This amendment is an unnecessary distraction from the peoples work. It should
not require a constitutional amendment for congress to do its job. Even if it
where to pass it would take years to be ratified. it is time to stop stalling
and get back to work Hatch, if you and the rest of congress are incapable of
controlling yourselves then step aside.
If they really wanted a balanced budget they could just write one up right now.
They don't want one though so instead they're just going to have fruitless votes
on symbolic gestures that in reality mean nothing.
You people over there live within a budget and don't spend more than you take
in. As for us...to infinity and beyond. I'm not understanding the resistance
to a balanced budget ammendment? Is this a bad thing?
This proposed amendment was a bad idea. It would do nothing but hamstring
future governments in the time of crisis requiring them to balance the budget
when the economic well being or physical safety of the republic was in doubt.
It would require the government, since it could not mint/create money to borrow
money in another currency. This is exactly what several European nations are
not facing and the core of the problem Europe has with the euro as currency.
The federal government has balanced its budget only six times in the last half
century, 4 times was in the Clinton years. Proof that democratic policies do
produce balanced budgets. Hatch voted against Clinton every step of the way.
Hatch and Lee have No clue how to balance the budget and preserve the social
programs preserved by Clinton. You must reduce millitary spending, and raise
taxes on the rich. Ther very 2 things both our esteemed senators have pledged
not to do. They are clueless. Hatch has been in washington for almost a half of
century, and voted against Clinton every time. Clueless.
"...Two proposals for balanced budget amendments were doomed by the
partisanship that dominates Congress. All but one Republican voted against a
Democratic measure, and every Democrat opposed the GOP-backed
version...".If there is any doubt about who is responsible for
the gridlock in DC, look no further than this direct quote taken from this
article.And people wonder why Congress has earned a generous 12%
If Congress hadn't handed over the right to the Federal Reserve its own
Constitutional Privilege of controlling the money supply, there would be no need
for a balanced budget amendment.If we hadn't decided to leave the
gold standard and use a baseless fiat currency that has no intrinsic value, we
wouldn't have to worry about a balanced budget amendment.I am about
as fiscally conservative as it gets, but to every time there is a season. In our
lives, we accumulate debt for college, then pay it off as soon as we receive a
good job.There may be circumstances to which a government may spend
more than they make. They should be VERY few and far in between.I
think we need fiscal responsibility without having to make a law out of it,
though I don't consider the proposed amendment to be horrible.
Homebrew,Clinton NEVER balanced the budget.(millions)gross
federal debt 1992 - 4,001,7871993 - 4,351,044 - Increase of 349,2571994 - 4,643,307 - Increase of 292,2631995 - 4,920,586 - Increase of
277,2791996 - 5,181,465 - Increase of 260,8791997 - 5,369,206 -
Increase of 187,7411998 - 5,478,189 - Increase of 108,9831999 -
5,605,523 - Increase of 127,3342000 - 5,628,700 - Increase of 23,177you CANNOT have a surplus when gross federal debt is increasingthe last time gross federal debt decreased was in 1969 (Nixon was
president)But you can see that the deficits decreased when the
repubs had the congress; they were largest the first two years when dems had the
congress.Bush had large deficits, but they were larger in 2007-8
when the dems had the congress than in 2001-6 when repubs had it. Of course,
they pale in comparison to BO's MASSIVE deficits.Atl134,if the
house wrote a balanced budget, clown prince harry would not allow the senate to
vote on it, and if by some miracle it passed the senate, BO would veto it.
@lost in DC"if the house wrote a balanced budget, clown prince harry
would not allow the senate to vote on it, and if by some miracle it passed the
senate, BO would veto it. "Then at least they would have tried.
Fact is Republicans don't really want a balanced budget because they know the
minute they propose one, the American people will throw them out of office with
the draconian cuts it would entail (I assume they'd continue to refuse to raise
taxes). So they play off of the people who actually believe the Republicans want
a balanced budget, make a token gesture that they know won't pass, and then rake
in votes for doing absolutely nothing. If I were a Republican I'd be offended
and demand any representative, senator, or presidential candidate who wants a
balanced budget amendment to outline how, if they could get 100% of what they'd
want, they would balance it. None of them will do that.
A Balanced Budge Amendment is a waste of time as politicians would find some way
to weasel around it anyway. And, it would not take effect for 5 or more
years.What is needed is different people in Congress, who will
actually cut spending (real spending, not just reduce the rate of growth!) and
refuse to pass appropriations bills that bust the budget.And, we
need Senators and Senate leadership who will get off their sorry posteriors and
pass a budget (even unbalanced) which they have failed to do for more than 2 1/2
years despite a statutory requirement to do so! Hatch has been
talking about cutting spending but has failed to do so. Time for him to join
ex-Senator Bennett in the unemployed line. Mike Lee may or may not have the
courage to do what needs to be done on spending, but we must wait and see.If spending is not cut in the next 12-24 months, our nation is doomed!
If, it is not already too late.
Look at human nature, and in particular the nature of congress, and I believe
that a constitutional amendment requiring a balanced budget will be required to
force congress to do its job. If there is not law requiring it,
then it will not happen. If we keep doing the same thing, hoping
for a different result, we are fools. Congress has shown that they cannot
balance a budget. Forecasts show $1 Trillion annual deficits, indefinitely.
A balanced budget amendment is required. Perhaps these weren't
written well, and most likely we don't have the right people in congress to pass
it anyway. But we the people should put people in congress that will get this
passed. America needs it.
I am a huge fan of SE. Orrin Hatch. Both his body of work in the U.S. Senate and
his Music writing Ability. Mr favorites are the Songs he wrote for
Ms. Knight on her Many Different Roads CD. As a matter of fact I am going to
play that CD Now.
They don't need a balanced budget amendment, they need some backbone.
atl134the repubs DID try budget reform, and Paul Ryan put forth a plan
that would not only balance the budget, but eventually pay off the debt. I
beleive the house even passed it, the demogague party had a field day
politically and disingeguously attacked them for so doing. They lied about
repubs wanting to throw granny over the cliff. they were more concerned about
restoring queen nancy as speaker than they were about the good of the
country.Of course, as I said, it never came to a vote in the senate.
Government borrowing during bad economic times is a good thing, (assuming there
is no rainy day fund which is even better). It helps to keep money circulating
and the government assistence to the un-employed helps them to keep eating and a
roof over their head.Our problem is that we borrow and borrow, no
matter what the economic climate is, good or bad. Then we have to pay interest
on this borrowed money forever and ever because we never pay it back.
What has Senator Hatch honestly done in 36 years of being in the Senate?
Honestly we gripe about career politicians , yet we here in Utah support them
over and over again. Good night, 36 years is a dictatorship. Come home Senator
Hatch, we don't want a Strom Thurmond back in DC representing us.