#Balanced Budget Amend.
11 messages in this thread
Hi Albert,
Just wanted to let you know, that I noticed that there was no earthquake in
D.C. as predicted. <G>
John
>> Just wanted to let you know, that I noticed that
>> there was no earthquake in D.C. as predicted. <G>
You are just a bit ahead of schedule on that declaration of the non-event.
<g>
The event of which I speak will happen either with the passage of the
Constitutional amendment (I think it will be referred to the states, just a
little later — possibly as late as next year), or when the "budget" becomes
totally impossible and we go into recession/depression.
P.S. I got a real kick out of the Clinton administration lecturing the Mexican
government about fiscal responsibility. Kind of like the forger being superior
to the shoplifter. <g>
>> You are just a bit ahead of schedule of that declaration of the non-event.
<<
Well they voted on it. And isn't it odd that they missed it by one vote? <g>
>> Clinton administration lecturing the Mexican governmenat about fiscal
responsibility… <<
Yeah but there was a "wink" "wink" from both sides.
John
>> Well they voted on it. And isn't it odd that they
>> missed it by one vote? <g>
Actually they missed it by more than one because Dole voted against it as a
procedural tactic when he knew it would not pass. But if all the Democrats who
said they were for it in the past had voted for it, it would have passed
easily. But did you hear that the Speaker called D. Feinstein a lying
politician (somewhat redundant <g>).
But here is a scary thought. In the past there has not been a total
landslide, i.e. a sweep of every state, I think. Based on the absurdity of
Democratic statments relating to the deficit, the amendment and other issues,
and also on the wide concern about the deficit and wide support of the
amendment, the next Republican President could win with a REAL landslide. The
trouble is that such an event would be viewed as a broad mandate for all sorts
of CRAP!!!
Albert,
I should probably state that I'm opposed to the BBA. I think its a disasterous
concept in pratice. Not in principle. The Democrats got the first part of
Keynesian economics right, ie Roosevelt. But they totally forgot about the
second part, which is that in times of prosperity a nation needs to preserve
its capital for times of hardship, which can then be used to expand the
economy. That's my frame of reference.
Having said that, the Republicans are embarking on a Hooverism course in a last
ditch effort to vindicate their fallen hero. His policies were a dismal
failure. The Democrats are embarking on a course of bankruptcy, not because of
increased spending but because of increased taxation, which stiffles
productivity. That coupled with increased spending will do it. In terms of debt
of developed nations ours is smaller than most. (Per GNP etc. etc.) Government
is not going to decrease spending so the only alternative is to unleash
productivity. Reagan may not have been right about much, but he was right about
that.
I am basically a Republican but not of the sort that Dole and Newt portray.
Like I said I rather like the normally soft spoken Phil Graham although even he
is starting to sound rather menacing.
So the irony is, that while I'm not a big fan of D. Fienstein, she's the hero
of the hour, albeit probably for the wrong reasons. I don't care for the kind
of politics the Newt is projecting. He's not going to last. He's proven he
doesn't have gracious character, an important quality in a leader. And while I
didn't care for George Bush at all, I've got to say the tone of his government
was much more civilized. What's going on in Washington these days is akin to
anarchy. What's going to happen is anybody's guess, but somehow we always seem
to muddle through.
John
>> I should probably state that I'm opposed to the BBA.
>> I think its a disasterous concept in pratice.
>> Not in principle.
Ok, you agree with our Senator Hatfield. But then the question is: How to
stop those jerks from spending IOUs?
>> But they totally forgot about the second part, which is
>> that in times of prosperity a nation needs to preserve
>> its capital for times of hardship, which can then be used
>> to expand the economy. That's my frame of reference.
The only hardship these guys appreciate is losing the next Congressional
election. Prehistory is anything before the last.
>> Like I said I rather like the normally soft spoken Phil
>> Graham although even he is starting to sound rather menacing.
We must each have been hearing a different Phil G. <g>.
>> So the irony is, that while I'm not a big fan of D. Fienstein,
>> she's the hero of the hour, albeit probably for the wrong reasons.
If I understand you, Senator Byrd should be the hero.
>> I don't care for the kind of politics the Newt is projecting.
>> He's not going to last. He's proven he doesn't have gracious
>> character, an important quality in a leader.
I guess you are right, after all what more gracious leader have we had than
Richard (the Dick) Mudsucker Nixon <g>.
But you are wrong, Newton G. WILL be President Newton.
>> What's going on in Washington these days is akin to anarchy.
>> What's going to happen is anybody's guess, but somehow we always
>> seem to muddle through.
To be correct, we have muddled in the past but that does not assure any
future muddles. The fight of the future is clear and unavoidable. The whole
area of entitlements must be means tested and the fight over that will make you
look back on the current level of remaining civility with nostalgia.
>> Ok, you agree with our Senator Hatfield. <<
I actually haven't heard his position, but if you say so.
>> But then the question is: How to stop those jerks from spending IOU's. <<
I don't think there's a perfect answer. I don't think there's any guarantee
that passing an Amendment will do it, as there is no enforcement mechanism and
therefore no accountability.
My answer is reform of the process. Not allowing riders onto bills, would be a
good start. Then the bill stands or fall on its own merit. Its not perfect but
it makes it a lot more difficult to make deals, I vote for yours you vote for
mine kinda thing. Everybody wants their deal up front, so that by voting in
unison on an issue everybody wins because each has a slice of the pie. Take out
bill riders and its a gamble. No one is going to know for sure until afterward.
Second answer is hold Committee Chairman responsible. If they fail to meet
their budget, have a personal penalty which take a chunk of money out of their
pay. If it happens more than a couple of times they lose their seat.
I think alot could be done in this area of accountability which the Amendment
doesn't address.
>> If I understand you, Senator Byrd should be the hero. <<
Well yes technically but it was Fienstein who took the heat.
>> But you are wrong, Newton G. WILL be President… <<
I heard you the first time. <g> Just expressing my opinion. 🙂
>> we have muddled in the past but that does not assure any future muddles.
You're right Albert, but it seems to me America has always muddled along and I
think it will continue to do so.
>> you look back on the current level of remaining civility with nostalgia.
How charming. And you think things are bad now. <g>
John
>> I think alot could be done in this area of accountability
>> which the Amendment doesn't address.
Your suggestions are interesting but impractical. If you do not think a
relatively simple "balance the budget requirement" amendment would work, just
give some thought to just the wording of a Constitutional amendment that would
implement your suggestions. For example, just define for me the qualifications
for what is, and what is not, a "rider". If you talk to some lawyers, you will
realize that it is not as simple as it appears on first thought. Also the
passage of such a horendously complex amendment, even the suggestion of it,
would get only passing humor on all sides.
But perhaps you do not want your suggestions in the Constitution. Well then
they cannot be done. Just recall how effective the Graham-Rudman "thing" was.
Albert,
PMJI,
>> Just recall how effective the Graham-Rudman "thing" was.
Well, I'm not sure what Graham-Rudman "thing" you're talking about, but it had
(is having) a _MAJOR_ effect on the entire armed services of this country.
Whether or not the results are for the good or the detriment of the country
could of course be debated, but the effect of Graham-Rudman can not.
I just had to jump in here, partly because I agree with John E. I am
definitely not a Newt fan.
Bob W.
>> …but it had (is having) a _MAJOR_ effect on the entire
>> armed services of this country. Whether or not the results
>> are for the good or the detriment of the country could of
>> course be debated, but the effect of Graham-Rudman can not.
You are mixing apples and grenades, as is common in analysis relating to
subjects on which you have strong feelings. This country has a long history of
abandoning the military in times of peace.
The purpose and function of Graham-Rudman was to bring an end to deficit
spending. The safety of any particular segment of the budget was not a part of
it. The budget is still out of control and the reason is simple. Neither the
Congress nor the people seem willing to face the central issue which is
entitlements, i.e. welfare for the middle and upper income groups.
Albert,
I think we agree on the intent, just not the best way to achieve it. Your right
I don't think a BBA is the answer.
John