requires that a balanced budget amendments to the Constitution be passed and sent to the states as a requirement to raise the borrowing limit.

          Romney said: “people do not pay into entitlements, we pay into SS. people do not pay into welfare, welfare is an entitlement.”

          • Robert Smith

            What is the real problem is wealth is being created by moving money around, NOT by something being produced. Ayn Rand called those folks LOOTERS.

            We need to close the loopholes where money is made simply on money and get America back into production.

            THAT is what will save us.

            Rob

        • Arron

          Not one of these righties and tea partiers has called for reducing taxes for the huge population of working class Americans. How about bringing taxes down to 5% for people earning under $50,000 a year. That would be still better than 0% being paid by mega corporations. Does any tea-partier demand 0% tax for working class Americans – NO.

      • Vic

        Actually, it’s very simple, folks!

        The amendment has not only to mandate the balanced budget, it has to cap taxes! Let’s say to establish a flat tax of 15% with guaranteed 1/3 of the internal revenue spent on national debt repayment and 10% thereafter forever.

        Administration has to be forced to drop their money shoveling to the enemies of the USA, foreign and domestic, should there be not enough money still, it should disband all those parasitic Departments and Agencies. EPA, Dept of Education, Dept of Labor, DHHS, list should go on and on and on. All those parasites has to go get real jobs! Government has to shrink to minimal acceptable size and out of the way of people.

        • Melissa

          If 10 percent is good enough for God; it should be good enough for the government. Voting the bums out is not enough. Who will we repl;ace them with? Who’s ready to step up?

          • Robert Smith

            Melissa says: “If 10 percent is good enough for God;”

            If your god is so powerful why do his representatives want so much money. Shouldn’t the god provide?

            I don’t see any need for clergy of any sort to have their own private jets or any car but a common Chevy of Ford in America. Far too many of the fat cat religious folks are way to high on the hog.

            Rob

          • Mike in MI

            Melissa – Great answer! I hope you come back to this.
            The real truth about giving to a believing Biblical standard in giving financially ties in with the practical application of the heart to God’s principals. And,(FOR ALL YOU UNBELIEVING LIFE SUCKERS OUT THERE, YOU can BE successful primarily because you are ASSOCIATED WITH beleivers – probably believers who share at 10% or more [So don't be so proud of yourselves. God is blessing the believers who work for you.]) can an unbeliever apply the biblical standard with a heartfelt expectation it will produce for him(?)…loving GOd while he does it? Too complicated to figure it out? Your problems, are based in ignorance of God’s standards. He’s not capricious; YOU ARE! (not you, Melissa).

            And you, Robert Smith, what a PRESUMPTIOUS/REPUGNANT vermin you are!
            You assume (because of Catholic teachings: that a man or woman of God should be “poor and humble”) that God shouldn’t help or allow them the tools needed to doing work HE thinks is important that they shouldn’t have corporate equipment to do it?
            Envious Fool! His Worshipful Majesty the Presentdink, Oblama-lama-ding-dong should have at his dispoal anything and everything he needs to dismantle God’s wormanship of 235 years with your applause and ASSistance. But, God’s spokesmen to His people should be assigned VW’s to get around to do their appointed tasks? How would you know if God didn’t help design and build the entire technology for jet travel for just such a day as this? But you think they are only worthy of horses and buggies, like the Amish. Well, isn’t that where everybody in the Socialist’s Paradise will be — except the Elite Political Czarists?
            Do you have guaranteed membership among those Oligarchs? AH-h-h yes, but isn’t that what your ideals espouse?
            Freedom for everyone…(born to it). It’s in the small print you didn’t bother to read.

        • joe1cr

          Vic, good idea you should send this to the republican leadership in Washington D. C.

    • Lost in Paradise

      I need to laugh at your post! Oh I like it, it is just funny how true it might be. The real truth is, that it would be the best thing that could happen. I think then we could rebuild our republic without all the complaining.

      It might not be any fun, but anything worth having is worth fighting for or struggling to have.

    • Marc

      Yep, the DemoPublican Party has gotten us into this DEBT fiasco, and we let it happen.
      I guess we need term limits ; Voter Recall ; and the Fair Tax. NO to any more Constitutional Amendements. (too big a can of worms).
      And lets have a quick trial and fast execution for Michell’s former staffer that sold her provate Medical files !
      What disgusting maggots most of these ‘political types” are.

      Enjoy the heat. – Marc

    • Cawmun Cents

      Gubment yells the most about the shyte ceiling!You are stopping them from defecating on you and handing them all the toilet paper they need.They are used to getting preferential treatment.Now that you are waking up under a steaming pile of debt,you are of course,asking why it stinks so much.
      But since you let them shyte upon you,and gave them the means to wipe thoroughly,now its about a,”where are we going to drop our horkin growlers now?” attitude.Tell them to shyte upon each other,they seem to be adept at that already.But tell them that they will have to wipe each others bottoms,because you arent ponying up the ultra plush anymore.No!…to raising the shyte ceiling.No!…to giving away the rolls.Tell them they have made you the bluehouse target for the last time.
      Someday you will thank yourself that you took away the giant gubment posterior that hovered over you and dropped its loads with impunity.But if you give in,then dont expect things to smell pretty when its all said and done.The only way you will ever get out of the steaming pile,is to make sure that no more lands on you.-CC.

    • paul mcclaren

      There is ONLY ONE solution: the tried and true tradition of our Patriot and Confederate ancestors: SECESSION NOW. The first state that regains its sovereignty will be free.
      I will wait patiently for calamity to fall upon the nation invading us.

      • mickey

        Actually, I think you are right. I also think states are trying to hold on until the next election, one which I am more and more skeptical to happen. If obama goes to a 2nd term, we may have just that. I would look for regional pull outs.

        The problem is the US gov has its fingers in everything. Hospitals receive fed money, subsidies for schools, food production. Until the states can do without fed money, they cannot pull out unless they repudiate the debt or obligation.

        What started out in good conscience has turned into a nightmare. It is my understanding that if a hospital receives fed money it cannot turn down a patient. I suspect this is why we don’t have people dying on hospital steps any more. I remember when they did leave people to die because they had no money or insurance.

        The good news is about 15 states are just about solvent when only 5 states were before. Don’t hold out hope for CA and NY because they are in it for the illegals and welfare money from the fed.

        It used to be poor were really poor, no money, no food, no housing. Now the poor have houses, food, money and cars (and attitude).

  • DaveH

    Abolish the ED, the DOE, the FCC, the DEA, …….

    • Buddy

      And everything else with initials that include “Department of” in the title. As government grows, our Freedom diminishes!

      • Lost in Paradise

        Very true, but we would first need to replace everysingle politician, and with people that believed in the Constitution of the USA, and our bill of rights. We would also need to move to a more volunteer type government with short terms,and no lawyers except where absolutly necessary. How we gonna do dat?? huh? Well anyway lets get started today somehow someway.

        • Wyrdwolf

          So why would we need Lawyers they have been the problem from the start. why do our laws have to be so complex and vague that we would need a lawyer to interpet them. That is how we got here in the first place. The Constitution is easy enough to understand and enforce if we get back to it. Our Government is so paranoid now that someone now will undestand all the jibberish and find all the loopholes they have come up with to cover their sins( remember they don’t break laws right.)

          • http://fernhart.com Marianne

            Hi Wyrdwolf,

            Ever heard the line “In a Revolution, the lawyers are the first to go.”? I think it came during the French Revolution 1789.

        • joe1cr

          We need to bring back our Original Thirteenth Amendment

          The Original Thirteenth Amendment
          Ratified March 12, 1819

          The Founders held an intense disdain and distrust of “Nobility” as a result of a long history, during Colonial times, of abuses and excesses against the Rights of Man and the established Common Law and Constitutions by the “Nobility”, and therefore placed in the new Constitution two injunctions against acceptance of Titles of Nobility or Honor or emoluments from external sources. The Revolutionary War for Independence was primarily waged to eliminate these abuses and excesses of the “Nobility” and the “Monied Classes” from the life of the Nation, recognizing the Equality of all men.

          As noted in the discussion in Article 1 of the Constitution, the original Thirteenth Amendment, was ratified in 1819, adding a heavy penalty upon any person holding or accepting a Title of Nobility or Honor, or emoluments from external powers by making that person “cease to be a citizen of the United States” and “incapable of holding any Office of Trust or Profit under the United States”. This Amendment was proposed, properly ratified, and was a matter of record in the several States archives until 1876, by which time it was quietly, and fraudulently deleted, never repealed.

          On December 18, 1865, the “new” 13th Amendment loudly prohibiting and abolishing slavery (and quietly surrendering states rights to the federal government) was proclaimed adopted by Secretary of State Seward, replacing and effectively erasing the original Thirteenth Amendment that had prohibited acceptance of “titles of nobility” and “honors” and “emoluments”, and dishonest politicians have been bought and bribed and have treasonously accepted graft from external sources ever since, with no thought of penalty.

    • http://Moreexpensive,moreunknowproblems. Lewis Munn

      Careful! Pruning helps. Ripping out by the roots leaves a big hole politicians will fill with something much worse!

      • Lost in Paradise

        Not if we are smart and fill it with good people, no career politicians, and very few attornies. Those two items are really the biggest problem.

    • EddieW

      DaveH…Are you advocating that we become a FREE Nation again? You don’t like the FDA (Federal DEATH Administration)? they are all working together to reduce the population, so that the few can rule over and control the many!! Big Pharma’s sudden unavailability of “Critical” drugs has a purpose…it will be extended to Diabetes drus a bit later…getting rid of a few hundred million people is their goal. Ahhh but most people luckily don’t realize that…I do wonder if those “scarce” drugs are available from India? or even Mexico!!!

      • Lost in Paradise

        Yes, you can get them out of the country.

    • ed

      ..the BATF

    • Melissa

      What about all those czars? Can we get rid of those too?

  • Warrior

    Geez Wally, I thought that when the dems passed “pay-go” this would all be solved?

    • http://Moreexpensive,moreunknowproblems. Lewis Munn

      You didn’t see the hidden words, PAY now and then GO away and let us spend it all.

  • Sarika

    If the House doesn’t approve it, the President can’t spend it. Period.

    I was under the impression that the President could use the 14th Amendment if the House doesn’t come to an acceptable position. Am I incorrect in thinking so?

    • http://none Chip Wood

      I know Bill Clinton and some other libs have proposed this. I think it would be illegal as all get-out. And cause a firestorm of protest the Democrats don’t dare face.

      By the way, did you read my column some months ago on why I believe the 14th Amendment was never legally ratified? Let’s get rid of it, too … after we get rid of Obama.

      Chip Wood

      • George

        Chip, why am I not surprised that a confirmed Johnny Reb holdout like you would say something like claiming the 14th wasn’t valid? It was a bit of skulduggery much like that in which the last Congress engaged in passing Obamacare, to be sure, but it was ratified. It is a valid part of the “law of the land” even as Obamacare is until it is either repealed or ruled un-Constitutional.

        • Thor

          Thanks for reminding us, George…that’s precisely the point. It’s ratification is a matter of debate, not because of its completion–technically speaking–but because of the illegal manner in which the process was carried out. It was the kind of thing that caused the Johnny Rebs’ to secede in the first place…perhaps they will again if it continues to be put to a nefarious use.

          • denniso

            Chip Wood is right on the comment that we don’t need a balanced budget ammenment,but where the heck is the evidence that the ‘left’ has ‘baited’ the rightwing into pushing for it?? It’s been the tea party folks mostly who have no clue about how the economy really functions who have been screaming for it as well as many veteran Repubs for years. I guess,in a conspiracy sort of mind,Chip may say that the tea party is infiltrated by the left and is pushing them down this wrongheaded path,for the sole purpose of wrecking the movement?

            Right after the revolutionary war,the Federal gov’t had to deal w/ a debt that had been racked up during the war…good enough for the founders? Good enough for us…precisely for the same rational,that when the country has to come up w/ money to pay for what it thinks it needs,it has to have the ability to live w/ debt. For yrs, tax revenues have come down while spending on wars,the military budget in general,the cost of healthcare(affecting medicare,VA healthcare and medicaid costs),medicare drug plan,have all increased as the rich are paying less and the Repubs stand on their ‘no tax increases’ vow. Toss in the largest recession in 80 yrs, and we have a budget that is way out of balance…

            The problem is never as simplistic as just saying ‘we spend too much’.
            If the gov’t doesn’t bring in enough money to pay for even half the services we need in a downsized gov’t,then the result would be the same…debt spending. No, the rightwing is just using this crisis to meet their longtime goal of strangling gov’t and drowning it in the tub. Cynical,hypocritical and doing the bidding of big business,like the Koch Bros,Exxon,GE,etc…

          • Jeep

            denniso, that is exactly the problem. Libs like you see EVERY program and “gubernment give-away” as a “program we need”. What you fail to understand is that the TEA party believes there are MANY govt programs that are unConstitutional, not necessary and a big waste of our tax dollars. The problem is not in understanding how govt works, the problem is that progressives have expanded the role of govt into areas of society, the economy and foreign relations that are wholly unConstitutional and are unwise at best. Reagan said that the problem WAS govt. And, he was right.

          • denniso

            Nothing wrong w/ debating what programs we need or don’t need,but you should remember that these things have essentially been voted for and on for a century or more. If people don’t want what we have then they can vote it out,or not. It wasn’t and isn’t a group of Liberals who have forced programs on the public,instead most or all have come about to fill a need that the supposed ‘free market’ can’t or won’t meet. For instance,why do we have a gov’t funded and run military? because most people know and accept that the private sector can’t or won’t do it,or it can’t be depended upon to do it. Why do we have an EPA? because private business has made a habit of poisoning the air,land and water of the country and can’t be trusted to not do it or even to clean up after itself. Almost all gov’t programs have come about for similar reasons,not because there is a cabal of leftists who are trying to enslave us…let’s debate the role of gov’t but remain balanced in the discussion,and not fly off in conspiracy theories.

          • Mike in MI

            denniso – What a tool you are.
            The people and too often their reps in Washington have been ignorant of the Grand and Overarching Plan of those fronting the Marxist’s Manifesto and it’s goals to be able to oppose what is their incremental designs leading to a system of cultural control by suppression, oppression and control of the human spirit by the theif who cometh not but for to steal and to kill and to destroy (John 10:9-10). But, if you are knowledgeable of that and still promote its arrival, then I assume (on the basis of Scripture) that you will participate in its establishment.
            What you want will be to your horror.

          • Mike in MI

            Sorry, replace the word “oppose” with “espouse”.

      • Dan az

        Chip
        You know as well as I do he is going to use it!The senate isn’t budging and that’s the plan.Just like the health care bill,knowingly pushing it through so he can deal with it later.The same goes for the budget,he will just use the 14th amendment knowing that it too is unconstitutional.The problem now is that we don’t have anyone that has a spine to go one on one with this puke.By the time they get around to the supreme court his time will have run out and the next guy will have to figure it out.You know pass the buck.

        • denniso

          Don’t you have the ability to speak like a grownup? Calling the presdient,’this puke’,is nothing but childish and makes you sound like a juvenile. Most of the country came to loathe Cheny/Bush,yet some of the worst name calling was,’Shrub’ and ‘Dickey’…why not try to use adult words and state your case in a mature manner? I know,I’m a ‘Libtard’,'communist’,'Socialist’…

          • Dan az

            If it bothers you denny boy then don’t read what I have to say.Your BOY has had almost three years now to get his act together.A true boy wonder.BTW I see you still don’t get it Bush and Bush 2 and Cheany where the demolition crew and your BOY was the clean up crew.So hows that hope and changey thing going for ya?Troll!

          • DaveH

            Yeah, Dan, you should be mature like Denniso. Lol. Well, I guess he would seem mature to a fourth grader.

          • Dan az

            Dave
            denny is a true troll!

          • Mike in MI

            Ah-hh-h yes, dennisso, that you are. Can it be denied?
            If The Oblama-lama-ding-dong wanted to he could get monies shifted from one Department to another to make sure the important entitlements he claims to be so worried about get covered. But it is his obvious intent to oppress the old people, the disabled and infirm.
            Had he any real desire to care for those citizens…he would make sure those shifts were accomplished and deal with the needs of the nation HE SWORE TO PROTECT AND PROMOTE.
            But, IT SEEMS HE HAS NO SUCH INTENT. Only to promote his own political weal. The hallmark of a megalomaniac and ghetto conman.

    • jimster

      You are wrong, section 5 of the 14th ammendment states “The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article”

      • DanB

        And that is going to stop our current administration how? Or get Congress to enforce that when they cannot even enforce the parts about who has the authority to declare war (kinetic military operations)?

        As for the article, this is the best argument I have seen against the balanced budget amendment. Guaranteed tax increases. Ironically, tax increases will probably stifle the economy and bring in less revenue thus requiring higher taxes, less revenue, and so on and so forth as we cycle the drain to oblivion (tyranny).

        • DaveH

          You’re right, Dan, there has been a history of the Federal Government ignoring the Constitution since the country began. We need to change that. We, the people, need to relearn our rights and see that they are enforced by showing no tolerance for politicians who aren’t honest and who don’t adhere to the Constitution.
          Janine Turner is trying to head us in that direction:
          http://constitutingamerica.org/

          • eyeswideopen

            http://mises.org/freemarket_detail.aspx?control=488 Your guys point out that Reagan was the true beginning of big government. Trickledown economics doesn’t work, or it would have worked during Bush era. Nobody trapped the repubs, they are just greedy and everything must be their way or the highway… Babies, every single one of them.

          • DaveH

            You know Government grows more under Democrats. I would take “trickle down economics” any day over the “trickle up poverty” that your people promote.
            For sure, Republicans are complicit with the Big Government growth.
            However, Eyes, you support Big Government growth, so what’s your point? Seems you should love Republicans if you are correct.
            You’re just the usual Liberal zealot whose principles change with the wind.

          • DaveH

            By the way, I was there, Eyes. I was reading the WSJ 5 days a week, and there was no better coverage of politics than the WSJ. Reagan came in like a ball of fire with lots of Government shrinking talk for the first year. But the Democrats with the aid of their MSM propagandists were literally screaming about the budget being “cut to the bone!”. It turns out that “cut to the bone!” was the typical Democrat euphemism for slowing greatly, but not stopping, the upward growth of Government Spending. Bob Dole, the so-called “conservative Republican” was hanging all over Reagan, telling him that he needed to “compromise” (Democratese for raise spending, but not as much as they’d like). Reagan vetoed 78 bills (9 of those were overridden) during his two terms. Imagine what the Government growth would have been without those vetoes? By the end of his term he was 78 years old, and just 5 years later he announced that he had been diagnosed with Alzheimer’s Disease. I’d say he did pretty darn good against the rabidly spending-oriented Congress (both parties) for an addled old man.

        • Bob in Boston

          I knew as soon as Ron Paul came out against the CCB (even though his son Rand was a co-sponsor of one of the earlier versions of the bill) that it was not good for the country the way it had finally been presented. As a rule, you can always depend on Ron Paul to tell it the way it is, even if it means him speaking out against something his son had originally supported.
          I’m sure the Frankenstein version of the bill currently in the house isn’t the same as what was originally intended. But even worse, I read through the House bill, and it actually references several earlier versions of the EXACT SAME legislation that are already in place, and the government just isn’t following them. So this new one doesn’t really add any value – we already have these laws in place and the bureaucrats aren’t following them.

          The scariest thing is that the latest version of the bill creates specific exceptions to the provisions for things like “the War on Terror”, which are undeclared wars, completely made up to give bureaucrats free reign to spend defense funds however they see fit, just by declaring that their might be terrorists in particular countries. You know, kinda like how we’ve been operating for the last 10 years. :-) But I agree that we need to shelve the whole idea of Cut Cap and Balance.

          The right answer is to look at the budget for the following year (fiscal 2012 budget) and see what departments we can eliminate to reduce spending. The only “cuts” that matter are the ones that can be made over the next year or so. I don’t really care what anyone says we can save over 10 years – alot can happen in 10 years and the only thing that really matters is what happens NOW, because who knows who’s even going to be in power 10 years from now.

    • MNIce

      You said, “If the House doesn’t approve it, the President can’t spend it. Period.”

      Tell that to our scofflaw-in-chief Mr. Obama. The TARP II law specifically stated that the bailout funds could only be given to financial institutions. This would NOT include GM and Chrysler…

      Did anyone in Congress say boo to this? I think even Ron Paul missed it, but it was a felony misappropriation of Federal funds and therefore impeachable (regardless of the intent or results).

    • Lost in Paradise

      Excuse my French, but Obama does not give two —- about our constitution, or any other documents that belong to our republic. I think that is what you all forget. I have been in different government agencie’s in the state I am from, and get all kinds of bad and negative replies, when I use the constitution on them. Most of our government, and especially the democrats hate our constitution with a pashion, and would like to burn it.

  • Paul Gardner

    Have conservatives backed away from Gramm-Rudman-Hollings?

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gramm-Rudman

    What changed?

    • Warrior

      Obviously it didn’t work. Nor has any other self described deficit reduction plan to date. Let’s get on with “We the Peoples” business. 1.) Oust the progressives 2.) Get on board the “Tea Party” Express. 3.) Repeal oblamacare.

      Don’t forget kids, your taxes are already scheduled to increase when your healthcare benefits have to be added to your income.

  • http://none Jeryl

    I agree with you, Chip. I fear that convening a Constitutional Convention to come up with a balanced budget amendment would likely open the door to more idiocy.

    • BeenThere

      Jeryl,

      A Constitutional Convention is dangerous but passing an Amendment to the Constitution does not require a convention. If proposed by the House, approved by the Senate and signed by the President (BIG IFs) then it must be sent to the States for approval. Let the people speak.

      As conservative thinkers and observers we should truly commit ourselves to a modicum of understanding of our Constitution.

      Jeryl I applaud you for being here and participating.

      • IDart

        It does not have to be signed by the Pres. but it must be passed with a 2/3 majority by both houses and approved by 2/3 of the states

      • eyeswideopen

        Maybe we can pass an amend. that will prevent the repubs from holding office. lol

  • SMSgt Z retired Nam 68

    Chip you forgot to take your med’s again or your not getting enough oxygen because your head is so far up your _____ I’ll let you mouth breathers fill-in blank But here is a clue the word rimes with bass

    • http://none Chip Wood

      I always appreciate your thoughtful, well-reasoned replies. It’s hard to argue with all the facts you present.

      P.S. That’s sarcasm. In case you’re not familiar with the word, it’s in dictionary under “s.”

      Chip Wood

      • DaveH

        Chip,
        Why is my very benign comment awaiting moderation?

        • http://www.boblivingstonletter.com/ Bob Livingston

          Dear DaveH,

          Our site is experiencing difficulties this morning. As it slowed down because of the technical problems, the automatic filtering system was unable to process the comments. We are working to alleviate the situation.

          Best wishes,
          Bob

          • DaveH

            Thank you, Bob.

    • Dagney

      Such utter class. Please spew your ignorance where it will be more appreciated. You know, HuffPo, DailyKos, etc.

      • Average Joe

        I always love posting on those sites….as soon as you post anything with real “verifiable” facts…..it either gets ignored…or collapsed by the community…..They are always open to honest debate and discussion….don’tcha know?…..lol

        • eyeswideopen

          Average, welcome to the united corporations of America, led by the right wing authortian thugs.

    • Lost in Paradise

      Would you please explain your self? I really would be interested in your opinion, if the moderator will allow it.

    • Nadzieja Batki

      Was ’68 your mountain top experience? No, I do not care to hear your comment.

    • Dan az

      SMsgt
      I see you were forced to retire by the lame excuse of a reply.Did you have a brain fart and want everyone to share with your under educated 3rd grade mind?Put down your moma’s computer and go back and watch your cartoons,dinner will be ready shortly.If you had been my MS I would have laid you out even knowing that you cant help your self with only a IQ of 69.So keep your remarks to your self or I will show you the back side of my hand.B-tch!

      • Average Joe

        I don’t believe he got above 38 on the IQ chart…..and his 4 year old sister is actually telling him what to type….it’s a “learning experience”.

      • eyeswideopen

        Dan, congrats, you are the poster boy for thugs. When did you get indoctrinated to believe that everyone had to agree with your evaluation of situations? Guess what bubba, you aren’t always right and you obviously aren’t a Christian, who speaks to others like you do.

        • Dan az

          eyes WIDE open
          Look troll my opinion is just that, its mine!I don’t need a libtard reading what to say from a manifesto because your eyes are so wide open.Unlike you I have a mind of my own.Tell me in your wonder boy book does it tell you how to breath through your nose.Apparently not!Wipe the drool from your chin and get a job I hear they have openings at wally world for a door greeter. Have a nice day.

  • George

    Jeryl, who said anything about a Constitutional Convention? I think you’re jumping to (unfounded) conclusions.

    I happen to be a Calvinist so I have a rather dim view of human nature when left to itself. We DO NEED a Balanced Budget Amendment simply to put restraints on our all too human nature. We may have a good bunch in the House now, but that is not to say that in coming years the situation will not be reversed. As to the BBA being an inducement to raise taxes, I think part of that, as proposed, is to require a super-majority to raise taxes. B. O. Plenty said that we don’t need the BBA to do our jobs. Well, if we didn’t need the BBA for them to do their jobs, we wouldn’t be in the predicament with which we are faced now. How long before we get another slick Soros-sponsored putz in the White House?

    • Walt

      George Says: “We may have a good bunch in the House now, but that is not to say that in coming years the situation will not be reversed.”

      These words are the essence of the best argument FOR a Balanced Budget Amendment. Time and time again, Dems and Repubs both have demonstrated their human weakness and their strong desire to put their next election as top priority over what’s good for their constituents best interests. Congress cannot be trusted to live within the means provided by the hard work of American taxpayers.

      • BigBadJohn

        Walt – exactly correct, it is all about buying votes for your party.
        Dems have typically helped the poor and the working man by trying to lay the tax burden on the extremely rich.
        The repubs have typically been all in on giving tax breaks to the rich.

        This was never more obvious than when Reagan was president. When he took office the top tax rate was about 75%. Because dems had controlled everything for so long. He was correct that it killed productivity. I knew a contractor who had a lot of work but would shut down 6 months into the year because he did not want 75% of what he made going to taxes.

        Reagan gave the rich the largest tax cut in history. When he realized what he was doing to the national debt, he was forced to raise taxes. HOWEVER, he raised taxes across the board! Not only did he give the rich the biggest tax BREAK in history he also gave the working class the biggest tax INCREASE in history. It is amazing that so many working class people are so willing to vote against their own self interests by voting republican.

        Eliminate ALL deductions, count EVERYTHING as income and FLAT TAX – FLAT TAX – FLAT TAX!

        • Nadzieja Batki

          I agree that if you buy products or services, every Individual should pay their fair of the taxes. The big if is, what is the fair tax?
          Kindly get off the soak the rich tax bandwagons because they are rich. When the poor can provide jobs that the rich do by buying products and services then talk to us.

          • BigBadJohn

            Nadi

            “Kindly get off the soak the rich tax bandwagons because they are rich.”

            So a flat tax is a “soak the rich tax”? Interesting, you must have a large trust fund that you are paying no tax on and want to protect. But that does not not create jobs, except for bankers.

            My interpretation of the “fair Tax” is a soak the poor and working man tax.

            If you it cost 100% of your income just to live – you pay tax on 100% of it.
            If you make enough to bank 50% then you only pay tax on 50%. That sounds very regressive to me.

      • Nadzieja Batki

        Who put these people to rule over us in all the elections? That in itself should tell that people do not not how to choose “good” people and they may not know what “good” means.

  • http://www.easyinvest.co.za peter

    I have bad news for you all. The USA will not default and everything is just fine under the leadership of the eminent Potus in the White House. Stop worrying – everything is going to be just fine and do not, and I mean do not forget to vote him in for a second term either. Can’t you see a saviour when he appears before you? Catch a wake up all – observe and acclaim the greatest president anywhere of all time. By 2014 you will all be rich beyond your wildest dreams with free houses, free medical and early retirement guaranteed with substantial incomes to boot. Stop working and just wait for the miracles he is about to bring about. Your lives will change for the better very soon and remember that the dollar is king.

    • George

      Peter, I think you will need the services of an oral surgeon to extricate your tongue from you cheek where you have planted it ever so firmly (I hope).

      • http://Moreexpensive,moreunknowproblems. Lewis Munn

        Or give him a few Cherry Bombs to chew!

    • Warrior

      And, may I add, in all likelihood the smartest man in the history of …
      you fill in the blank.

      • TexasPatriot

        . . . the Universe ??

    • Lost in Paradise

      Really??!! WOW!

  • whtstnwo

    I totally agree and glad that this argument is being raised. I think we conservatives (including me) fell for this from anger,just jumping on the bandwagon with our pitch folks without reading the details of the BBA. The BBA WILL transfer the purse strings to the WH. which is the just the opposite of what we are trying to accomplish. It is very dangerous and wrong to amend our Constitution. We need to enforce it and stop all of the unconstitutional spending that exists right now.

    It is just amazing how the Republicans are all on board with this. Where are the Constitutional lawyers,raising the argument.

    • George

      whtstnwo, I think you’re confusticating (yes, I know, I made it up)the BBA with the McConnell proposal.

    • DaveH

      You bring up a good point, whtstnwo. We wouldn’t be in this mess now if the Federal Government obeyed the Constitution. So, even if the Balanced Budget Amendment was a good thing, what would keep them from ignoring that like they have everything else they don’t like in the Constitution?

      • TexasPatriot

        Exactly, and my greatest issue with any BBA. Constitutional convention is a non-starter for me.

        • George

          You don’t need, and no one was suggesting, a Constitutional Convention to enact a Balanced Budget Amendment. “All” that is necessary is that ⅔ of both the House and the Senate pass it and then send it to the states where ¾ of the states must likewise approve it. A Constitutional Convention was not convened for the other Amendments.

      • Nadzieja Batki

        In a nutshell,nothing will stop them. The Libs/predators already know how much the American people, aka the sheep, will tolerate.

  • AnhydrousBob

    Chip,you are right. If congress won’t obey the constitution now, why would they with 1 more amendment?

    • George

      Anhydrous, that’s a rather dry comment.

      • Nadzieja Batki

        He is saying the truth.

  • American Citizen

    Isn’t there already a resolution that was passed a few years ago? The lily-livered, weak-kneed Republicans need to do what is necessary and hold the administration’s feet to the fire.

    • Vagabond

      A.C. the democrats need to quit buying votes with the tax payers money. they need to do what they were sent to washington to do. cut out some of those worthless departments the keep creating to pay off their big money supporters. energy dept. education dept. and a host of others. most importantly the American public needs to vote every democrat out of office for the next two elections maybe by then there will be some worthy of serving the country. currently there are only about a half dozen who are. we allso need to get rid of a few more RINOs,

      • PUTACKLE72

        Amendments-House Powers, etc. You’re missing an important point. Until we change the tax code so that shortfall revenues are collected from everyone, not just the rich, we’re fighting a losing battle. Having a majority of your constituents on the receiving end of a government check virtually insures that spending will continue unabated.(How else can those terrible bosses be punishred!!) Spending should be restricted to a maximum of 18% GDP and, if there is a revenue shortfall, it should be made up by ALL taxpayers-not just the rich. For any new program, budget dollars should first be accumulated by reducing an equal amount of $ from existing redistribution programs. Congress would be less likely to spend on new stuff if the new stuff raised the ire of their supporters. Isn’t that the way it’s supposed to work? Not surprisingly, there are a large percentage of Americans that say the budget must be balanced by, not just cuts alone, but by a combination of cuts and incresased revenues. 90% of the people think the revenue increases will come from the other 10% so why are we stunned at the large percentage of support for that plan?. It’s a scenario for disaster and that’s what we’re seeing.

        • TexasPatriot

          Precisely, and I agree completely. No matter what the ‘fix’ is (this time), We will find ourselves in this situation repeatedly until the spending is exposed, limited, and subjected to the will of the people. This will never happen so long as professional politicians are making the decisions. Their priorities have re-election and increased power and prestige at the top – and the good of the nation’s people somewhere way down the list.

  • Dagney

    In order for more people with character and BACKBONE to be elected to Congress, we need an educated and engaged populace. Barak Obama spurred the current Great Awakening. Yes, we can thank him for that ONE thing, and ONE thing only. However, what happens when things get better and the good people in this country go back to sleep again? I agree with Chip that most of the amendments passed since the Bill of Rights are MEDIOCRE at best. And, mediocrity is the rallying banner of the progressive left. Unless, of course, you really like the Marxist inspired 16th Amendment, we probably should be more looking at REPEALING some of them. Instituting the Fair Tax would be a great start, too.

    • DaveH

      I agree with everything you said up to the last sentence:
      http://mises.org/daily/1814

      The original Constitution had it right, but that constrained the Federal Government too much, so they passed the 16th Amendment. We should simply abolish that amendment, and get back to the States paying for Federal Government based on their population sizes (essentially each person paying equally for the Federal Government). Each person in this country should have equal protection under the law, and each person should pay equally for that protection.

      • AnhydrousBob

        DaveH I’m surprised at you, as a good libertarian you should support only voluntarily paid taxes.:) Talk about service!

        • DaveH

          Bob,
          If we’re going to have a Federal Government, we have to pay for it. Don’t know where you get the idea that Libertarians don’t believe in paying their share.

    • TexasPatriot

      I am hearing more and more about the ‘fair tax’. I have always supported a ‘flat tax’. Can anyone explain the difference and why either is better?

      • Bob

        The Flat Tax is a flat rate tax on income. It does not get rid of the “Evil Agency” (irs). It will not work because the libs will change it right back to what we have today.

        The Fairtax is a sales tax at the retail level only, on goods and services. It works like this: a $100 doctor visit includes a lot of taxes and complying with the taxes in the price of the visit. Take all those costs out and you have a $78 visit (on average). We add $23 of sales tax back in, the amount calculated to give the government the same amount of money as today, so the price would be about what we pay today for the visit. If you make $1,000 a week, you take home $1,000 a week, not $700. Of course you would still have deductions like health insurance etc, but no taxes. Individuals would not have to file tax returns. Businesses would have a one page sales tax return and the irs would go back to the underworld where it came from.

        Princeton Univ. asked 500 of the largest companies based in Europe and Japan what they would do when the US enacts the Fairtax. About 400 said they would build their next manufacturing plant in the US, the rest said they would move their entire operations here.

        About 90% of the people who understand the Fairtax are for it. There are some who oppose like the Mises institute that Dave H links to so often, but their opposition is extremely flawed.

        All studies have shown at least a 10% growth in the economy immediately. Think about it, if we could sell an good or service that we currently sell for $100 overseas, we could sell it for $78 under the Fairtax (no sales tax on exports). Imports would cost more because a sales tax would be imposed. So our manufacturing jobs would take off. This would be by far the best thing we could do for the economy. I’m a CPA andhave studied this idea since 1980 when I was college and took tax classes. I realized then that the income tax system is extremely stupid.

        There is to be a debate on July 26th in the House Ways and Means committee. Contact your reps to have them vote for the Fairtax, HR25.

        • DaveH

          Yes, Bob, they use the term Flat Tax when they should be saying Flat Rate Tax.
          But don’t kid yourself. They would be able to skirt the Fair Tax also.
          Read the link I posted above to see a more detailed critique of the Fair Tax.
          I also don’t think it’s fair to turn the retailers into tax collectors. And deciding what to charge the sales tax on could easily get turned into a nightmarish scenario. There is every bit as much latitude in the Fair Tax for determined Politicians to dink with us, as with the Income Tax.
          The only really “fair” tax would be to charge each adult citizen the same (a true flat tax) for their Federal Government. We could then cut the check and get on with our lives. Let those who can’t pay for some legitimate reason be the ones who have to fill out paperwork explaining why they can’t pay. You can bet that with a True Flat Tax, the voters would start voting for a lot less Government since everybody would have the same skin in the game. And that is the same reason the power-hungry Politicians would do their best to stop a True Flat Tax.

          • DaveH

            By the way, I want to point out to the average reader that the Class Envy methods employed by the Politicians and their cohorts is a scam.
            The simply want more of our money to increase their power and their perks.
            When Corporations pay higher taxes, they either pass it on to the consumer with higher prices, lay off workers (sometimes pay them less), or give up trying to make money in this country and move elsewhere. None of those choices are good for the citizens.
            When the Rich are highly taxed, that is money taken from them to be spent by the Government (consumed). Whereas, if it wasn’t taxed away from them they might also spend in on consumption, which is no worse for the economy than the Government Spending. But there is high likelihood that they would have used that money for Capital Goods which would be used for more production thus more consumer goods resulting in cheaper consumer goods across the economy, which is better for the economy than Government Spending. Also, it is a pretty well known fact that people spend their own money less wastefully than somebody else (think Government), who didn’t have to work for it, would spend that money. That also is better for the economy.

        • Elevenarrows

          You left out the biggest advantage to the Fair Tax: millions of illegals would now be paying into the system instead of just milking it. If they wanted to purchase things in this country(and they do! Have you ever been to China-Mart and noticed how many of them are filling their buggies full?)they would have to pay the consumer sales tax like the rest of us.

          I must admit, as a very large family, I don’t like that it would “penalize” us at the market, but as a small business owner, I don’t like the Flat Tax ideas…we already pay thousands in taxes and would continue to do so under the Flat Tax. Why do Flat Tax advocates always suggest 15%? When the income tax was first forced upon America, Congress insisted it would never go over 3% of income!!!

          • DaveH

            Please read this article, Eleven:
            http://mises.org/daily/2503

            From the article:
            “The only national problem with immigration lies with government. Because immigrants are relatively poor they tend to pay less in taxes than their use of so-called government services like health care and education, and thus increase taxes on citizens. We can therefore solve the immigration problem by simply eliminating government programs that provide free services. Note: we would simultaneously solve the problems of education and health care by placing these industries back into the private sector.”

      • victoria blood

        http://www.fairtax.org all questions answered simply.

    • victoria blood

      Dagney, I got to agree with you,and agree with the last statement especially. Unlike some others, I read with an open mind and listen to reasonable arguments. My mind says K.I.S.S. The simpler a thing is, the harder it is for “well educated” persons to understand. The more liberal arguments some people hear, the harder it is for them to think for themselves. I try not to clutter my brain with liberality.So I’m all for the fair tax and right now.

      • DaveH

        The simplest Tax (and the least easily manipulated) would be a True Flat Tax (not the Flat Rate Tax, that is commonly misnamed Flat Tax). And it would be in line with the original intent of the Constitution, which was that States would pay equally for the Federal Government based on their population size. It would also be the “fairest” tax in that each adult would be paying equally for their Government under which they get equal treatment, as it should be. You can bet, then, that people would vote for a lot less Government since everybody would be paying for it.
        But the Income Tax was justified with the 16th Amendment by people who didn’t like the Federal Government Growth inhibition created by the Constitution. Leaders don’t like being constrained from growing their power and perks, so don’t expect them to support a simple equitable tax.

    • Nadzieja Batki

      Shouldn’t this tell you that people do not care or do not know how to choose wisely. Would they vote the same way if they knew the consequences of the choices they made?

  • Robert A Hirschmann

    I agree Chip. Why isn’t the House cutting out all unneeded spending? We could probably not need any raising of the debt limit if the House got busy and studied all the payments for useless and unneeded programs and cut them out. Why do we need to pay for a grant to study the life cycle of a butterfly or any other ridiculous thing like that?

  • BeenThere

    A Constitutional Amendment insures that when the tough mindedness is either forgotten or gone the spending will begin in earnest. We had Gramm-Ruddman that was gutted by the Budget Enforcement Act of 1990 and then there is the Balanced Budget Act of 1997. But my personal favorite is Pay As You Go Act of 2010.

    The American citizenry cannot, as a practical matter, keep up with the chicanery of the likes of Speaker Pelosi’s “we have to pass it to know what’s in it”. Congressional old times accumulate wealth while in Congress. How?

    We need to codify their behavior while, at least for the time being, the Constitution is somewhat intact.

  • Dagney

    The Tea Party Republicans are really still a minority in the house right now. We will probably need a few more election cycles to purge most of the Marxists and establishment Republicans from the halls of our esteemed government. I’m pretty sure that IF we have a 2012 election, it will be a bloodbath for the left (and republicans with no backbone).

    • George

      I’m tempted to say “We can only hope …”, but perhaps I should respond with the old “Ora et labore” — work and pray.

  • Steven999

    Well said Chip. If you work in the government you see all the waste and inefficiencies. If we were to cut Federal spending across the board by 20% (over a 4 year period), it would force all the agencies to be more efficient. I work in a public school system that for years has topped the nation as spending the most per child per year. Instead of seeing this as an indicator that something has gotten out of control, the community and the school board ware this title with pride because they think it means they care more about education than any other community. Well if they only knew about all the unnecessary positions, redundant programs, and unsuccessful pilot programs that re-invented themselves in typical bureaucratic fashion and never went away. There are so many teaching positions were people do very little useful work. There are teacher position slots like the Minority Achievement Coordinators, the SOL Testing Coordinators, the Community Partnership Coordinators, Employment Coordinators, and the Diversity Training Coordinators. (one per school!) We had so many full time Special Education teaching positions that they could barely fill them all by the start of the year; and most of them worked seriously about 3 hours a day on average. The turn-over rate was huge for these slots because they could transfer with easy to another school where the work load was easier. The Minority Achievement Coordinator at my school did virtually nothing for 3 years but work on her own PHD while on the job. Now she makes 20% more and gets more respect while still doing nothing. We have dozens of schools that are called magnets or some other cleaver name from Elementary on up which requires a huge busing support system. And of course because kids come first, the system has adopted just about every subsidy program ever conceived. Then there is little evaluation as to which ones should continue.

    This system like most, could easily do just as good a job while spending 20% less. When I was in the Air Force 25 years ago, I remember there were several Air Force Civilians,GS 14s and 15s, that did nothing!!! I mean barely nothing. They were 1-5 years from retirement and just punched the clock and showed up at meetings when they were supposed to.

    • TexasPatriot

      Typical bureaucracy run amok. Are you all paying your forced dues to the corrupt union bosses to keep it all rolling and with frequent ‘improvements’ in your ‘harsh’ work environment?

  • Daryn Kent-Duncan

    I am in 100% agreement and gave my arguments (much less complete than Mr. Wood’s) against the idea of a Balanced Budget Amendment at a Freedom Works conference. My arguments were not answered. I’m also so glad to see others saying that all those “initials”, all the departments — and agencies — should be aboished. The true solution to the problem of spending is to go back to the limits in the Constitution: reduce the power of the government back to protecting our unalienable rights, period. It is NOT up the governmetn to take care of us. We’re adults and can take care of ourselves, and our children.

    • http://Moreexpensive,moreunknowproblems. Lewis Munn

      Yeah, IF we can get the money back the government has forced us to pay for their “protection” that wasn’t.

      If I had all my SS payments back, that were deducted from my paychecks over the years, I suspect I could make some good investments and do better than SS ever did.

      The problem is the government has spent it all, so they cannot give it back, and they are cutting the returns on SS so as to cover folks who never have paid in!

      Ponzi scheme, I think! But forced by the government, so we should get government resources back when they cannot pay as promised! Bet if a bunch of us got shares in the White House we could sell it at a good profit and have our retirement back, to invest privately!

      Going to take some good accountants to straighten out the mess, but I see no good reason it could not be done, better than having an indefinite hold on my SS while the COL skyrockets, and us older people are not considered worthy of jobs anymore!

      • TexasPatriot

        Lewis, I calculated the amount paid to SS by me and my employers over my 40 years working at good (but not great) white collar jobs. It came to more than $240,000. Then I calculated those payments as payroll investments in ‘stable income’ investment with a return at 6.5% (about average during those years). My investment balance would be just under $1,000,000 today. Believe me my income from that investment would dwarf the pitiful SS check Osamabama thinks he should delay until he gets his way!!

  • Matt M

    I agree with Chip as I argued during the democrat discussions of “PayGo”, claiming it would require any new spending be funded.

    All that means is there would be a tax increased coupled to any new spending.

    Don’t think that will stop them from spending.

    • http://Moreexpensive,moreunknowproblems. Lewis Munn

      Those whom increased the taxes would be vulnerable to being tossed out at election times, and maybe inbetween if their tax increase really hit people hard.

  • Former Walmart person

    The past few decades have proven that we can’t change the course of this country through congress. We vote in Democrats and they crap on us. We then vote in Republicans and they crap on us. So then we vote in democrats and they crap on us some more and so on and so on. Third parties or people who aren’t a part of any party have no chance of getting elected because of all the laws and regulations in place to prevent a REAL candidate from getting on the ballat.

    Fortunetely and unfortunetely at the same time, some kind of collapse of our system is inevitable. Our government is not sustainable. Massive unemployment and a welfare state is not sustainable. Something has to give somewhere.

    When it does, in the ensuing anarchy or chaos, we can have either a chance to forge a new country comming back to the consistitution or devolve into hard core tyranny. Either way, our military will play a significant role in either. The military will either be saviors or traitors to the very same American people who seem to just absolutely love them to death by and large. We will see if the military really deserves are seemingly endless almost fetish love for them…

    Perhaps what we need to do is something a little more bold. Call upon all unemployed conservatives and lovers of the consitution to form a giant tent city somewhere. Within that city, the consitution is 100% followed. People can have their guns with them, keep almost all of their labor’s fruits, etc., etc. You get the idea. If the national guard and police want to ride in with tanks and 50 calibur machine guns to rip to shreds people who just want to live free and be left alone from tyrannical laws, then so be it. May they live long, long lives in Hell. Besides, depending on how many people there are, if they all had guns perhaps it wouldn’t be so easy. A general’s worst nightmare is a potential enemy gun around any corner…. which is why any conquring army has to disarm the population first thing.

    Desperate times call for desperate solutions. I am of course in no way advocating preemptive violence, but to dare the government to prove how tyrannical it has become.

    • Dagney

      History tells us that for every collapse, tyranny ensues. Watch the middle east these next couple of years, you’ll see. I know, we are AMERICANS, not the animals of the middle east. However, we MUST fix it before the commies collapse our EXCEPTIONAL society. If not, we, more than likely, will begin a period of HARD tyranny.

      • Vagabond

        Dagney that is our problem now. we have far too many of those ANIMALS here now. and the democrats want more for the votes they will get from them.

    • DaveH

      These people are attempting to do something like that:
      http://freestateproject.org/

    • Elevenarrows

      Believe it or not Former Walmart person, there are many Americans who are doing exactly what you’ve suggested. Go to http://www.survivalblog.com to read about the Redoubt of America…people have headed for the mountain states to prepare for the worst and to join with like-minded patriots to attempt to survive what’s coming.

  • It’sa crock

    Your thoughts and proposal has two very flagrant flaws, Yes THIS House of Representatives MAY adhere to a balanced budget approach but what happens when a new house gets hold of the reins again? Neither the RINOS or the Demos are to be trusted to balance the budget.

    As far as the interest rate goes. If it climbs then cut back on other things until a balance is reached. There should be things in the budget to amortize the debt to begin with. BTW what is the problem with paying off the national debt. Pay off the debt and there will be no dependency on low interest rates. plus the mney that is being used to pay even a low interest rate could be used to either lower taxes or provide other benefits for the populace and not go to some banker somewhere. None of the citizens live with a continuous debt haning over thier heads. Even the home mortage is put on a payment plan with a goal of paying the debt off and getting out of debt

    • jonathan w

      Neither I nor anyone I know has the $50,000.00 required to pay this “Debt”. Why encourage them? Screw the Banksters, default, and start over like so many of us have needed to, anyway. A new broom sweeps clean.

      • Nadzieja Batki

        Better check if the new broom is not defective? Just because the broom may be new does not mean it is good.

  • Bob

    A balanced budget is indeed a trap because the democrats will just keep spending and will raise taxes to balance the budget. The best way to proceed is to cap spending at no more than half the current level. As someone who has spent 40 years in and around government I know that this is much easier than it sounds because most of the money that goes to government is wasted. All we have to do is jettison the parasites on welfare, remove job-taking immigrants from our soil, slash governemnt salaries, slash government programs, dismantle government agencies such as the Departments of Labor,(mis)Education, and the EEOC. Then repeal Davis-Dacon, outlaw union gangs, and make this a country where all able-bodied individuals have to work to survive and give them the right to work without unions or government to hinder them. Finally, order state and local governments to do the same. There will be a lot of screaming from the parasites but, the good thing is, once a parasite is separated from its food source, it quickly dies because it is not equipped to live without a host. When government is slashed and the parasites have died off, a new era of prosperity will come like nothing we have ever seen before because the productive will be able to produce unfettered by the dead weight of the parasites. For those of you who think that this is harsh, remember that the Bible condemns sloth in no uncertain terms; therefore we have absolutely no moral obligation to feed the slothful parasites.

    • Vagabond

      Bob you are so right about starving the parasites. but thats the way the democrats buy their votes. and they will continue doing so as long as there are democrats in politics. pluss the RINOs,

      • Bob

        You are right and the scumocrats will fight to the bitter end to keep people trapped in their useless, parasitic ways in order to keep them voting for scumocrat programs. Can you imagine how evil one has to be to purposely condemn a group of people to a life of parasitism just to get their votes? We must not be fooled into thinking that the scumocrats are just people with different opinions; we must realize that they are the very essence of evil.

    • George

      As I recall, there is a provision in the Balanced Budget Amendment that a super-majority is required to raise taxes. That’s about as much of a guarantee as we can hope to get — not foolproof, but better than the current situation.

  • Ernest Long

    I strongly disagree. Enacting a Constitutional Balanced Budget Amendment with the requirement that any new taxes, unfunded mandates or tax code changes that effectively increase taxes would require a super majority in both houses to pass. Any act, etc. to decrease taxes would still only require a simple majority. Also, a Balanced Budget Amendment would put all Congressmen and women on record supporting or opposing the amendment. Tea Party supporters like me want them on record!!

  • http://N/A Betty Amrine

    I agree with Dave H. and Ron Paul. If we abolished all of the non-constitutional departments in our governments and took all of the necessary functions back to a local level, it would save a lot of money and things would be done in our best interests and not according to the NWO agenda. Close all of our bases overseas, end the phoney wars and bring our boys home; that would save lots more money. Stop sending “foreign aid” overseas to grease crooked politicians pockets. Stop subsidizing businesses. Throw the crooks out of the FDA. Stop the chemtrails. Repeal NAFTA and GATT and bring our production home. Start drilling in our country. Stop building FEMA camps and secret underground cities. Don’t pay politicians a retirement. Eliminate the drug plan with medicare. Stop the big pharma stranglehold on our health care system. Inform people about the Communists that are really running our country.

    • Hiram

      Betty, this all sounds good and I agree with 90% of it. But, how does that get done? If they were forced to balance the budget, maybe some of that would end up on the cutting board.

    • Vagabond

      Betty you are so right in so many ways,

    • DaveH

      Register and vote Libertarian, for Individual Freedom, Personal Responsibility, Free Markets, Limited Government (at all levels), and PEACE!
      http://libertarianparty.org/platform

      • George

        Vote Libertarian only if you’re willing to waste your vote.

        • DaveH

          You’ve been wasting your vote your entire life, George, by voting for Republicans in the vain hope that they would bring us Smaller Government and more Freedom. They haven’t and they won’t.

          • George

            You certainly can’t expect the Libertarians to do so since they’ll never be elected in sufficient numbers to accomplish anything.

          • DaveH

            Gee, I wonder why? Maybe because too many people like yourself are convinced the lesser of two evils is something other than evil?

  • Yeshua friend

    My question becomes, what if we get another all liberal spend crazy Democrat majority in Congress again, what happens with Article 1 section 7 of the U.S. Constitution then???

    Shalom!

  • Hiram

    Without being forced to balance the budget, deficit spending will continue, ultimately ending in the demise of the dollar and the USA. All local governments and families are forced to balance their budgets or go bankrupt. They can only live on credit for so long, then they are done. There needs to be a mechanism to force the feds to live within our means. The founding fathers did not include this amendment because they were all reasonable men then. Todays liberals are not reasonable by any means. Sure it takes time, but we have to start somewhere to show that we are committed to cleaning up this mess.

  • WOLFSBANE

    ERNEST………..
    YOU HAVE HIT THE NAIL ON THE HEAD. IN ORDER TO BE 100% POSITIVE AS TO WHO IS IN FAVOR OF HAVING A BALANCED BUDGET AMENDMENT WE NEED TO HAVE A VOTE. PUT YOUR NAME ON THE LINE.
    I PLAN TO VOTE AGAIN THIS NEXT FALL (2012)FOR MY CONGRESSMEN/SENATORS AND OF COURSE THE PRESIDENT.
    IF YOU ARE NOT PART OF THE SOLUTION TO BRING AMERICA BACK INTO FISCAL RESPONSIBILITIES – BY HAVING A BALANCED BUDGET. YOU GET NO VOTES FROM ME. IF ANY CONGRESSMAN OR SENATOR OR PRESIDENT IS AGAINST A BALANCED BUDGET – THEN HE/SHE IS A MAJOR PART OF THE PROBLEM.
    AGAIN, THOSE AGAINST A BALANCED BUDGET ARE NOT GETTING MY VOTE.

    • Lost in Paradise

      VOTE??????????? They really have you hornswaggled.

      • http://Moreexpensive,moreunknowproblems. Lewis Munn

        Too much truth and poetry badly mixed. With the advent of mostly computerized voting, and the computers set up and fixed by a powerful unions, well, we do not have any chance in future elections.

        Not sure under present government there is a solution, however.

        • DaveH

          We could fix that, Lewis, by having two Vote databases for each election. One database would store the ‘voter information’ (Identification, address, polling place, etc.). And the other database would store the ‘votes cast’ with a unique alphanumeric ID which was given to the voter at the polling place. The polling place would also be stored on this database to identify problem polling places. Only the voter would know his alphanumeric ID so secrecy would be preserved. The database would be accessible by the public with the proper software. Anybody or any organization could check the ‘voter information’ database to see if any illegal voters cast votes. The votes in the ‘votes cast’ database could be easily tallied by anyone to see if votes were counted correctly and that the number of votes matched the number of voters in the ‘voter information’ database. Also, an individual voter would be able to check his alphanumeric ID to see that his votes are in the database correctly, and if not, he/she could notify the proper authorities or the proper news media.
          This would make the vote counts very difficult to fake. But the Politicians aren’t going to pursue such a robust voting system unless the citizens demand it.

  • James

    Ah ha, good point. They’d just increase taxes.

    Maybe that’s why Stansberry at theprojecttorestoreamerica.com recommends three amendments at the same time, 1) balanced budget, 2) sound money, 3) right to keep 80% of your income. Without all three passed at the same time they have a way to screw us.

    Anyway, I agree Congress already has the power to do one or all, and should already do it. What a mess.

    • James

      Not my post, but I agree.

  • Rayma Dorsa

    Chip is right! you have to think in terms of thier “greedy mindset” they will say, “well it’s a law, I have to balance the budget, so gimme some more money” By cutting the spending to balance the budget is the only way! How do we get good sound men & women in office that act responsible? Once in they seem to turn & be just the opposite of what was elected.

    • http://Moreexpensive,moreunknowproblems. Lewis Munn

      Look at their religious faith is a good way. If they have none, or a rrdical “faith” like Obama’s, don’t vote for therm. If they go to a secular church, or one who is big and growing bigger, be suspicious. You want the ones who believe in God and His laws from the Bible, and shows that he really believes in honesty and honor in his daily life.

      That greatly increases the odds of getting someone good and honest into office.

      If the faith is Muslim-derived, flee, since the Muslim faith believes in deception to get their ends, as our present government is painfully showing us!

  • Charles

    “Balanced Budget Amendment” has been floating around for years. I have said from the beginning that it would never stop the wasteful spending. The only thing it would do is give Congress the chance to say “We have no choice but to raise tax rates to 100% so that we can balance the budget.” I knew when I was in high school, during the 60s, that the snots in government are ignorant and arrogant. All they want is the power and prestige that they perceive as their just rewards. They are not better than the rest of us, they are not smarter than the rest of us, and they don’t care that they are destroying this country.

  • EdinNola

    Chip, There is one point that I feel I must point out to you concerning this article and the “Founding Fathers”. The Founding Fathers did not anticipate in any fashion that their children would find themselves in the situation we do, fiscally. They created a document called the Constitution which, if followed without the inexcuseable corruption of it (which has been perpetrated by Progressives in the past), would have prevented this greedy, controlling, interfering, thieving government from ever existing. There SHOULD never have been a need for a budget amendment, however it would appear that this is the ONLY way of compelling Congress to stop spending our country down the drain.

    • Nadzieja Batki

      Actually the Founding Fathers knew exactly what would happen in the future of this country that is why we have protecting provisions and so many warnings about what would happen if we were not vigilant and diligant.

  • Carol

    The Senate just voted to table the BBA bill. The next order of business should be dismantling the bureaucracy and arresting the imposter in the WH.

  • Roberts

    to all you fans of the falsely inshrined abe lincoln, remember that he and the northern congress pushed four admendments and refused to let the southern states vote unless they gave up their right to vote against these admendments. that is false advertisement of those admendments.

  • Thor

    One has to wonder just how many repetitious historic examples folks need to learn that the nature of the instrument is irrelevant when imaginative users put it to unorthodox and perverse use. The screw driver was originally designed specifically to drive screws, yet we see people using them to chip paint and some have even used it as an instrument of homicide. The proof is in the pudding: without changing a word of it, various administrations have used the Constitution itself for some of the most heinous (and un-Constitutional) purposes. Drafting and passing the perfect amendment will not prohibit misuse; and the prospect of it is particularly unsavory in this climate of authoritarian misuse, rising to flood stage just under the totalitarian mark on the gauge. There is only one remedy: remove those who usurp power not given them by the governed.

    • Nadzieja Batki

      Very good post.

  • hicusdicus

    You folks talk like the government can really change and do things in a good and positive way. Are you all brain dead its not going to happen, live with it. This country is in an escalating self destruct mode. Nothing will change until it collapses. I hope I live long enough to see all the government officials running around like poisoned rats trying to hide from the enraged citizens with the the guns they could not confiscate.

    • Lost in Paradise

      Be patient, I think it is coming to a city near you, Very very soon.Let the blood run freely.

    • TexasPatriot

      I fervently plan to be one of those “enraged citizens”.

  • MNIce

    The latest version of the Balanced Budget Amendment attempts to address the problem not only by requiring a super-majority to raise taxes, but it caps spending at “18% of Gross Domestic Product.” Apart from the overly high cap (which would still be much less than the current level of spending), it’s a nice try, but we’ll have problems with definitions.

    What is a balanced budget? We’ve all seen the smoke and mirrors games played with the budget every year.

    And what does “Gross Domestic Product” mean? Sure, we think we know, but that’s another statistic that can be jiggered and exaggerated to “justify” more spending. If there’s one thing the bureaucrats do well, it’s play games with numbers – just look at the current fibbing about unemployment or cost of living.

  • s c

    There is a simple rule involved here, folks. NEVER give a known criminal (Congress, the boobsy twins in the W H) a weapon. NEVER give them a chance to have the power of LAW on their side. They don’t enforce the LAWS we already have. More laws would mean more stupidity and more POWER for those CRIMINALS.
    And THEN you’d have to face another issue that deals with HOW those criminals INTERPRET the same laws that they use AGAINST us. It’s a Catch-22, and we can’t afford it it literally or figuratively.
    FORCE the SOBs to do their job. They are NOT sent to Washington to pass MORE laws. Did you people forget about Bummer and his REFUSAL to ENFORCE laws dealing with ILLEGAL ALIENS? And that’s BEFORE we get around to Bummer’s UNCONSTITUTIONAL healthcare septic tank. THINK!

  • elizabeth

    Who took “tar and feathering” off the list? That’s my Plan B.

    • Lost in Paradise

      I would like to see a force of at least one million storm the capital, and then lynch that SOB we call a president, and all those that support him, which would be most of his cabinet.

  • http://soon Walter Still Gee III

    I agree whole heartedly with Mr. Wood. I actually believe that we need to delete a number of amendments rather than adding more ill advised trickily worded legal mumbo jumbo that actually does the opposite of what it says and has a ton of unintended consequences.

    What I do propose is The Thirteen Million Family March on the District of Crooks and foreclose on the USG’s default of 1.6 Trillion Dollars of non-interest bearing promissory notes that Foggy Bottom has no intention of ever making full restitution for.

    In other words, Grand Theft Social Security Trust Fund.

    I support auctioning off every piece of USG property in and around The District Of Crooks down to the last paper clip! And that includes daily compound interest since 1958 or 9 when the burglars first started their thievery.

    Social Security is not an unfunded ENTITLEMENT liability.

    It is fully funded with now due promissory notes! It is NOT an ENTITLEMENT, it is in fact OUR MONEY THAT WE PAID INTO A FULLY SOLVENT TRUST FUND that everyone in DC refuses to REPAY! There has never been at any time a funding crisis. What we do have is a Felony crisis that can only be solved by complete foreclosure until every red cent is repaid in full!

    • Lost in Paradise

      Lock and load, lets march tomorrow at dawn. I’m serious.

    • TexasPatriot

      I’m right there. I’ll take my $240,000 (even in today’s horribly diluted dollars) and they can keep their cute little paper checks.

  • Roberts

    did you hear and understand the truth? if not then we have lost our country, and will never get it back. because tyrants will crush us.

    • Lost in Paradise

      That is exactly why we need to take it back by FORCE. It is the only way left, that would be succesful. We no longer have a choice.They have shown us that voting is not the way.

      • http://Moreexpensive,moreunknowproblems. Lewis Munn

        Look at the success of the illegal aliens with their march! They got lots of press, and lots of “good” results, for them, and the Washington and government police could not arrest them all!!

      • Nadzieja Batki

        You are lost somewhere and it is not in paradise.

  • http://pauljbosco.com Paul J. Bosco

    All calls for a Balanced Budget Amendment have come from Republicans or other self-styled conservatives. All balanced budgets were achieved by Bill Clinton or by administrations before Nixon. (Yes, LBJ balanced the budget, years after the huge Kennedy tax cut). And the current Republican mainstream sound pretty Keynesian to me.

    All this shows just what a cunning adversary the American Left has become. They do things the Right says it supports, while tricking –or outright FORCING– the Right to propose the measures it (the Left)craves.

    Fortunately, Chip, you have the courage, instincts and sheer mental agility to overcome the facts and get to the truth. Not everyone understands the Bal-Bud-Amend’t is a leftist plot, especially after the House Republicans passed an act calling for it.

    I am glad to see the leftists are no longer represented in the Comments section. Who need cynics?

    –Paul J. Bosco
    Manhattan (a/k/a Gomorrah)

    • sol of texas

      Paul –

      Can you cite a source that supports your claim that any Clinton or LBJ FY budgets were balanced. My recollection is that neither of these “fine men” achieved balanced or surplus budgets. I do recall a couple of years when deficit spending was reduced.

      Cheers.

      • JeffH

        The Clinton balanced budget is nothing more than a myth($17+billion deficit) and I believe it was LBJ who last balanced the budget in 1969 with the help of a “temporary” 10% income tax hike.

  • Jack

    Agreed. We have a House nominally under the control of conservatives who would serve us better in other directions. For example, enact legislation clarifying the interstate commerce provision’s original intent. The Senate will try to kill it, and likely succeed, but the debate will open eyes for 2012. Some other useful debates; the 16th Amendment, questionably enacted, enables the runaway tyrannical federal government. It violates several Constitutional protections such as the 5th Amendment and the 14th (equal protection). Let the Marxists try to squeeze the States for their revenue! Establish some new rules such as supermajorities to raise taxes or create new agencies. Simply defund Obamacare and other unconstitutional nonsense. No Senate or Presidential permission required. As for our Prevaricator in Chief, put his feet to the fire on a whole number of issues; qualifications (subpoena time), illegal war, misappropriation of funds, etc.

  • Lost in Paradise

    WHen the vast majority of Americans stop believing in fairey tales, and realize how hopless it really is with this current govenment, then we will have a full on revolution, and take or republic back with force, and violence.

    We would have no problems after that, because it would weed out all the woosies, and the rest would be to damn scared to creat any crap like we have now.

    When will you ever learn, we do not need, or want career politicians. Only honest hardworking Americans doing volunteer work or short term political careers. By having longer terms, they have everything to gain by screwing the tax payer.

  • Roberts

    yet another solution is to have a people driven constitutional admendment that the president and the congress be limited to one term in office without pensions and without lifetime free medical plans. then they would not be able in a short time in office to congrate and in back office rooms plot to inslave, or get in bed with business or labor. and couple that with a supporting admendment that the states are superior to the federal government as the constitution already says and the federal government ignores. see admendments 9 and 10.

  • chuckb
  • sol of texas

    Once I had the illusion that America was exceptional. To me, the “American Dream” was not about “a car in every garage and a chicken in every pot” (i.e., materialism, hedonism, and gluttony). The Dream was the belief that men were capable of self-government and little central authority was required. Over the last 120 years that dream has died.

    It may be that this death was caused by a large influx of southern and eastern Europeans who were used to living under authoritarian rule. I think early 20th century American progressives (isn’t that some kind of oxymoron?) preyed upon most of these new Americans to push their socialist agenda forward. It worked very well … especially though government school indoctrination.

    The framers got it wrong in at least one regard. They did not impose term limits for elected representatives. This shouldn’t have been necessary, and it was partially corrected by the 22nd amendment (limiting a president to two terms or ten years). Not addressing the problem of Congressional incumbency has led to the decline of our Republic. I suspect the framers hoped that only good men would occupy elected office and, like Washington and other honorable public servants, would step down voluntarily after resolving problems or crises.

    Now, this baffles me because the framers clearly were familiar with the greatest republic in western history — the Roman Republic. It spanned the years 509 BC to 27 BC. The creators of that Republic recognized that evil lurked in the hearts of men. They did not trust a single man to hold power as chief magistrate (Consul), and therefore two Consuls were elected each year and had to cooperate in order to take action on behalf of the Republic. The consuls were elected each year for 1 year terms. Consuls were forbidden from standing for two consecutive terms. This was achieved successfully for nearly 500 years without the benefit of internet, telephones, satellites, jet travel, or any modern convenience.

    Rome fell through progressive corruption. Near the end, three leading families seized power by coercing the senate (~ 55 BC) to recognize a triumvirate to replace the Consul system (that triumvirate included Caesar, Crassus, Pompei) – a defacto oligarchy. I see this as not unlike the two factions Bush vs. Clinton which has emerged here.

    Our political heroes (and ourselves) have demonstrated we are collectively incapable of exercising wisdom and self-restraint. We have relied on autonomic government for so long. we have forgotten how to identify and remedy corruption and treachery.

    A balanced budget amendment would be a nice reinforcement of the idea that federal government power should be limited. However, our elected officials have disregard for the very laws they approve. I’m not confident passing an amendment would have the required effect if it created an ongoing seizure of 20% of the economy or if it was simply ignored.

    So passing an amendment won’t be effective. Trusting our elected representatives won’t be effective. The only outcomes can be (1) continuing complacency and indifference to evil (which will eventually give rise to a dictatorship), or (2) a popular revolution that will restore the intentions of the 1787 US Constitution.

    I fear there is a storm coming. Even those living Americans who endured the depression or survived Nazi and Japanese death camps are unprepared for the horrors that will follow.
    :-(

    • Lost in Paradise

      Very good post and very accurate indeed.

    • http://pauljbosco.com Paul J. Bosco

      Sol, could you be more specific –should I say, MORE OPENLY RACIST– about the Southern and Eastern Europeans who, aided by schoolteachers, killed the American Dream? I assume you are talking mainly about Jews and their Jewish teachers, plotting the intellectual overthrow of American Exceptionalism from their smug little Brooklyn public schools.

      Surely you are not talking about the 8-10% of Americans from Italy, the spiritual descendants of the revered Roman Republic?

      –Paul J. Bosco
      Manhattan

      • TexasPatriot

        Ahhhh did that fine post rankle your little PC sensibilities? My heart is just breaking for ya.

  • chuckb

    barry is spending billions of the tax payers money building mosques in the middle east, egypt alone has received over 700 Million dollars to refurbish mosques and build new ones. have you seen the government handing out money to the christian churches in the u.s., oh, it’s the separation of church and state. does that apply overseas?

    we should stop barry from using air force one as his vehicle to travel on campaign tours, so far he has used air force one over 131 times on his campaigning tours to raise money for re-election this last year, add that one up.

    • sol of texas

      chuckb –

      Worse still, Barry does not seem to understand loyalty cannot be “bought” (purchased through bribery). Middle eastern cultures do not have a similar value system with the west. This is apparently inconceivable for foreign service careerists. Our middle eastern foreign policy is doomed to fail until the idea is accepted of treating foreign nations (i.e., the governments AND the people who accept and support those governments) as they deserve to be treated.

      “Defend any friend and oppose any foe”.

    • Thinking About

      A little checking will find Bush with his faith-based initiative gave grants or welfare to churches, etc. A big problem is the give sways to farms, defense contractors and the list could go on and on. When Bush administration began there was a surplus and our debt was going down. One of the responses is to lower taxes and this happened. What did happen was spending went much overboard and we overspent the tax cuts. Just because a new administration began it did not wipe out the debt we had the day before the new one began. We are still responsible for that debt. There ate many areas we need to cut waste and having a balanced budget amendment will not correct this. Porkers to build bridges to nowhere does not repair our infrastructure. Sitting and saying no will not get out spending problem eliminated. It will take both revenues and wasteful spending controls. Congress needs to do their job. The debt ceiling is money already spent and letting the default will result in our interest rate raising and we will require more to pay the interest.

      • TexasPatriot

        That bad old Bush . . . HE’S GONE. DON’T YOU GET IT. OSAMABAMA HAS TO MAN UP TO HIS FAILED POLICY AND CORRUPT LEADERSHIP!!!

        • Thinking About

          When bush left he should have taken his debts with him but guess what we are left to figure how to pay those debts. Consistent George did not miss another opportunity to take down every thing he touched, bankrupted two companies and then the USA. There was not a dollar he was not ready to spend and he took care of the new ones being printed.

    • TexasPatriot

      NO – and I thought the use of personal jets by wealthy and/or influential elitists was vile and despicable!

  • Bob Marshall

    Our government is too large. As well as reducing spending the government need to cut programs that have little or no benefit to the taxpayers. Also, i see were many posters are complaining about cutting defense spending. The defense budget for 2012 is 649 billion dollars. That is an increaase of 17 billion dollars. That should keep who love wars satisfied. Many posters really need to visit http://www.addictedtowar.com It is perfect for those who love wars wheather legal or not. Also visit http://www.GlobalPoliticalAwakeing.com an dse what is happening right under your noses. How does United States Socialist Republic sound?

    • TexasPatriot

      I think we need to cut the waste out of defense spending – right after we CUT OFF THE LAZY WELFARE PARASITES AND SEND ALL THE THIEVING ILLEGAL INVADERS PACKING! Any questions?

  • jopa

    chuckb;Your story sounds a little bogus.Did you write to your senator and congressman and ask them why they approved of this?Or perhaps these were donations given by taxpayers on the side.Can you verify??

  • MNIce

    The real difficulty with the present system, and one that is not solved by the balanced budget amendment, is that it is difficult to enforce. You and I cannot walk into a Federal court and demand an injunction against spending for the Department of Education because it’s unconstitutional. Neither could we obtain a court order blocking extra- or supra-budgetary expenditures, for in any such case, the first thing the judge would do is say, “Prove that you have a specific dollars and cents amount of harm that you personally have suffered as a result of the alleged improper spending.” While this “rule of standing” is ordinarily a good thing – it prevents many frivolous suits – it is a barrier to using the Judiciary as a check on an expansive Congress or Presidency.

    I propose the following law: “Any group of twelve or more citizens eligible to vote in at least one of the United States shall have standing to seek an injunction against execution of an Act of Congress made in violation of the United States Constitution, or against an Executive Order or process of execution of an Act if such is contrary to the United States Constitution.

    Congress finds that the power to obtain revenue ‘to provide for the general welfare of the United States’ shall not be construed to mean anything other than funding the operations of the United States in the execution of its duties as specified elsewhere in Article I Section 8 of the Constitution, and as specifically authorized in its Amendments.

    Congress finds that the power to ‘regulate commerce among the several states’ shall not be construed to extend to anything other than the actual transfer of goods, services, or financial instruments across the borders of the several states.

    No judicial decision made in manifest violation of the United States Constitution shall, after the passage of this act, be cited as a precedent for other cases.”

    I wrote the interpretation clauses as Congressional findings to make it clear that these are the original intent of the Constitution, and not some new, revisionist theory of interpretation as the leftists now falsely charge. Much of the evil expansion of Federal power has been based on a few obviously flawed judicial cases during the 1930s, which used an extremely expansive interpretation of these clauses that James Madison presciently labeled “absurdity” and “misconstruction.” (Except for the Preamble, in every other place in the original Constitution where “United States” is used, the context makes it clear that the term refers to the corporate federal government.)

  • m.w.malsberger

    The problem that creates excessive spending is that incumbents find it convenient to use public money to serve goodies to their constituents, thereby assuring re-election. The solution to this is not a spending cap, but a TERM LIMITS cap: no more than two consecutive terms in the senate, no more than 6 in the House. When a person has come consider their own re-election more important than the health of the Republic, it is time for them to go.

    • TexasPatriot

      That’s WAY too much time. Do you really think these people wait 12 years to get with the corruption? Give us a break!

  • Mutantone

    Cut the debt by as much as $3.7 trillion over the next decade.” But “Raise the $14.3 trillion debt limit as soon as Wednesday”
    What a sick con job this is. We will spread the true current debit out over ten years but increase spending immediately? What type of mathematics are they using more of that famous “New Math”?
    If you can not pay for the $3.7 trillion dollars now, and you will continue to spend up to and past the $14.3 Trillion dollars every year, how in the world are you ever going to bring down the debit? Your not your just passing it along for the ten years as well only growing it much faster then ever before come on you dolts think for one second what your doing to the Nation. You have archived nothing at all.
    How about I tell my bank that I am going to pay off my loan over the next ten years but I want a loan for three times the amount every year until then..do you think they would go for it?
    It is time to fix the Tax rate at something very simple that every one can understand. Every one pays 15% of what they earn from any source, except the Military if they are serving our nation that is the least we can do for them, No exceptions other than that, be it earned on a job or in stocks or in trading 15% no write offs no deductions. It is then so simple any kid in school beyond the seventh grade can figure out your taxes, no more tax lawyers needed no more IRS needed.
    The form is simple How much did you make this year 15% of that you send in or else fines and prison time will follow.
    How about instead we cut all the crap out and cut payments to foreign nations, terrorist groups (the Muslim Brotherhood), all abortion providers, all payments to staffers that just got an average wage increase of more than 8%. Force all government employees to pay into social security and Medicare, no more free flights make they pay for themselves just like the rest of us, after all they make two to three times what normal people make. Force all government wages to a level with the real world equivalent, cut out all the duplicate jobs, lord know their are far to many staffers for each congress person they should be doing their jobs instead of taking trips to Fire Island or fact finding mission over seas their job is here.
    NO more life time jobs in congress the limits were set in the Constitution but some how they butchered that to make it seem like it is a life time appointment read the Constitution it clearly states:
    “Section 2 – The House
    The House of Representatives shall be composed of Members chosen every second Year by the People of the several States, and the Electors in each State shall have the Qualifications requisite for Electors of the most numerous Branch of the State Legislature.
    No Person shall be a Representative who shall not have attained to the Age of twenty five Years, and been seven Years a Citizen of the United States, and who shall not, when elected, be an Inhabitant of that State in which he shall be chosen.”
    “Section 3 – The Senate
    The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State, elected by the people thereof, for six years; and each Senator shall have one vote. The electors in each State shall have the qualifications requisite for electors of the most numerous branch of the State legislatures.
    When vacancies happen in the representation of any State in the Senate, the executive authority of such State shall issue writs of election to fill such vacancies: Provided, That the legislature of any State may empower the executive thereof to make temporary appointments until the people fill the vacancies by election as the legislature may direct.”
    NO where does it say it is a life time appointment to the office or it would have said so just like the Judiciary it very clearly states that :
    “Section 1 – Judicial powers
    The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behavior, and shall, at stated Times, receive for their Services a Compensation which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office.”
    So from now on they serve their term in office be it two years or six but no more than that unless they run for a different office that is the law as written, it is not their right to keep in office to the detriment of the Nation.

    “The truth is more important than the facts.” – Frank Lloyd Wright
    “Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction.” Ronald Reagan
    ID 10 T error in the administration

  • home boy

    the problem is not the rules it’s the rulership. man cannot do the job. he is his own worst enemy. if whats happening around the world today not proof enough for you to see that man needs GOD to live peacefully than nothing will convince you. but that’s okay. when it hits the fan and your left with nothing only then will you say you were wrong but then it will be to late. here’s a little secret i want to share with you. the governments with the U.N. are now planning to shut down and destroy all religion. they will then be able to control the people. and have , so they will think, peace and security.

  • Dons621

    After reading 100 plus comments The question begs “where have these 100 plus RIP VAN WINKLES been for the last 50 plus years?” the answer is simple ASLEEP. If you do not pick the apple when it is ripe it will fall to the ground ROTTEN. That is what has happened the Majority of Americans did they Trusted the Used Car Salesmen in Congress. Your Grandchildren will pay dearly for YOUR STUPIDITY.

  • Adam

    “If a requirement gets added to the U.S. Constitution that Congress must pass a balanced budget, one horrible alternative seems frighteningly clear to me: We will be forced to raise taxes to comply with the law.” ————–NO NO NO… with conservative values, the response would NOT be to increase taxes, it would be to DECREASE SPENDING.

  • M Taylor

    I agree. There has been talk of a balanced budget amendment since Kennedy took office in the 1960 after Eisenhower left the budget in the red and the ammendment idea has never taken off. Fiscal responsibility begins at home not because of an amendment to the constitution. If they can’t be responsible to pay the bills with what money they have then they should be voted out of office and put someone in that will be responsible. Adam has it right – DECREASE SPENDING.

  • David Warheit

    “I also think most of the (Constitutional amendments” that followed made things worse for this country, not better.” Like abolishing slavery and giving women the right to vote. Yep, couldn’t agree with you more.

    • http://pauljbosco.com Paul J. Bosco

      Why, you sarcastic black female Jew communist! Do you really think Chip has the time and space to proofread, or to explain himself?

      –Paul J. Bosco
      Manhattan

  • Richard

    I say “Eliminate the Department of Education and save $71 million” Before it’s inception, we were number one. Now in just 30 years they have driven us down to 31st in math and 23rd in science. Give them 30 more years and they will drive down to last place in the world.

    Also, cut the Department of Agriculture by 75% – let the farmers farm, not reward them for not farming. This would reduce the cost of food as the free market place goes to work.

    Reduce the EPA by 75% – they have driven all the jobs overseas!!

    Eliminate the NLRB – they just killed 1,000 jobs in the Carolinas.

    I could go on and on cutting just about every irresponsible, over-staffed, redundant Federal department and this would balance the budget – no need to increase the mandated federal debt ceiling.

    Where I come from a ceiling is a ceiling and we have been lying to our children for far too long!

    • TexasPatriot

      How about the Dept of Energy, created to reduce our dependence on foreign oil – which has tripled due to their fine work?!

  • LiarsMustBeDefeated

    Chip is right. Balance is NOT the key. They can balance their spending with HUGE taxes and “say” they did as instructed. CUT is the key. Cut the size of government. CUT the federal payroll. CUT the temporary hires. CUT the supplies. CUT the capital improvements. CUT, CUT, CUT. If you MUST have a constitutional amendment let it put a CAP on the size of government. Have an amendment that says LIARS go to JAIL.

  • Shirley Kingdon

    I agree with Chip we certainly do not need an Amendment to the Constitution – given the people in DC our Constitution as we know it would be changed so that we would not recognize it.

    Please read publiushuldah@twlakes.net

  • Moby49

    Chip, not a chance. Politicians do only three things, raise moaney, spend and hand out goodies to contributors. It is a perpetual motion machine put into motion by Reagan with his voodoo economics and out spending the Soviets. No way to stop it without making all politicians one term only. That way they don’t spend all of their time trying for contributions to win next time. Likelihood of that = zero.

    • TexasPatriot

      That is absolutely what’s needed – and no lifelong perks after their one term.

  • chuckb

    jopa, times editorial?

    Americans also may be surprised to learn that the United States has been an active participant in mosque construction projects overseas. In April, U.S. Ambassador to Tanzania Alfonso E. Lenhardt helped cut the ribbon at the 12th-century Kizimkazi Mosque, which was refurbished with assistance from the United States under a program to preserve culturally significant buildings. The U.S. government also helped save the Amr Ebn El Aas Mosque in Cairo, which dates back to 642. The mosque’s namesake was the Muslim conqueror of Christian Egypt, who built the structure on the site where he had pitched his tent before doing battle with the country’s Byzantine rulers. For those who think the Ground Zero Mosque is an example of “Muslim triumphalism” glorifying conquest, the Amr Ebn El Aas Mosque is an example of such a monument – and one paid for with U.S. taxpayer funds.

    The mosques being rebuilt by the United States are used for religious worship, which raises important First Amendment questions. U.S. taxpayer money should not be used to preserve and promote Islam, even abroad. In July 2009, the Office of the Inspector General published an audit of U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) faith-based and community initiatives that examined whether government funds were being used for religious activities. The auditors found that while USAID was funding some religious activities, officials were “uncertain of whether such uses of Agency funding violate Agency regulations or the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the Constitution” when balanced against foreign-policy objectives.

    For example, our government rebuilt the Al Shuhada Mosque in Fallujah, Iraq, expecting such benefits as “stimulating the economy, enhancing a sense of pride in the community, reducing opposition to international relief organizations operating in Fallujah, and reducing incentives among young men to participate in violence or insurgent groups.” But Section 205.1(d) of title 22 of the Code of Federal Regulations prohibits USAID funds from being used for the rehabilitation of structures to the extent that those structures are used for “inherently religious activities.” It is impossible to separate religion from a mosque; any such projects will necessarily support Islam.

    There is no good reason for our government to be doing “Muslim outreach.” The State Department’s chosen emissaries — folks like Rauf and Abdurrahman Alamoudi (now serving a 23-year prison sentence) — are not representative of American opinion (there are already plenty of people in the Gulf happy to trash the United States, we don’t need to add to their number). If we’re looking to cut useless spending, “Muslim outreach” would be an excellent place to start.

    That aside, though, someone in Congress needs to get to the bottom of whether this government is also underwriting Islamic religious institutions, and doing so in violation of U.S. law. And wholly apart from questions of legality and utility, Saudi Arabia and the other Gulf states Rauf is visiting are swimming in petro-dollars — why can’t they fund icons of Islamic supremacism on their own . . . maybe using the money they’d otherwise spend on the hate literature they produce for American Islamic centers?

  • Roberts

    the present majority of people have been educated by the liberal socialist school system. the leftist government we have in power leads the lemmings of public socialist down the road of socialist tyrrany and oppression. I was ecucated when the public schools had left leaning teachers but they were not socialist. I went to a private school. which my father paid for. though religious they taught the principals of the constitution. that is why I belong to no party. I vote for the principals that coincides with the constitution. I am hard pressed at elections for there are few good canadates. I may soon cease to vote because Idiots are now ruling our country. Vote for the man who abides with the constitution and skip the ones who do not.

    • Nadzieja Batki

      Sorry to tell you but we all were educated on the same curriculums and the same requirements whether we went to catholic, public, or private schools. If we are not Liberals or Progressives it is because our brains processed the garbage out before it made a permanent home in our brains.

  • Another Voice

    Uh … excuse me, but I believe that it is the Right who is calling for a balanced budget amendment to the constitution, not the left.

    And no, we do not need such an amendment. It is possible to balance our budget and live within our means, but this will not reduce the debt. Debt reduction will require increases in revenue along with cuts in spending.

    • TexasPatriot

      WRONG! There is more than enough ‘revenue’ (Why not just call it TAXES on our productive citizens and successful businesses?). You fail to realize the sheer magnitude of the cuts that can and should be made to spending. We need a meat ax, not a scalpel!

  • Thinking About

    They could ignore a balanced budget amendment just as many are doing right now in raising the debt ceiling. To the signets to Grovers oath, let Grover pay them. Pretty cool on his part got his signets without firing a shot. Let Grover pay off out debts.

  • The Bucko

    Chip is right. California is BILLIONS of dollars in debt and our budget has to be “balanced”, but the resourcefulness of the Democrats who run CA should not be understated. The budget is so full of accounting tricks and gimmicks that it passes as a ‘balanced’ budget, but we are still in debt and spending more than we take in.
    And the Federal guys are the “world series” of budget tricksters.

  • richbrat

    I disagree, spending is not a problem when you own a printing press. But the problem is that while Congress owns the press, it doesn’t own the money. That happened in 1913 when the Federal Reserve Act was passed, and congress became mere printer for the banks. IF congress also owned the money, it could print on a pay-as-you-go basis without debt or borrowing, but bankers become furious about the mere idea they should be deprived of their “entitlement” to participate. If you want to really cut debt, taxes and unnecessary spending, cut the secret Federal Reserve Banking “entitlement” that lets them pay mere cost of paper and ink for currency of all denominations, and then lend it back to US at face value. THAT IS the most epic con in human history.

  • Bert Cundle

    Balenced Budget… Sure: When the Debts are Paid & The Reserves are secure!

    • Thinking About

      This is the smartest answer of all, it is a shame you don’t occupy every seat in Congress. Thanks for the sane post.

  • Sleepergirl

    I disagree on the BBA. We definitely need it. Witness the Democrat-controlled Congress over the past four years. The GOP could not stop the spending, even in the absence of a budget. This year the Appropriations Committee has cut funding and House voted, but the Senate sits on every appropriations bill. We would have to always control Congress and even the WH in order in have half a chance in controlling spending. But history has shown that even Reagan and the Bush family ran deficits. We need this amendment.

  • Bill Vrooman

    You are totally wrong on the CC&B bill. This is a very good bill for America. Yes, taxes and spending have to match. But this bill limits spending to 19% of GDP. Now it is close to 25% with Obama, Reid and Pelosi (x) policies. Harry Reid is full of crap when he says we won’t be able to afford Social Security and Medicare with that cap. He doesn’t want to contain spending for the Democrats. So future politicians can’t raise taxes or spend arbitrarily with a cap. A total of 75% of the population wants a balanced budget. Another thing we need are term limits to control politicians further. Please retract your words.

    Here’s a rough rule of thumb to remember when writing your articles. Don’t ever vote or favor anything if Obama, Reid and Pelosi favor it. I’ve never agreed with them on any of their positions in the last 3 years ………

  • Patricia Adams

    The Balanced Budget Amendment as written is a trap. If we vote for it we will become a Dictatorship overnight. I wonder if anyone in the GOP has read it or if they have, do they understand what it is saying. Publius Huldah who leads the discussion on the Constitution on Tea Party Nation has the following to say about it: http://www.teapartynation.com/forum/topics/why-the-balanced-budget-1.

  • Professor J

    The balanced budget amendment is a lousy idea for a host of reasons.
    A better idea would be to change the “cut, cap, and balance” to
    “cut, cap, and repeal Obamacare”. Repealing Obamacare would do more
    to slash the deficit than any other single idea presented.

  • Robert Atwell

    I think a Balanced Budget Amendment could work, but there are a few things that should be addressed: First, total spending needs to be limited to a certain percentage of the total monthly or annual revenue.

    Second, any increase in spending over this percentage would, by law, have to be cut by the House of Representatives. The HOR would select the items in the budget that would be cut or, in the event they could not agree within a certain time period, then automatic cuts would kick in.

    Third, any tax or spending increase must not be left to the decision of Congress, even in emergencies. (There must be absolutely no exception in this amendment that would allow Congress to raise spending or taxes under any circumstances, even in the event of being attacked by a foreign power.)

    So, here is a suggestion: The Balance Budget Amendment would state that total monthly or annual spending cannot exceed a certain percentage of the monthly or annual tax revenue. If spending exceeds this set amount, then the HOR shall make spending cuts to reduce the spending to appropriate levels. If those cuts are not made within a certain time period, then automate cuts would kick in. All requests for increases in spending or taxes must be submitted to the states by the HOR in the form of a simple resolution. This resolution shall require the approval of 3/4th of the states. (Each state would be responsible for determining how they would approve such a resolution, whether by their state legislatures, a committee, one person, etc.)

    I would also include a provision that set a maximum dollar limit on the amount of total taxes that could ever be collected during a certain period and this amount could not be changed without a Constitutional amendment; however, and as part of the above amendment, the total tax revenues could be lowered by a simple resolution, signed by a simple majority or 2/3rds of the states, stating the new tax revenue amount.

    Again, the most important aspect of this Balanced Budget Amendment is that it reinforces federalism by taking the power to increase spending or taxes away from Congress, permanently, unless changes by a Constitutional amendment.

  • Roberts

    why do we have to keep trying to go socialist when capitalism gave us the greatest standard of living ever, but liberals want socalism so bad they keep trying to make this country a socialist counrty.

  • David Allen

    The solution to the national debt is simple: cut spending! The solution to cutting spending is simple: reduce government! The solution to reducing government is simple:sell it off!
    Sell the Postal Service. It runs in the red and costs taxpayers more and more every year. Private company’s like UPS or FedEx would streamline the postal service and make it efficient, cost effective and provide a much superior service than the government ever would.
    The result of the Deep Horizon oil spill in the gulf last year provided an enlightening comparison of of private and government organizations. BP has spent nearly twenty million dollars cleaning the Louisiana coast as well as Gulf Shores and Orange Beach, reimbursing small businesses for their loses as well. The beaches are clean. The cost was never reflected at the gas pumps. BP had to remain competetive and sell their gas at market prices. Meanwhile a government organization (TVA) experienced a much more toxic, massive spill of coal ash in east Tennessee three years ago. Prices for TVA electricity has been climbing and climbing ever since. The spill is still not cleaned up and consumers will be paying for the cleanup for years to come.
    When a private company makes a mistake they pay for it – when a government organization makes a mistake YOU pay for it.
    Sell TVA-sell the public school system – sell the Eisenhower Interstate System!!
    Get the government OUT of the free market system because the government will never compete and taxpayers will pay for it.
    Reduce the government to small, insignificant size that the founing fathers intended it to be. Only then will there be no debt crises.

  • R J

    I can see your point about a BBA, because you can NEVER trust a politician once he/she/it is in power.
    Instead, we need a ‘Fiscal Responsibility Amendment’: All government, Federal, State, or Local; shall operate on balanced budgets. Balanced budgets being defined as spending is equal to or less than gross tax receipts.
    No individual or individual company shall be taxed at a total tax rate of more than %15 of gross income. Total tax rate is defined as all monies or goods collected by government at any level.

  • momplayer

    You think this bills going to hurt check out bill HR4646. This will put a 1% tax on every bank transaction that you have at the bank deposit,withdraw,pay a bill or transfers are subject to 1% tax. I know alot of people are saying it’s only 1%,but it adds up quick. Deposit $2000.00 you have $1980.00 pay your $1000.00 house pay ,it cost you $1010.00 there’s $30.00. This bill is surpose to take effect in November.2011

  • jopa

    chuckb: Your follow up article of the times editorial did not say anything about $700 million dollars or billions spent on Mosques.I will have to say your comment was therefore bogus lacking clarification.I rest my case, thank you and have a good day.

    • chuckb

      jopa, everything contrary to your belief is apparently bogus. the state dept. has been giving monetary aid to a lot of these muslim nations, and they are using this aid to rebuild their war damaged mosque or just rebuild at their pleasure:

      According to various news reports, Congressional budget investigators found that some $770 million in funding from the US Agency on International Development, which is directed by the State Department, went to rebuild the sewer system in Cairo and to restore mosques and other religious structures in the Muslim-dominated country.

      In a statement, the Thomas More Law Center – an advocacy organization based in MIchigan – took the US government to task for allowing funds to reach Muslim religious leaders. “While Americans are being crushed by a devastating recession, hundreds of millions of U.S. taxpayer dollars are being spent to refurbish mosques overseas. Many of these mosques are hotbeds of Islamic terrorism. Astonishingly, the State Department has provided computer equipment and internet access to local imams, which will enable them to incite terrorism online as exemplified by radical Imam Anwar al-Awlaki. “”"

    • Song

      Incredible. Keep the blinders on Jopa.

  • Robert

    Oh, the secret has been ferreted out regarding the 14th amendment. It gives Obama the power to spend without congress. Give me a break.

  • FreedomFighter

    Hypocritical Quote Of The Decade

    July 18, 2011

    The fact that we are here today to debate raising America’s debt limit is a sign of leadership failure. It is a sign that the U.S. Government can’t pay its own bills. It is a sign that we now depend on ongoing financial assistance from foreign countries to finance our Government’s reckless fiscal policies.

    Over the past 5 years, our federal debt has increased by $3.5 trillion to $8.6 trillion. That is “trillion” with a “T.” That is money that we have borrowed from the Social Security trust fund, borrowed from China and Japan, borrowed from American taxpayers. And over the next 5 years, between now and 2011, the President’s budget will increase the debt by almost another $3.5 trillion.

    Numbers that large are sometimes hard to understand. Some people may wonder why they matter. Here is why: This year, the Federal Government will spend $220 billion on interest. That is more money to pay interest on our national debt than we’ll spend on Medicaid and the State Children’s Health Insurance Program. That is more money to pay interest on our debt this year than we will spend on education, homeland security, transportation, and veterans benefits combined. It is more money in one year than we are likely to spend to rebuild the devastated Gulf Coast in a way that honors the best of America.

    And the cost of our debt is one of the fastest growing expenses in the Federal budget. This rising debt is a hidden domestic enemy, robbing our cities and States of critical investments in infrastructure like bridges, ports, and levees; robbing our families and our children of critical investments in education and health care reform; robbing our seniors of the retirement and health security they have counted on.

    Every dollar we pay in interest is a dollar that is not going to investment in America’s priorities.—Barack H. Obama, 2006

    Read this for belly laugh or prolonged cry –Thanks Steve Quayle

    Laus Deo
    Semper Fi

  • http://www.usdebtclock.org Jay McVicker

    Chip: I agree with your reasoning up to the point where you put your trust in politicians to control themselves. Yes, we have a good crop of new freshmen Republicans who so far have shown themselves to be fiscal hawks, but how long will that last? Who’s to say they won’t be co-opted by the “political machine”? Who’s to say the majority in the House won’t shift to the Democrats (Marxists) with the next election or any subsequent election? Then, we’re right back in the same boat!

    The government has proven time and time again that they are incapable of abiding by the dictates of the Constitution. They tout it when it is convenient for them, but then they turn right around and disregard it whenever they want. To me, this is BREAKING THE LAW and they should be brought up on charges. Why aren’t they?

    Something must be done to restrain what is supposed to be our “limited government” and if it’s gonna take new legislation up to and including a Constitutional Amendment to do that, then I would consider supporting it.

    The national debt is currently $14.5T and rising. Add in the unfunded liabilities (promises made by government that will never be kept…) and we’re at $128-9T or so… Babies being born today come into the world owing almost $47,000 to the government and debt/liability per “taxpayer” is almost $1.2 million. (I don’t have that kind of money, do you?) (Numbers from http://www.usdebtclock.org) It’s got to stop…

    Stepping of my soapbox now… Thanks for listening…

  • Thinking About

    We have freshmen oc Congress which are just spending time just trying to block issues which are going to cost the US big bucks for years to come. They took oath to uphold the Constitution and turn around and sign another oath not to increase our revenues. Is Grover going to pay their salaried and pay the increase in interest if the debt ceiling is not raised. Smarter heads needs to rise up and uphold our Constitution.

    • TexasPatriot

      They were elected by their constituents and are doing what those constituents requested. It’s called REPRESENTATION. Look it up.

      • Thinking About

        I am glad you looked up the definition and did you find it meant Grover was living in each of the pledgers districts. No they sold their soul to the devil and he is eating their lunches.

  • skyskiers

    Here’s a look at seven myths that the Obama administration is pushing on the

    American people:

    1) Not increasing the debt ceiling means the U.S. government will default on its debt.
    This is probably the biggest lie that almost all other claims arise from. Default occurs
    if the government stops paying interest on the money that it owes. Not increasing
    the debt ceiling only means that the government can’t borrow more money and that
    spending is limited to the revenue the government brings in. And, with interest
    payments on the debt making up less than a ninth of revenue, there is no reason for
    any risk of insolvency. Time after time, congress and the president have failed to
    agree on a debt ceiling increase and still there has been no default. Examples
    include: December 1973, March 1979, November 1983, December 1985, August
    1987, November 1995, December 1995 to January 1996, and September 2007.
    Indeed, this really shouldn’t even be a point of debate. The 14th Amendment to the
    Constitution requires that the debt payments come first before any other spending.

    2) Until the debt ceiling is raised, uncertainty over the payment of U.S. debts will
    create chaos in financial markets. Given that the Constitution mandates U.S. debts
    be paid before any other spending and that sufficient money will be available to
    cover our interest payments, the only uncertainty arises from Obama’s actions. Will
    he try not to pay the interest? Even a delay of a day in paying this interest will create
    a default. Court action could eventually force Obama to follow the Constitution but a
    default would have already occurred. But there is a simple way to end this
    uncertainty: have the president declare now that he will indeed follow the
    Constitution and make those payments.
    Failure to increase the debt ceiling clearly doesn’t mean default. During one three
    week period at the end of 1996 and the beginning of 1996, some of the government
    shutdown when a similar battle over the debt ceiling occurred, but there was no
    default. President Clinton used the revenues that were coming in to pay the interest
    on the debt.

    3) Obama doesn’t know if there is money to send off Social Security checks on
    August 3. The president knows very well how much revenue will be available to send
    out checks on August 3. Indeed, enough money will be available to not only pay the
    interest, but to also cover all Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid and children’s
    health insurance, defense, federal law enforcement and immigration, all veterans
    benefits, Response to natural disasters. Terrifying elderly people who are dependent
    on their Social Security checks may make good politics, but it is unconscionable. Yet,
    these scare tactics aren’t really very surprising. The Democrats behaved no
    differently when they ran television ads bizarrely depicting Rep. Paul Ryan (R-Wis.)
    as pushing an old lady in a wheel chair off a cliff.

    4) Mortgage interest rates will rise dramatically if the debt ceiling isn’t increased. Not
    true. Indeed, the opposite is more likely, for not raising the debt ceiling stops the
    government borrowing more money. Less borrowing by the government could lower
    mortgage rates as there would be more lending available for potential homeowners.
    The interest rate paid by the government might go down for a second reason. Just as
    banks charge individuals a lower interest rate for those who have less debt compared
    to their incomes, the same is true for governments.

    5) Time is Running Out on Debt Deal, and it must be done immediately. Despite
    Obama’s insistence that a deal be completed by July 15 and Geithner’s claim that a
    deal had to be reached by July 22, as already noted, there have been many times
    over the last few decades where negotiations have extended past when the debt
    limit has been reached. The longest delay lasted three weeks. Besides claiming that
    there will be a default, no explanation has been offered for why the debate is any
    different this time. Possibly all these claims of urgency are part of some grand
    strategy to scare people, but that strategy depends on voters not knowing what is
    necessary for a default to occur.

    6) If government spending is cut, there will be a depression. Obama promised that
    a “temporary” increase in government spending would “stimulate” the economy,
    but he is now telling us that we can’t cut that “temporary” increase – that we are
    stuck with it. If Obama’s program – including a 28 percent spending hike since
    2008 and more than $4 trillion in deficits – worked so well, why has our
    unemployment rate risen more than elsewhere? The European Union, Canada,
    South America, Japan, and Australia have all had smaller increases in unemployment
    compared to the U.S. after Obama’s “stimulus.” We have also had these shutdowns
    before and the numbers don’t show any negative impact on unemployment or GDP.
    Figures for the longest shutdowns during the fourth quarter of 1995 and the first
    quarter of 1996 are available here.

    7) The value of the dollar will plummet. Again, the supposed collapse occurs when
    we default. But there won’t be any default. In addition, less government borrowing
    means lower future taxes, thus making the U.S. a more attractive place to invest.
    More foreign investment will actually cause the dollar to rise.
    It is time for President Obama and his administration to stop scaring people.
    Cutting government spending back to its 2007 level won’t be the end of the world.
    After all, during the 2008 presidential campaign, Obama himself repeatedly
    promised “a net spending cut.”

    • http://fernhart.com Marianne

      IF THE DEBT CEILING IS NOT RAISED, THERE WILL BE NO –NO– DEFAULT!!! THE PRESIDENT IS DIRECTED BY THE CONSTITUTION TO “PAY ALL DEBTS OF THE UNITED STATES”.

      ALSO GOOGLE CAFR I.E. COMPREHENSIVE ANNUAL FINANCIAL REPORT. THIS IS AN ACCOUNTING OF THE ASSETS OF EACH GOVERNMENTAL UNIT –FEDERAL, STATE, COUNTY, TOWNSHIP, AND CITY– REQUIRED BY LAW BEGINNING 1946, BROADENED IN 1952 AND LATER. IT SHOWS WHAT EACH GOV’T OWNS AND THEY TAKE IN MORE MONEY IN INVESTMENTS, BUILDINGS OWNED AND RETURN FROM RENTS, LAND OWNED AND AND LEASED OUT, ETC.ETC. THAN THEY GET IN TAXES.
      READ THAT AGAIN!! MORE MONEY THAN THEY GET IN TAXES!! EXAMPLE: THE 2005 NEW YORK PENSION FUND WAS REPORTED TO OWN –AS IN GET DIVIDENDS- 113 BILLION (YES, IN ONE YEAR) IN INVESTMENTS INCLUDING 44 MILLION IN SHARES OF MICROSOFT STOCK. THIS IS HIDDEN BY THE POLITICIANS (OR THEY JUST DON’T KNOW) BECAUSE IF THE PEOPLE KNEW, THERE WOULD BE SUCH A REVOLT TAKING TAXES OUT OR BRINGING THEM DOWN SUBSTANTIALLY.

      THERE IS SO MUCH MORE THAT IS HIDDEN but NOW WE HAVE THE INTERNET AND
      CAN FIND THIS INFORMATION IF WE JUST DIG!!! LOOK WHAT IS HAPPENING ALL OVER THE WORLD! THE MASSES OF 3RD WORLD PEOPLES ARE SEEING AND “WON’T TAKE IT ANYMORE” WHEN I GRADUATED INDIANA UNIVERSITY IN 1954 I “OPINED” THAT WHEN INFORMATION, COMMUNICATION, AND TRANSPORTATION GOT GOOD ENOUGH, THIS WOULD HAPPEN. MANY SEE IT AS ISLAM INSTIGATED BUT THE MASSES ARE BEING USED. IF REAL CONTROL WERE IN THE HANDS OF OTHER GROUPS, THEY WOULD RIDE THE WAVE OF UNREST.

      HERE OBAMA IS TRYING TO KEEP CONTROL BUT THE CONSTITUTIONALIST, CONSERVATIVES, TEA PARTY CAN –CAN– KEEP HIM AT BAY. HE IS SO ARROGANT, DEMANDING AND TO THINK HE WAS A CONSTITUTIONAL LAWYER??!!
      MANY SAY HOW SMART HE IS –”CRAZY LIKE A FOX”.

  • BimBam

    Two words: UNIONS and DEMONCRAPS. These two have been responsible for using our hard earned money freely as they see.

    Look at any union site where workers leave in their vehicles, all brand-new spanking customized 4-wheelers, etc.

    Yep, that’s your money their spending, behaving like daddy, the DEMONCRAPS.

    How long America, how long???? Grrrrrr………

  • jopa

    Thinking: These are Fox news viewers and probably don’t know who Grover Norquist is.

    • Thinking About

      You are probably right and I guess they think down grading our bonds and getting the interest rate higher would not be inherited should they get in control but it will follow them. I look to the neat future and instead of seeing Obama going down they will make a hero of him.

      • Song

        Wow you two are quite the pair! Comedians at best! I have yet to see either of you ahem (thinking) and Jopa ever offer anything except pure conjecture and regurgitation from the talking points of your most esteemed leader and now (excuse me while I laugh) hero!

      • DaveH

        Thinking or Jopa,
        Please explain to us ignorant folks why bond purchasers would demand higher interest rates if the debt was capped, but would not demand higher interest rates if the Government borrowed even more money?
        Inquiring minds want to know.

        • Thinking About

          Hey don’t depend on what I say go tell Moody defaulting on our debts should not cause a rise in the interest rate. By the way guess you don’t know who Grover is.

  • chuckb

    barry is sitting in a seat he’s not qualified to hold, no business experience, never run anything other than maybe running from the law.
    it’s almost funny to watch him squirming when cornered an having to make a decision, a decision that he cannot comprehend. as usual the bolshevik way is to raise tax and borrow more, not like that’s what got us where we are. the marxist that surround this guy and think for him are in the same boat, they have never worked for a living only in plush jobs that don’t require exertion, never having to make payroll and some of them never paid their tax. now they are wanting to tax the american public, oh, they say they want to tax the millionaires, well guess who those millionaires are going to pass the tax too. remember when the boilsheviks raised the luxury tax on yachts guess what happened, the workers paid the price, they lost their job the yacht business moved out of the country, that’s the way bolsheviks think, they don’t. that’s why we have an idiot as preident, just look at who voted for him.

    • denniso

      Pretty funny! I would never have thought that Larry Summers is a ‘Bolshevik’. And Geitner,another one? Boy Chuck, they sure have us fooled don’t they…here we think these top dogs are millionaires and economists and they bailed out AIG and GM and all the big banks,and you’re telling us that they are fooling all of us. I wonder why they gave hundreds of billions to the fat cats and almost nothing to the workers? Aren’t Bolsheviks supposed to put the workers over the capitalists? I thought that Bolsheviks hated capitalists…wow,have I been fooled.

  • http://www.poorgrandchildren.com Poorgrandchildren

    We already have the Tenth Amendment which states that our DC employees are not authorized to confiscate our money for innumerable illegal (unconstitutional) programs. It is now up to us to force our employees to obey the law (the Constitution) and stop the illegal spending.

  • chuckb

    denniso, bolshevik is only a term, it typifies the average democrat. you will note that i said the “marxist” that surround barry. do you ever question what barry does or wonder who pulls his strings. don’t you think it’s strange that geithner’s father Peter Geithner oversaw the Ford Foundation’s microfinance programs in Indonesia being developed by Ann Dunham Soetoro, President Barack Obama’s mother, don’t you question why barry is so elusive and forbids anyone to see his true indentity. he surrounds himself with communist jews and subversives. he is ignorant of understanding the contents of the healthcare bill and the budget. he understands spreading the wealth, he understands communism, the problem is, his worshippers don’t understand what he is.

    • denniso

      Like I said in an earlier post Chuck,I’m watching you go right over the edge. You are buying into all these conspiracy theories that hold no water at all. Obama is trying to do the best he can for the whole country,not just the wealthy. He is trying to get the economy going better and looks like a genious compared to some previous occupants of the office. You should quit reading all the rightwing propoganda that is twisting your mind into a conspiratorial pretzel. I wonder about a lot of things,and know that the elite have almost always controlled the economy and country,starting from the founders who were mostly elites. I don’t waste much time pursuing all the varied conspiracies…that’s a losing battle that gets you nowhere and does you no good.

      • DaveH

        We’ll do that, Denniso, right after you explain to us why Jeffrey Immelt’s GE paid no income tax this year, and still Obama appointed him to head the President’s Council on Jobs and Competitiveness?

      • denniso

        You guys are supposed to love all corporations,not me. Many big businesses avoid paying income taxes,as you should know,by using tax loop holes and investment credits. It makes no sense that Obama would appoint someone after helping them avoid taxes,since that’s your inference,more likely to be the other way around. Why would he do that? Of course CEO’s get appointed to high positions for their support of politicians and parties,that’s because we have such an out of control political process that takes millions to get elected…thanks to the rightwing and their big biz buddies for opening up the system to even more money. Now you whine that CEO’s get payback?

  • newspooner

    Get the US out of the UN, and get the UN out of the US. Otherwise, all liberty will be lost.

  • James

    I agree that a balanced budget amendment isn’t necessary. Federal budgets have been balanced every year to-date. Yes, they had to borrow money to do it – for twenty-some years – but budgets were balanced. If the amendment were to require balanced budgets without borrowing money, that would be a step in the right direction, but then taxes would have to be raised to cover whatever expenditures Congress wanted. If the amendment were to require a balanced budget without raising taxes or borrowing, I’m sure that would be unconstitutional. What we need is for Congress to stop spending money on projects that are outside of its constitutional powers. Senator Coburn recently said $1.7 trillion could be saved if Congress would simply operate within its constitutional limits.

  • Jeepdriver 97

    Chip, if your child smoked marijuana, drank 2 six packs of beer and then took the family car for a 100 mph spin through a school zone what you you do? Leave the keys on the dining room table or hide them. Your concerns about the Balanced Budget Amendment while valid assume that Congress will behave like adults, something they haven’t shown for over 70 years. Time to hide the keys!

  • Roberts

    since the government and the politicians can not and will not obey the constitution we need either a revolution, or vote all politicians out of office both democrats and republicans and vote for citizians of no party or for libertians.they could not do any worse than the present yahoos, but probabally a lot better.

  • Hughze

    Because of the liberal socialist agenda, an amendment to cap excessive government spending is necessary. It will set controls on the government not the people.

  • jopa

    Song;I scrolled back to check out your posts, nothing to contribute,no ideas,suggestions or solutions.Just two lines of criticism saying some folks here did not contribute anything.Do you have a mirror?There are only a few people here like me that deal in cold hard facts only so please pay attention young lady.Thank you and have a good day.

    • DaveH

      You deal in facts, Jopa? Come on you stingy guy, pass that dooby this way.

  • http://none papy

    Nice Jopa,It’s not hard to figure out where the USA stands today
    if you really listen. our potus has spelled it all out,The muslims teamed up with the communist and gave us Obama,They both had the same plan(take over the world)And both are using the U.N,to upset the apple cart,Most of our populus are in denial,and don’t think or care what is happening,they are in for a rude awakening.Pesonally,I have the feeling that thier will be no election,If obama thinks he could lose.He has never ask anyone yet to do what he has dune,He shut down all our oil wells and moved them to Venzuala,Almost drained our oil supplys.We are at the mercy, of muslims,Who can cut off our OIL!!!and China who could stop the money!!Are only HOPE would be print,print and print, till it lost all its value,good buy America

    • Thinking About

      You know, I read in tabloid while stand in the check out line there was a lot of women taken by Martians and then mated and the offsprings would say things like you do. Guess if your daddy is a Muslim you must be also.

  • jopa

    DaveH: Me stingy, no way, I would never “bogart that joint my friend”.Did you hear the latest that Congress is talking about creating a Super Congress to deal with the debt ceiling?If you ask me they are admitting they cannot do their job and if they can’t do what they were elected to do it’s time they all go.

  • Ricardo36

    WE NEED TO GET RID OF THE CAUSE!! WAKE UP AMERICA AND GET RID OF THE IMPOSTER!!!

  • ag

    I agree with most of the article except one minor point .. “If the Founding Fathers had wanted to do it, they would have done it.”

    I think the founders had a different mind set. Not only did they think that Christian values were at the heart of the constitution, they thought so in a time before income taxed would have been considered sane

  • Altaica

    How about we cut spending by cutting some of the politicians payroll. And stop letting big business and the upper class get away with paying almost nothing in taxes because of loopholes while the rest of us struggle to make ends meet. They aren’t living paycheck to paycheck or struggling to find a job like most of this country, why don’t they help.

    They need to stop wasting their money on trying to make and enforce laws that violate our constitutional rights as well. From what I understand Teddy Roosevelt did a darn good job getting our budget in order. They ought to have a look at what he did and use some of it.

  • mwpatriot

    Skip,

    Minor correction, Article 1 Section 7 only authorizes “bills for raising revenue” are originated “in the House of Representatives;”. I interpret that to mean taxes and that is why there is current pressure on the House to raise “revenue” from the President and others who want to increases taxes. They know that they can’t (Constitutionally) without a bill being originated in the House.

    Article 1 Section 9 (paragraph 6) indicates that “No money shall be drawn from the Treasury but in consequence of appropriations
    made by law; and a regular statement and account of the receipts and expenditures of all public money shall be published from time to time.”

    This would be the area that the House can exercise the “power of the purse strings” but their empowerment is limited by Senate passage and Presidential signing or a veto-proof majority in both houses of Congress in the event of a presidential veto.

    Those constraints are what is keeping the Republican majority in the House from implementing “cut, cap, and balance” or any other legislation that the Democratic majority in the Senate or the President disagrees with.

  • Ronald Johnston

    Why is a balanced budget a bad idea? Americans have always had to live under a balanced personal budget or go bankrupt. The budget should include funds for a rainy day. The only reason to abandon the budget would be an attack on us.

  • trumpman

    Mr. Chip Woods -

    Thank you for putting into words my feelings that it’s such a waste of time and misdirection to insist on a balanced budget amendment! It irks me when some fiscal conservatives (Republicans) who are pushing for spending cuts in the current budget debate are also including the “need” for an amendment.

    Maybe looking at term limits would go further in reigning in the immoral bribes payback for campaign funding … well, may be not. Just as CEOs to big corporations, congresspeople are so in need of more personal responsibility in how their company/country fares, be that positive or negative.

  • bob wire

    No we don’t need any darn amendment, ~ We need a place where politician can’t hide, left stand up and be responsible with the monies they are entrusted with. There just too many places to hide and too many ways to siphon off funds.

  • Robert M. Henderson

    I think you will find the real trap is that once a Constitutional Amendment Commission is convened, not just the addition of an amendment to require a balanced budget is on the table, but the entire constitution is open for amendment. With Obama in the White House, a Senate full of Liberal/Progressives, and the House of Representatives with far too many RINOs, that could end up in a disaster not seen since Pandora opened her box.

    • Melancon

      Your right man, the whole country is upset and many are saying:

      MR. PRESIDENT, WE THE AMERICAN PEOPLE REGRET TO INFORM YOU THAT YOUR SERVICES ARE NO LONGER NEEDED DUE TO YOUR INABILITY TO LEAD!

  • Dick Bachert

    Chip,
    The act of restoring America to an HONEST MONEY SYSTEM (as required at Art.1, Sect.10) would solve nearly ALL these economic problems.

    It is why certain financial schemers are raising the discussion of a return to a gold standard. If history is any guide, it will very far from the system the Founders envisioned for us.
    Regards,
    Dick

  • http://www.savelakeatitlan.org Duende

    I know I’m a little bit late in mentioning this but the title is that the left is baiting a trap yet the first thing the author mentions is that a utah (Red State) Republican (redder still) has written a book that is being published by his favorite publisher. Well it looks like if the left baited the trap the right is collecting the furs. And that’s the way it’s always been.. both theese “sides” keep this dance going and from what I;ve seen most on this list have dived right in on their “favorite side” There is only one side.. ours and those of us who wish to control the masses have done a pretty good job of it through the media, religions and political parties. Never mind food energy pharmaceuticals and God strike me down if I omit BANKING. So get with it people, when a writer of Chip’s stature is obviously caught in a trap if you hang on to his words you’re likely to lose your hide.

  • http://twitter.com/#!/kladionica sportske

    Hello there, simply changed into aware of your blog thru Google, and located that it is really informative. I?m going to watch out for brussels. I will appreciate if you happen to continue this in future. Many other folks will probably be benefited out of your writing. Cheers!

Bottom
close[X]

Sign Up For Personal Liberty Digest™!

PL Badge

Welcome to PersonalLiberty.com,
America's #1 Source for Libertarian News!

To join our group of freedom-loving individuals and to get alerts as well as late-breaking conservative news from Personal Liberty Digest™...

Privacy PolicyYou can opt out at any time. We protect your information like a mother hen. We will not sell or rent your email address to anyone for any reason.