Senator Mike Lee continues to promote fake balanced budget amendment!

[johnwk]

I noticed Senator Mike Lee was on the Glenn Beck show today (Judge Napolitano sitting in for Glenn) promoting his fake balanced budget amendment

Let us take a critical look at what Senator Mike Lee is promoting.

S. J. RES. 5

Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States requiring that the Federal budget be balanced.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

February 3, 2011

Mr. LEE (for himself, Mr. KYL, Mr. BARRASSO, Mr. BURR, Mr. DEMINT, Mr. GRAHAM, Mr. PAUL, Mr. RISCH, Mr. RUBIO, Mr. THUNE, Mr. TOOMEY, Mr. VITTER, Mr. CRAPO, and Ms. AYOTTE) introduced the following joint resolution; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

JOINT RESOLUTION

Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States requiring that the Federal budget be balanced.

Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled (two-thirds of each House concurring therein), That the following article is proposed as an amendment to the Constitution of the United States, which shall be valid to all intents and purposes as part of the Constitution when ratified by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several States:

`Article--

`Section 1. Total outlays for any fiscal year shall not exceed total receipts for that fiscal year.

Good thought. Let’s look at it closely!

`Section 2. Total outlays shall not exceed 18 percent of the gross domestic product of the United States for the calendar year ending prior to the beginning of such fiscal year.

Now wait a second. Why should we be stuck with giving the federal government 18 percent of our nation’s GDP? If Congress followed our Constitution, I believe far less would be needed.

`Section 3. The Congress may provide for suspension of the limitations imposed by section 1 or 2 of this article for any fiscal year for which two-thirds of the whole number of each House shall provide, by a roll call vote, for a specific excess of outlays over receipts or over 18 percent of the gross domestic product of the United States for the calendar year ending prior to the beginning of such fiscal year.

Well, isn’t this peachy? Congress may override the amendment whenever it so desires.

`Section 4. Any bill to levy a new tax or increase the rate of any tax shall not become law unless approved by two-thirds of the whole number of each House of Congress by a roll call vote.

More window dressing, and weasel wording to suggest fiscal accountability when there is nothing in the proposed amendment to establish a moment of accountability.

`Section 5. The limit on the debt of the United States held by the public shall not be increased, unless two-thirds of the whole number of each House of Congress shall provide for such an increase by a roll call vote.

Yet another provision to break the chains requiring a balanced budget, and one which cleverly omits a specific increase in taxes to equal the proposed increase in the national debt!

`Section 6. Any Member of Congress shall have standing and a cause of action to seek judicial enforcement of this article, when authorized to do so by a petition signed by one-third of the Members of either House of Congress. No court of the United States or of any State shall order any increase in revenue to enforce this article.

And this is totally pathetic ___ allowing the Court to enforce the amendment, and in the very next section Congress is entrusted to enforce the article by appropriate legislation. In other words, the fox is left in charge of the hen house.

`Section 7. The Congress shall have the power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

Just what we need, the fox in charge of patrolling the hen house.


`Section 8. Total receipts shall include all receipts of the United States except those derived from borrowing. Total outlays shall include all outlays of the United States except those for repayment of debt principal.


And what happens when total receipts derived from borrowing far exceed those for repayment of debt principal?

`Section 9. This article shall become effective beginning with the second fiscal year commencing after its ratification by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several States.'.


Bottom line is, once again we are offered another proposed balanced budget amendment which neither compels an annually balanced budget, nor requires equal taxes to finance increases in the national debt. It is nothing more than a lip service amendment to con and distract the American People who have finally awaken and are determined to take their country back, and by that I mean, enforcing the documented intentions and beliefs under which our Constitution was adopted.

Now, let us compare the above proposal with what our founding fathers intended. Please note what follows is in harmony with our founder’s intentions, and when practiced, paved the way for America to become the economic marvel of the world



Proposing a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution of the United States.


“SECTION 1. The Sixteenth Amendment is hereby repealed and Congress is henceforth forbidden to lay ``any`` tax or burden calculated from profits, gains, interest, salaries, wages, tips, inheritances or any other lawfully realized money

NOTE: these words would return us to our founding father’s ORIGINAL TAX PLAN as they intended it to operate! And, these words would remove the existing chains of taxation which Congress now uses to enslave America‘s businesses, its industrial and manufacturing base, and they would end the slavish tax which now confiscates the bread which working people have earned!

"SECTION 2. Congress ought not raise money by borrowing, but when the money arising from imposts duties and excise taxes are insufficient to meet the public exigencies, and Congress has raised money by borrowing during the course of a fiscal year, Congress shall then lay a direct tax at the beginning of the next fiscal year for an amount sufficient to extinguish the preceding fiscal year's deficit, and apply the revenue so raised to extinguishing said deficit."

NOTE: Congress is to raise its primary revenue from imposts and duties, [taxes at our water’s edge], and may also lay miscellaneous internal excise taxes on specifically chosen articles of consumption.


"SECTION 3. When Congress is required to lay a direct tax in accordance with Section 1 of this Article, the Secretary of the United States Treasury shall, in a timely manner, calculate each State's apportioned share of the total sum being raised by dividing its total population size by the total population of the united states and multiplying that figure by the total sum being raised by Congress, and then provide the various State Congressional Delegations with a Bill notifying their State’s Executive and Legislature of its share of the total tax being collected and a final date by which said tax shall be paid into the United States Treasury."

NOTE: our founder’s fair share formula to extinguish a deficit is :

States’ population

---------------------------- X SUM TO BE RAISED = STATE’S SHARE

Total U.S. Population


"SECTION 4. Each State shall be free to assume and pay its quota of the direct tax into the United States Treasury by a final date set by Congress, but if any State shall refuse or neglect to pay its quota, then Congress shall send forth its officers to assess and levy such State's proportion against the real property within the State with interest thereon at the rate of ((?)) per cent per annum, and against the individual owners of the taxable property. Provision shall be made for a 15% discount for those States paying their share by ((?))of the fiscal year in which the tax is laid, and a 10% discount for States paying by the final date set by Congress, such discount being to defray the States' cost of collection."

For historical documentation concerning our founder’s rule of apportionment as related to taxation and extinguishing a deficit CLICK HERE.


JWK

“The proportion of taxes are fixed by the number of inhabitants, and not regulated by the extent of the territory, or fertility of soil 3 Elliot‘s, 243, “Each state will know, from its population, its proportion of any general tax” 3 Elliot‘s, 244

 

[erowe1]

Looks pretty good. If those criticisms are the best you can come up with against it, good for Lee.

 

[MRoCkEd]

Looks pretty good. If those criticisms are the best you can come up with against it, good for Lee.

+1

 

[johnwk]

Looks pretty good. If those criticisms are the best you can come up with against it, good for Lee.

I’m sure it looks good to all those who just love big government, and who spit upon our founding father’s remedies.


JWK

 

[malkusm]

Incrementalism. It's a concept you should try sometime.

See: Ron Paul's "Audit the Fed" bill.

"OMG he's a sellout and a fraud!!!! Everyone who is serious would try to END the Fed, and he just wants to AUDIT it!!!!!"

 

[economics102]

johnwk -- I'm not sure I agree with your pessimism but I wanted to thank you for breaking down the amendment, which I did find informative. I think you've opened up a good debate here.

Lee's amendment came very close to passing, probably in part because of its wiggle-room, so I guess the question is, is the BBA a case where we should push for incrementalism or try to get the right BBA now while we might have enough political momentum to do it? Or to make this more shades-of-grey, might it be that incrementalism is OK but Lee's BBA is not a big enough increment?

 

[low preference guy]

I’m sure it looks good to all those who just love big government, and who spit upon our founding father’s remedies.


JWK

I hope that your approach to balancing the budget, repealing the income tax, can be achieved during the Ron Paul presidency.

 

[Thargok]

Debt isn't necessarily bad, certainly there are legitimate reasons to acquire debt, but the government is out of control and this certainly moves in the right direction. You can't get 2/3 of people to agree on where to eat dinner, so a super majority to accept debt is fine.

Also I don't see why the hell you are against an upper ceiling limit for expenditures. Unless you don't know what exceed is, nothing you said has any merit.

And the 16th Amendment passed, and it isn't going away anytime soon get over it.



I tell you what, why don't you go over to Off Topic > Philosophy and write out your perfect world, why the rest of us work with what we got.

 

[hazek]

Actually it's a peace of shit amendment and will change nothing. I guarantee it.

EDIT: On second thought it's worse then that because it not only wont change anything it also is currently misdirecting the focus from the real problem which is the facilitator of the deficits spending - The Federal Reserve System.

So more time is being wasted and more media time spent on useless irrelevant subjects.

 

[Thomas]

good for mike lee

 

[Thargok]

The Federal Reserve has spent between 1.5 and 2 Trillion dollars the last few years while the US Congress has spent 3.5 trillion annually so while the Federal Reserve hurts and devalues money. Saying that a balanced budget Amendment does nothing is like saying the sun doesnt produce light or heat.

 

[Brett85]

Incrementalism. It's a concept you should try sometime.

See: Ron Paul's "Audit the Fed" bill.

"OMG he's a sellout and a fraud!!!! Everyone who is serious would try to END the Fed, and he just wants to AUDIT it!!!!!"

+Rep.

 

[anaconda]

`Section 8. Total receipts shall include all receipts of the United States except those derived from borrowing. Total outlays shall include all outlays of the United States except those for repayment of debt principal.


And what happens when total receipts derived from borrowing far exceed those for repayment of debt principal?

I may be missing something here..But I think what Mike Lee is saying here is that expenditures have to be matched by non borrowed funds. So there would be no reason to borrow. And the Congress cannot authorize more expenditures than revenues. So presumably they can't go borrow a bunch of money and spend it on something because the expenditures would be unauthorized. I didn't read the amendment yet so I don't know if it's worded to prevent "off budget" spending with borrowed money.

 

[anaconda]

Now wait a second. Why should we be stuck with giving the federal government 18 percent of our nation’s GDP? If Congress followed our Constitution, I believe far less would be needed.

Taxes are authorized in the original constitution. The amendment does not condone the income tax. Could be 18% from a national sales tax. And it says "shall not exceed 18%." So a libertarian congress could vote to spend less than 18%.

 

[MaxPower]

Now wait a second. Why should we be stuck with giving the federal government 18 percent of our nation’s GDP? If Congress followed our Constitution, I believe far less would be needed.

It doesn't say they have to take up 18% of GDP- only that they can't exceed that amount- and since we're currently well into the 20s percentage-wise and rapidly increasing, this would amount to a significant reduction in government spending, relative to the alternative.

Well, isn’t this peachy? Congress may override the amendment whenever it so desires.

I do wish it were more stringent than this, but a two-thirds vote requirement is still easily preferable to a 50% one, no?

More window dressing, and weasel wording to suggest fiscal accountability when there is nothing in the proposed amendment to establish a moment of accountability.

Again, raising the bar for a debt ceiling increase from "anything-over-50%" to "a minimum of two thirds" would be a major improvement. The proponents of liberty would clearly be on far stronger ground if they only needed one third of the vote in order to stave off attempts at rampant spending and taxation.

Yet another provision to break the chains requiring a balanced budget, and one which cleverly omits a specific increase in taxes to equal the proposed increase in the national debt!

See my last two responses.

 

[TheTyke]

2/3 vote is brilliant, actually. They couldn't even get the "PATRIOT Act" passed requiring 2/3 - if we do our jobs right, there should be no reason they'll get budget bypasses or tax increases through either. It sort of stacks the odds in our favor.

Oh, and... Mike Lee is awesome so far

 

[johnwk]

johnwk -- I'm not sure I agree with your pessimism but I wanted to thank you for breaking down the amendment, which I did find informative. I think you've opened up a good debate here.

The problem I have with Lee’s BBA is, it circumvents our founding father’s no nonsense method to extinguish and annual deficits in a manner which creates a very real moment of accountability!

Our founder’s solution provides a very real moment of accountability if Congress spends more than is brought in from Imposts, duties, and miscellaneous excise taxes which would then trigger the required apportioned tax among the States. And under this tax, unlike other taxes, each State’s Congressional Delegation is to return home with a bill in hand reflecting its State’s apportioned share in extinguishing the deficit. And, the various State Governors and Legislatures are left with the responsibility to transfer their State’s financial obligation from the State Treasury into the United States Treasury or raise taxes within the State and then transfer that money into the federal treasury to meet the State’s financial obligation in a time period set by Congress.
This moment of accountability, when each State’s Congressional Delegation must return home with a bill in hand, is what our big spenders, RINOs and progressive members of Congress fear with a passion. Tell me, what do you think would happen if California’s big spending pinko Congressional Delegation returned home and placed a bill in Jerry Brown’s hand for the deficit created by Congress?

The truth is, if our Constitution’s original tax plan were readopted and enforced, it would immediately correct Congress‘s irresponsible and reckless spending because when imposts, duties and miscellaneous excise taxes could not feed the appetite of Congress, the apportioned tax would then have to be laid to make up the shortfall. And, the apportioned tax requires each state‘s Congressional Delegation to return home with a bill for their Governor and State‘s Legislature to deal with. This would create a very real moment of accountability and inspire tea party events to turn into TAR AND FEATHER PARTIES if Congress had recklessly spent more than was brought in from imposts, duties and miscellaneous excise taxes!

Bottom line is, Sen. Mike Lee’s balanced budget amendment is designed to avoid the wisdom of our founding father’s ORIGINAL TAX PLAN and its no nonsense method to extinguish an annual deficit.

JWK

“The proportion of taxes are fixed by the number of inhabitants, and not regulated by the extent of the territory, or fertility of soil 3 Elliot‘s, 243, “Each state will know, from its population, its proportion of any general tax” 3 Elliot‘s, 244

 

[johnwk]

Senator Mike Lee Wrote on March 4, 2011


Why we need a balanced-budget amendment

“First, a balanced-budget requirement will ensure we do not continue to drive our country further into debt by trying to do all things for all people. There are some programs we simply cannot afford, but deficit spending makes it too easy not to say no.”



Well tell us Senator Lee, why then do you propose [Section 3 and 5 of S.J. RES. 5] to make it constitutional for Congress to not balance the federal budget on an annual basis? Why do you not support our Founding Fathers no nonsense method to extinguish deficits using the apportioned tax among the States, which creates a very real moment of accountability?. Do you fear accountability? It really is a very easy question to answer Senator Lee! I know there are times when emergencies may arise, but that is no reason for not requiring under your amendment a specific increase in taxes to offset any increase in the national debt. Our founding fathers remedy did and is summarized as follows:



Fourthly That Congress do not lay direct Taxes but when the money arising from Impost, Excise and their other resources are insufficient for the Publick Exigencies; nor then, untill Congress shall have first made a Requisition upon the States, to Assess, Levy, & pay their respective proportions, of such requisitions agreeably to the Census fixed in the said Constitution in such way & manner as the Legislature of the State shall think best and in such Case if any State shall neglect, then Congress may Assess & Levy such States proportion together with the Interest thereon at the rate of six per Cent per Annum from the Time of payment prescribed in such requisition- ___ see Ratification of the Constitution by the State of New Hampshire; June 21, 1788



My goodness, I see Rand Paul, a supporter of S.J. RES.5, also supports making it constitutional to not balance the federal budget! What’s up with Paul?



JWK


“The proportion of taxes are fixed by the number of inhabitants, and not regulated by the extent of the territory, or fertility of soil 3 Elliot‘s, 243, “Each state will know, from its population, its proportion of any general tax” 3 Elliot‘s, 244

 

[Sola_Fide]

One thing that would really scare me is a balanced budget amendment that wasn't required to be applied annually.

With that type of scenario, it seems to me that even the bailouts could be justified because Keyensians would say the spending would EVENTUALLY cause the budhet to balance.

 

[erowe1]

One thing that would really scare me is a balanced budget amendment that wasn't required to be applied annually.

With that type of scenario, it seems to me that even the bailouts could be justified because Keyensians would say the spending would EVENTUALLY cause the budhet to balance.

Another balanced budget amendment that would do more harm than good would be one that includes a loophole for any time we're at war, like what you find in most examples of them. That would only give legislators more incentive to go to war than they already have, so that they could use it as a way to unshackle themselves from a balanced budget. The fact that Lee's proposal doesn't have that is another point in his favor as a senator to me.