Thread: Sen. DeMint’s deceptive balanced budget amendment

If there is any single issue which smokes out and identifies progressive thinking low life politicians, balancing the federal budget on an annual basis would surely be among the top ten picks. So, let us take a look at the most recent proposal to balance the annual budget to see if it is really designed to force an annually balanced federal budget.

Sen DeMint, [SC] introduced the following proposal on 2/4/2010 which has 16 co-sponsors:

Sen Burr, Richard [NC]
Sen Chambliss, Saxby [GA]
Sen Coburn, Tom [OK]
Sen Cornyn, John [TX]
Sen Crapo, Mike [ID]
Sen Ensign, John [NV]
Sen Enzi, Michael B. [WY]
Sen Graham, Lindsey [SC]
Sen Inhofe, James M. [OK]
Sen Isakson, Johnny [GA]
Sen Kyl, Jon [AZ]
Sen LeMieux, George S. [FL]
Sen McCain, John [AZ]
Sen Risch, James E. [ID]
Sen Sessions, Jeff [AL]
Sen Vitter, David [LA]

S.J.RES.27 -- Proposing a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution of the United States

(editorial comments are in bold)

`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: Under Section 1, the amendment immediately states how it may be overruled 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: Under Section 2, the very intentions for the amendment [putting an end to increasing the national debt] can be subverted by allowing Congress to increase the national debt without providing specific taxes equaling the increase in the national debt.

`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: Section 3 is absolutely meaningless and an illusion to portray fiscal responsibility. Have we not just learned with the recent health care proposal debate how projected figures can be manipulated by our Executive to portray legislation in which outlays and receipts are in balance when they are not?

`Section 4. A bill to increase the internal revenue shall require for final adoption in each House the concurrence of two-thirds of the whole number of that House by rollcall vote.

NOTE: While Section 4 discourages taxes to be increased by requiring a two-thirds vote in each House, the amendment encourages Congress to simply increase the national debt by a three fifths vote in both Houses.


`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.

[b]NOTE: The flimflamery under Section 5 is most remarkable. In addition to setting the amendment aside as stated in Section 1, a simple majority vote in 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“. Have we not just seen how this “crisisâ€

Let's see...how to correct this?

1. Term Limits
2. No 100% Retirement plans for Congress
3. Same Health Plan as Public
4. Laws apply to Congress as it does to the Public
5. Prosecute Congressional members

Think that about covers it???

I don't think thateNeither "party" has done a lot for the American people individually, but quite a lot for global corporations and the lining of the elites pockets and race baiting.
Any person in congress that promotes one race over another either through special caucus or by passing laws that give preference are guilty of race preference should be removed. JMO

[quote="johnwk"]If there is any single issue which smokes out and identifies progressive thinking low life politicians, balancing the federal budget on an annual basis would surely be among the top ten picks. So, let us take a look at the most recent proposal to balance the annual budget to see if it is really designed to force an annually balanced federal budget.

Sen DeMint, [SC] introduced the following proposal on 2/4/2010 which has 16 co-sponsors:

Sen Burr, Richard [NC]
Sen Chambliss, Saxby [GA]
Sen Coburn, Tom [OK]
Sen Cornyn, John [TX]
Sen Crapo, Mike [ID]
Sen Ensign, John [NV]
Sen Enzi, Michael B. [WY]
Sen Graham, Lindsey [SC]
Sen Inhofe, James M. [OK]
Sen Isakson, Johnny [GA]
Sen Kyl, Jon [AZ]
Sen LeMieux, George S. [FL]
Sen McCain, John [AZ]
Sen Risch, James E. [ID]
Sen Sessions, Jeff [AL]
Sen Vitter, David [LA]

S.J.RES.27 -- Proposing a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution of the United States

(editorial comments are in bold)

`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: Under Section 1, the amendment immediately states how it may be overruled 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: Under Section 2, the very intentions for the amendment [putting an end to increasing the national debt] can be subverted by allowing Congress to increase the national debt without providing specific taxes equaling the increase in the national debt.

`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: Section 3 is absolutely meaningless and an illusion to portray fiscal responsibility. Have we not just learned with the recent health care proposal debate how projected figures can be manipulated by our Executive to portray legislation in which outlays and receipts are in balance when they are not?

`Section 4. A bill to increase the internal revenue shall require for final adoption in each House the concurrence of two-thirds of the whole number of that House by rollcall vote.

NOTE: While Section 4 discourages taxes to be increased by requiring a two-thirds vote in each House, the amendment encourages Congress to simply increase the national debt by a three fifths vote in both Houses.


`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.

[b]NOTE: The flimflamery under Section 5 is most remarkable. In addition to setting the amendment aside as stated in Section 1, a simple majority vote in 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“. Have we not just seen how this “crisisâ€

Originally Posted by Newmexican

I don't think thateNeither "party" has done a lot for the American people individually, but quite a lot for global corporations and the lining of the elites pockets and race baiting.
Any person in congress that promotes one race over another either through special caucus or by passing laws that give preference are guilty of race preference should be removed. JMO

I totally agree. These race and ethnic based caucuses are definitely guilty of race and ethnic preference. How this ever got started in Congress is beyond me.

Originally Posted by manlyva153

Let's see...how to correct this?

1. Term Limits
2. No 100% Retirement plans for Congress
3. Same Health Plan as Public
4. Laws apply to Congress as it does to the Public
5. Prosecute Congressional members

Think that about covers it???

I agree on all fronts. Especially #1. Term limits for everyone. It makes no sense why they can have term limits for president and governors, but not congress. These crooks should never be in power for like 25-50 years and end up being removed only after they are dead. The founding fathers did not meant for their positions to be career positions.

Term limits:

House reps should get max 6 2 yr terms equaling 12 years.
Senate should get max 3 4 yr terms equaling 12 years.

After their terms are fully exhausting they can never again be eligible to run for office. Same rule applies if you get voted out. If you get voted out, you can't run again.

Only natural born citizens can run for office, no anchors, no naturalized citizens born of foreign countries and proof of natural born citizenship must be proven and verified with an authenticate US birth certificate. None of this Obama fake excuse making BS.

They need to make it law that big businesses and special interest groups can't donate to politicians or political parties. Only individual donations and they should be limited to at most 100k per person.

Finally they should make it a constitutional amendment that the borders must be secured at all times and any politician who works to subvert this cause to keep Americans safe will be criminally prosecuted, including presidents.

Dman1200 said:

Only natural born citizens can run for office, no anchors, no naturalized citizens born of foreign countries and proof of natural born citizenship must be proven and verified with an authenticate US birth certificate. None of this Obama fake excuse making BS.

They need to make it law that big businesses and special interest groups can't donate to politicians or political parties. Only individual donations and they should be limited to at most 100k per person.

I so totally 100% agree with this. Absolutely.