Thread: Is DeMint’s 'Cut, Cap, Balance' Pledge a stunt?

.

SEE: Can Conservatives' 'Cut, Cap and Balance Pledge' Cure Spending Problem?




I think it could very well be a fund raising stunt because it gives the impression those who sign the pledge and are promoting it are really concerned about ending the Washington Establishment’s suicidal spending and borrowing. But when one takes the time to actually read their idea of a balanced budget amendment, they soon learn it is cleverly worded to allow Congress’ current reckless spending and borrowing to continue un-abated.

For the text of the amendment and its supporters see H.J.RES.1

Here are some facts concerning the proposal:


FACT:


`Section 1. Of the BBA which Bachmann supports allows Congress to override the amendment when 261 House members and 60 Senators agree to ignore the provisions of the amendment.


FACT:


`Section 2. Provides total outlays for any fiscal year shall not exceed one-fifth of economic output of the United States, unless two-thirds of each House of Congress shall provide for a specific increase of outlays above this amount. The phrase “one-fifth of economic output of the United States“ is not defined in the Section and makes the Section a rubber ruler to be manipulated by those in Washington who now cause our economic misery.


FACT:


`Section 3. Provides that 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. But, Section 6 allows this provisions to be ignored by a mere majority vote!


FACT:


`Section 5. Provides that a bill to increase revenue shall not become law unless three-fifths of the whole number of each House shall provide by law for such an increase by a rollcall vote. But, Section 6 allows Section 5 to also be ignored by a mere majority vote!


FACT:


`Section 7. Provides that Congress shall enforce and implement this article by appropriate legislation, which may rely on estimates of outlays and receipts. “Estimates of outlays and receiptsâ€

Demint is a true Patriot and I support him big time.

I think that its a good faith attempt and not just a scheme in disguise. To get enough support and to NOT be overridden at a later date one needs to accept some compromises and willingness to break out that credit card when its really needed. However from what I read this makes politicians names more accountable for bypassing this along with easier for people to see who's really trying to balance the budget.

I can also see flaws with having a balanced budget law strike back at us. What if tomarrow the law is passed and next week WW3 breaks out and we're attacked? We have a balanced budget law (or Amendment) and for us now to defend ourselves as a nation we must basically cut all other spending in the government? How long will the bickering take to decide what we cut so we can simply defend ourselves? I can also see multiple other potential issues from such a law w/o a loophole in it to allow a way around it when needed.

Still one must have a super majority support to get it accepted along with it won't be so easy to hide who's for what least imo.

Originally Posted by ReformUSA2012

Still one must have a super majority support to get it accepted along with it won't be so easy to hide who's for what least imo.

Look, I too think DeMint and also Bachmann are honorable people. But that will not stop me from asking questions and questioning with boldness.

But in response to a super majority being needed, the fact is
`Section 6. states: The Congress may waive the provisions of this article for any fiscal year in which a declaration of war is in effect. This sounds good, but the Section continues: 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. And so, a mere majority vote gets to set the entire Amendment aside!

After the words “declaration of war is in effectâ€

Hmm I see your point now. Yah it may then be a farce but it could still assist in the end.... maybe. But yah that section needs some major alteration such as requiring a super majority and cutting out the military conflict part or better.

Originally Posted by ReformUSA2012

Hmm I see your point now. Yah it may then be a farce but it could still assist in the end.... maybe. But yah that section needs some major alteration such as requiring a super majority and cutting out the military conflict part or better.

Mark Levin, although I love him and wish I had his gift of gab, did not explain to his listening audience the proposed balanced budget amendment is a fraud being perpetrated upon the American People by the Washington Establishment, and it’s a fraud because it does not provide the procedure to extinguish a deficit when Congress borrows to meet expenses during the course of a fiscal year.


Reasonable people would agree emergencies may arise and Congress may be compelled to borrow to meet expenses. And a specific vote in Congress ought to determine the legitimacy of when an emergency arises, and is what the proposed balanced budget amendment does accomplish. But what we are really talking about, in regard to a legitimate balanced budget amendment is, once Congress borrows and spends more than is brought in from its normal means of raising a revenue to finance an emergency, what is the fixed rule by which to extinguish the debt created by borrowing for that emergency, and would thus satisfy the goal of an annually balanced budget?


Our founding fathers intended use of the “apportioned tax among the Statesâ€