Thread: Phony BB amendment resurrected from grave by RINO leadership

The following is what is being proposed, and was proposed in the 1980s:

`Article--

`Section 1. Total outlays for any fiscal year shall not exceed total receipts for that fiscal year, unless three-fifths of the whole number of each House of Congress shall provide by law for a specific excess of outlays over receipts by a rollcall vote.

NOTE: The amendment can be immediately overrule by a three-fifths vote.

`Section 2. The limit on the debt of the United States held by the public shall not be increased, unless three-fifths of the whole number of each House shall provide by law for such an increase by a rollcall vote.

NOTE: The very intentions of the amendment can be subverted by allowing Congress to borrow without providing specific taxes at the same time to extinguish the specific amount being borrowed.

`Section 3. Prior to each fiscal year, the President shall transmit to the Congress a proposed budget for the United States Government for that fiscal year in which total outlays do not exceed total receipts.

NOTE: This is a feel good provision. It sounds great and technical but is it? Have we not just learned with the recent health care proposals, how projected figures can be manipulated by our friends in government to portray legislation in which outlays and receipts are in balance when they are not?


`Section 4. No bill to increase revenue shall become law unless approved by a majority of the whole number of each House by a rollcall vote

NOTE: Well, isn’t this just dandy? Taxes may be increased by a simple majority vote in each House to keep the budget balanced. How sweet of Congress to be so thoughtful to reduce their pain in raising taxes to keep the budget balanced, while making it more difficult, a three-fifths vote, to reduce spending which is really needed to balance the budget.
.
`Section 5. The Congress may waive the provisions of this article for any fiscal year in which a declaration of war is in effect. The provisions of this article may be waived for any fiscal year in which the United States is engaged in military conflict which causes an imminent and serious military threat to national security and is so declared by a joint resolution, adopted by a majority of the whole number of each House, which becomes law.

NOTE: The flimflamery here is most remarkable. A simple majority of each house may ignore the requirement to balance the budget by simply declaring an existing military conflict has caused an imminent and serious military threat to national security exists. So, the fox gets to say when the chickens are in peril.

`Section 6. The Congress shall enforce and implement this article by appropriate legislation, which may rely on estimates of outlays and receipts.

[b]NOTE: And here it is etched in stone! The entire amendment is based upon “estimatesâ€

Let me put this issue into a different perspective which seems to indicate there may be something very sinister taking place with the proposed balanced budget amendment, and, it fits right into the progressive’s mode of operation!

We are a constitutionally limited system of government. The most fundamental rule of constitutional law requires the intentions and beliefs under which our Constitution was adopted to be observed and enforced. There is sufficient documentation to establish our founding fathers intended that if imposts, duties and miscellaneous excise taxes were found insufficient to meet Congress exigencies and Congress borrowed to meet its expenses, Congress was then to lay a general tax among the States to make up the deficiency and use this money to extinguish the deficit in a timely fashion.

The general tax to be laid among the states to extinguish a deficit created by Congress was to be apportioned so each state received a bill proportionately equal to its number of representatives ___ representation with proportional obligation ___ and in so doing the deficit would be extinguished in a timely manner.

Now, what is very suspicious is, if the proposed balanced budget amendment were to be adopted, it would effectively repeal our Constitution’s existing and intended method to extinguish deficits which not only provides a tinker proof method to extinguish annual deficits, but would also make every member of Congress immediately accountable when they would have to bring home the bill and hand it to their State’s Governor and Legislature who would be left with the responsibility and burden to make good on Congress’s irresponsible spending and borrowing! This moment of real accountability is what progressives and the friends of big government hate and fear with a passion!

As explained at the top of this thread, the proposed balanced budget amendment being promoted does not force Congress to balance the budget, nor does it specify how Congress is required to balance the budget. But the amendment’s wording, allegedly designed to balance the budget would, if added to our Constitution, effectively repeal our Constitution’s existing method to extinguish deficits!

With this in mind, one can make the case progressives are again on the move, advocating a balanced budget amendment which appears to be a noble cause, when in fact the ultimate aim is to make constitutional that which now violates the documented intentions and beliefs under which our Constitution was adopted! Isn’t this how progressive generally work? They pretend to advocate one thing, which if adopted, will open the door for something entirely different, and would vest more arbitrary power in the hands of the Washington Establishment?

This is why the proposed balanced budget amendment is such an important issue, an issue which every loyal American and Tea Party Participant must familiarize themselves with! On the surface the proposed balanced budget amendment seems to be something for concerned Americans to get behind and lend their support to, and indeed, many unsuspecting “conservativesâ€

Here is progressive sympathizing RINO John McCain pushing the phony balanced budget amendment! But why is DeMint IN THIS VIDEO?


JWK



“The Constitution is a written instrument. As such, its meaning does not alter. That which it meant when adopted, it means now. “___ South Carolina v. United States, 199 U.S. 437 (1905)