Nervous Dems Want Party to Embrace Balanced Budget Amendment
by PubliusFrom The Hill:
Democrats in Congress are urging their party leaders to get behind a balanced-budget amendment (BBA), fearing that Republicans will use the issue as a political weapon in 2012.
President Obama and Democratic leaders in Congress have spoken out against the need for such a measure, but rank-and-file members claim they are falling into a GOP trap.
Instead of speaking out against balancing the budget, Obama and the Democratic leadership should embrace a centrist BBA measure, some Democrats say.
Rep. Henry Cuellar (D-Texas), who introduced a proposal that gained support within the conservative Democratic Blue Dog Coalition, said he expects Republicans to use the BBA against Democrats on the campaign trail.
“Well, certainly if I was [the GOP], I would use this as a way of going after Democrats,” Cuellar said in an interview with The Hill. “And this is why the more centrist Blue Dogs have come out and done this.”
Cuellar is a low-ranking member of the House Democratic leadership team.
Read more here.
Email this to a friend | Print |
Share on Facebook
| Tweet this
| 
Follow Us on Twitter
Subscribe via RSS
Got a Tip?
104 Comments
The idea that corporations aren't hiring because of regulations is really absurd. Companies aren't hiring (primarily) because there's no demand to drive hiring, and because the economic future is still to uncertain for such an investment.
Continually lowering tax rates as companies ask for it only makes it more and more profitable for them to sit in the status quo, and incentivizes funneling money into lobbying efforts instead of hiring efforts, and waiting longer and longer to hire because we stoke the hope that next year we'll deregulate/tax taxes even further for them.
It's the same effect as if every year we dramatically increased the payouts for welfare and made it easier to access while indefinitely extending unemployment benefits. Conservatives seem to understand that if we made it continually easier for people to not work they'll choose not to, but for some reason have this blindspot when it comes to what's essentially corporate welfare. Making it easier and easier for companies to turn a profit without doing anything is not going to drive them to hire, it teaches them that the best way to make money is to bug politicians for lower taxes.
Note that they are changing their position for political reasons, not because they believe it.
Well, it's about damed time! Pass the Balanced Budget Amendment and put a stop to any radicals ever robbing our treasury without any accounting, and bankrupting America again!
Way to stay on topic. First post and you are already digressing. So, who do you like in the World Series? The Lions or the Rams?
Reality is a real bugger!
Gee….. People wont vote for me… I might not have a job pushing my political agenda, nor position to divert money to my cronies. Wow what an eye opener!
Amen! This guy and his crew of Anti-Americans are so disingenuous that it's crystal clear. Maybe traitrors is a better word. They don't really like anything about America and they've constantly robbed our tax dollars since they've been in there, so that they can 'Fundamentally Transform America' into marxism. Team Obama has to go!
The big problem about the balanced budget amendment is what about wars and emergencies?
What happens when something comes up we need to pay for? Knowing the GOP there will probably be some sort of exceptions for military funding, but I'd bet most Americans would have a problem for politicians paying for military actions at will yet struggling to support a domestic education system.
Blue Dog Democrats are an endangered species. The party has gone so far to the Left that there probably won't even be any remaining within a decade.
This won't gain any traction whatsoever. Sure, it would be pragmatic for the Dems to do it, but it would limit the government's power. That's the last thing they want to do.
I've heard plenty of Democrats (particularly from supporters of the Pee Party) say they need to "purge" the Blue Dogs from the party. They're viewed the same way Republicans view RINOs. If the Blue Dogs push a BBA, it will only intensify the rest of the party's opposition to them.
As with all things DNCPUSA, the devil is in the details, they are very like to manipulate the legalese to allow for all kinds of bull crap spending at the expense of National Security.
Don't trust them!
Just like his master in the White House, he can't help it. You've got to love the idiotic progressive/marxist who think they really understand something.
Well…they do know how to destroy, rape, murder and pillage with blinding speed and efficiency.
Who pays Wal-Mart's taxes? The money comes from customers. It's the Same with Exxon/Mobil. Not so much with Friend of Obama GE.
Cuellar is now going to be an even lower ranking Democrat in Pelosi's hierarchy.
I don't!
Sky picked the Lakers
There is plenty of money wasted on public education. Washington D.C. has the highest per student spending in the nation and the worst schools. There is waste in the defence budget too, but the results are better.
Wars no problem. We get rid of the Dept of Labor, Commerce, Transportation, HUD, ED, EPA, etc. along with their hundreds of sub-agencies and problem is solved for war. As a matter of fact, we would have a huge surplus.
Emergencies? What emergencies, outside of National Defense is the federal government empowered to deal with?
If you would oblige all of us here, please point out what Constitutional Article and Section enumerates "emergency" power to do anything outside of defense?
And please stay on topic if you are able.
So the "huge" profits for corporations primarily come from tax breaks and,……..
not from increased sales volume,…….??????
Do ya really, I mean really, really… think so….???????????
Come on Democrats,……
you can fool most of the people,……
one more time.
"Pay as you go"…????????
My own words of wisdom to them…. Enjoy the ride over the cliff your heading towards!
I thought he went with the Hartford Whalers.
The idea that corporations aren't hiring because of regulations is obvious to anyone with an understanding of economics 101. Companies aren't hiring (primarily) because there's an anti-Capitalist failure in the White House, and because the economic future is still to uncertain for such an investment. Continually lowering tax rates as companies ask for makes them reinvest in their company, and incentivizes funneling money into employee benefits. Some employers may wait longer and longer to hire because they stoke the hope that next year we'll deregulate/tax taxes even further to help them recover from the last 4 years of oppressive failure.
It's the same effect as if every year we dramatically increased the payouts for welfare and made it easier to access while indefinitely extending unemployment benefits. Conservatives seem to understand that if we made it continually easier for people to not work they'll choose not to and rather protest in the streets. For some reason the lefts thinks Wal-Mart is essentially corporate welfare. Making it easier and easier for companies to turn a profit without doing anything is what you do when you are a successful business, it teaches us that the best way to make money is persue your dreams.
Need to pay for? Like Solyndra?
You know you're WINNING when they try to steal your position and make it their own.
Um, Deep, this article was about a Balanced Budget Amendment. Who are you arguing with?
Pelosi reintroduced Pay as you go rules but after that was done the Dems declared all spedning to be an "emergency" so they could get around the rules
"because the economic future is still to uncertain for such an investment"
Exactly – same thing happened in the 1930's – nobody knew what Roosevelt was going to do next – including Roosevelt. As a result, almost no businesses invested in anything and hunkered down.
We REALLY need to change what we are teaching our kids about the depression……
Which is Missy's point exactly.
He is arguing with all of the little orange men who he claims sneak into his kitchen at night and steal all of his cabbage and drink all of his prune/carrot/strawberry smoothies.
Oh wait, that isn't Deep. That's me.
We will NEVER forget what Democrats have done to this country for the last five years. Just wait till you can't buy lightbulbs for under $3.00 in January, 2012. Democrats and compliant Republicans in Congress will find themselves looking for lobbyist jobs in 2013, God willing. All we need is to inspire Americans to donate to their opponents and stop voter fraud in every state.
So your plan is to gut all these domestic programs that Americans rely on so we can continue to fund dubious military actions on the other side of the world that arguably do more harm than good?
I hope you have enough sense to at least see why that is an extremist position, and why most Americans wouldn't agree with it.
Previous BBA have had exceptions for wars. What makes you think this one will be different? Oh, wait… I should have stopped at "think".
So your solution is an ever expanding budget that yields no results other than debt that can never be repaid? So is that how you run your household? Spend at will beyond your means to re-pay? No clue of setting aside money for an emergency? I swear, you all have no common sense at ALL!
Bless your heart. No education. This is simple and proven time and time again. Grow the economy instead of punish producers = economic growth which drives jobs. Terrorizing business and entrepreneurs = no growth, more and more unemployment. How much do you have in the stock market ?
First, "wars and emergencies?" isn't that redundant, a war IS an emergency.
With that in mind, any emergency could be handled outside of the balanced budget if such funding is approved by a 2/3rds majority in both houses. If it's really an emergency, the vote will be nearly unanimous.
The only caveat to that is the need to make sure congressional salaries and benefits can NOT be classified as an emergency. They ARE politicians, after all.
No, it's to gut all these domestic programs that definitely do Americans more harm than good.
It's what economists call "regime uncertainty" – a term formerly reserved for the risks of doing business in places like Zimbabwe or Venezuela.
Yes, well the point I was getting at is exactly why should Americans support a law like this, that would restrict the ability of the government to provide aid and support and governance for them, yet will allow continued unimpeded military budgets and actions?
Moderate Democrats are a thing of the past. If your not a card carrying liberal with a tax and spend agenda, the Democrats don't want you. We've seen Mother Jones and Ed Schultz call both Democratic Senators that voted against the Job Plan traitors. Americans don't want liberal governance.
We'll finally see what the Democratic Party has morphed into. Most Democrats will hold firm their hatred for a BBA and it will be a huge talking point in 2012.
These nervous nilly Dems should grow some backbone and remember that the Founding Fathers could have, but deliberately did not, create any balanced budget rules.
14th Amendment, Section 4:
Section 4. The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned.
If you arm is bruised, do you amputate it?
Yes the Government isn't exactly the most efficient thing right now but there are plenty of other things to do to fix it besides "Tear it down until it can barely do anything, but oh wait, make sure we can still spend as much money as we need on wars and bombing those damn arabs!"
The BBA is important, but the spending restraint tied to a per centage of GNP is the most important part. Otherwise, it's business as usual by either party.
People blasted DeepestSky for asking a very important question. What do you do if you have an emergency. Very intelligent question. It is on topic. People say he is off topic and then try to change the subject by saying a lot of money is wasted. That is not going to change with a balanced budget amendment.
In a way we already have a small version of the balanced budget amendment. It is called the super committee. Why don't you follow what is doing to see what life would be like under a BBA.
..and poop on things.
See the way the left thinks? The BBA is a good idea that was within one vote of passing Congress under Clinton; the GOP simply wants it to pass, but they think they are being "set up" so they should "get behind it."
HEY, DEMOCRATS: if you think it is a good idea, vote for it for that reason. If you believe it is a bad idea, vote against it for that reason. All of your political posturing is making me nauseous.
The law is supposed to impede the military, not the budget. You need to be barking at those who are writing or ignoring the laws governing military.
The arm thing is not even a close comparison.
Wait you mean we can restrict the ability of the government to provide aid and support and governance for them? Where the heck do I sign up?
They have to write their own version that doesn't mean what they say it means. If a true balanced budget were required, the Progressives would lose their ability to keep the vote cows on the farm for their annual vote milking.
Here is the problem though, the government was never meant to be a provider to anyone. As the people should provide for themselves. Besides, in states of emergency, you can pretty much just rely on the state and local government, don't need the federal government unless the emergency is too big for any state to handle. Very few emergencies call for that.
As for times of war, no doubt that would increase spending. Yet, in order to pay for the war would be the same way if you pay down a credit card. The government takes what money it has and pays down the war debt over a few years time. No need to increase taxes and regulations, just rebalance the budget would be all.
Let me spell this our for you.
E-N-U-M-E-R-A-T-E-D P-O-W-E-R-S
Sure, the government should not be a crutch for anyone. And plenty of people use it as one. However this is a big gap between these two sides. One side is "Lets let the government do EVERYTHING" and the other is "I don't want the government to do ANYTHING!"
I mean you literally have people here who support destroying ALL domestic programs … that's just wrong.
There needs to be middle ground. The government is spending more for sure, and it needs to cut down. But some increased spending NEEDS to be accepted due to the increase in population and the fact things simply cost more. And there is no denying taxes and revenue are at an all time low, while corporate profits and the income of the rich are at all time highs.
The bottom line is simply there needs to be compromise and intelligent discourse but no one wants that for some reason.
From what I have seen, plenty of people are using the fact that some government can be inefficient, and some government spending was misguided, and using it to propel their "Small government" platform. Just because the government took a few missteps, means we need to tear it down according to them.
Folks, the GOP could make it a HOUSE RULE that no spending legislation shall pass the House that is in deficit. It could then run on the notion that as long as republicans hold Majority in the HOUSE, that will not change.
There is no need to fiddle with the Constitution here. The Authority to do this ALREADY exists within the Constitution.
First, in the ability of the House to set its own rules and the fact it controls raising of revenues.
Second, though the 14th amendment. Hilariously, some trolls try to play like the AMOUNT of the debt is unquestionable, like it can grow forever without question, when the reality is that the AMOUNT is to be set by the legislature with legislative action and that what is actually set and spent cannot be questioned – as if it is not owed.
Progressives always try to make the Constitution say something it doesn't say and mean something it doesn't mean. Liars, the lot of them.
The GOP could do this TOMMORROW if it wanted to do so . They choose NOT to do so in just the same kind of political game that Democrats are tagged on this thread for playing.
Wake up folks. The GOP is not the answer.
A middle ground? How about they try just a little bit to root out the corruption in these programs. As soon as someone dares mention an overhaul of such programs they are considered the enemy…so it all needs to go so we can rebuild.
Pigford is another shinning example of failure, something that should have never happened yet here we are.
DemoncRATS and a BALANCED BUDGET? You must be joking!
No no ..it is not misguided at all. It is deliberately guided to special interests and lobbyists pet projects. It is a complete failure. If the government was a business it would have closed and been burnt down by the townspeople long ago.
and targeting the rich is pure political
Then what is targeting the poor? Because that's what absolutely no need for domestic government programs does.
Why is it class warfare when it targets the rich, but it's "shared sacrifice" when it targets the middle and lower classes?
It is deliberately guided to special interests and lobbyists pet projects.
Don't be so naive, this is exactly what your conservative politicians do too. Tax breaks for companies that are making record profits … subsidies for industries that don't need them anymore.
The lobbying industry works for the top 1% in this country.
Well, you are an expert on naivety.
even if you type slower, it won't work. deaf ears.
Incase you haven't noticed, I never said any of that. As I hate class warfare.
Here is the solution to the problem. First would be to cut all government spending by eliminating many domestic programs to. Second would be to scrap our tax system and move to a more streamline fair tax so that everyone pays at an equal rate. Third, would be to get government out of businesses and allow them to grow more, and as businesses can grow and create those of the poor can move up on their own. Forth, as growth in the private sector starts, the government gets plenty of revenue for what is needed, and both the poor and unemployment shrink. Fifth, As the tax rates were cut from earlier, it would bring many businesses overseas back and create even more growth.
See, an actual solution and no stupid class warfare at all. Oh yea, "shared sacrifice" is a term used by the Dems on making the rich pay more. Thus is the Dems support for class warfare.
Wait, I just got a private e-mail from him. He said he didn't know the USFL season had started yet.
If you are referring to the Founders, you want:
Article I, Section 8
The Congress shall have Power . . . to pay the Debts . . .;
To borrow Money on the credit of the United States;
Article VI
All Debts contracted and Engagements entered into, before the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be as valid against the United States under this Constitution, as under the Confederation.
The 14th Amendment merely reiterated that adding a specific guarantee of Civil War debts and a specific exemption of Confederate debts.
There's still holes in that. If you eliminate x government programs, how many jobs is that? I understand conservatives think government jobs are subhuman but that's y amount of unemployed added on to our unemployment rate (which people already have no problem blasting Obama about).
And based on the programs conservatives seem to target, we will no longer have unemployment aid, or job training aid, or job placement programs. How is this going to help?
I understand in the ideal world the majority will be self sufficient and not require constant government aid but this is a people problem but that's simply not reality right now.
I still never got a good answer as to why conservatives seem to think the private sector is superman who desperately wants to save the day but is being held back by that pesky government.
Another lib moron who hasn't ever run a corp. speaks (defecates from his mouth)
LOL
There hasn't been a war worth funding since WW2. One can easily write an exception for threat of ACTUAL, MASSIVE attack on US.
Other than that, your post is just trolling.
Here we go again.
Your first statement is dead wrong. Conservatives don't thing any job is subhuman. It is the fact that we need to focus on private jobs as those are what create real growth and lower unemployment, and those in the government can move into the private sector anyway.
You are aware that none of those programs you mentioned actually work. We have continued unemployment aid and that has shown no positive results. As for job training and job placement programs, those programs never work. If you want real job training, private jobs to offer their own training courses with no government aid.
In order to get the people self sufficient again, we have to end the programs that are making them dependent in the first place. You cant just blindly have people dependent on the government and expect any good results about it.
Your last statement is very easy there. As the private sector is where most of the economic growth, ingenuity, creativity, profits and success is made. The government holds it back by loads of taxes, endless red tape and support of overbearing unions. If the government limits its taxes and regulations, and unions become completely optional and limited in power, then our economy will grow again.
You have to realize, government is not the solution, government is the problem.
From the Article, President Obama's words, This summer, he told reporters, “We don’t need a constitutional amendment to do our jobs. The Constitution already tells us to do our jobs — and to make sure that the government is living within its means and making responsible choices.”"
I beg to differ Mr. President, it appears that yes indeed an Amendment is needed to get our elected officials to do their job.
Dems voting for a REAL balanced budget amend is as likely as a crack addict voting to make crack dealing a capital offense…
Hahahaha…Stop, you're killing me. I can't get this out of my head now.
It is shameful that the question of a balanced budget should become politicized. Both sides should be pushing to balance the budget not because they need to be re-elected but because it is the right thing to do now and for the future of this country.
Yep…all of these and the "Cowboy Poetry Festival" that so MANY Americans rely on everyday.
Most Amercians? You are confusing Taxpaying American Citizens with those who are trying to KILL THE USA from within. MOST Americans have no issue with subverting and destroying those who are more than willing and able to kill us from your "overseas contingency operation".
LOL are they orange? I've never seen them, just the smoothie/cabbage aftermath.
Normally, they are except during their annual larval stage when the listen exclusively to Toni Basil sing "Mickey" in Urdu while accompanied by bagpipes.
Constitutional Article and Section please…..
And Amendments force them somehow to do their jobs? Make no mistake, I am the last one who would defend Barry, but think about what you are saying.
We have a thing called a Second Amendment. Illinoisans cannot bear, cannot carry, firearms without being punished as a felon.
No, Sir. Amendments do not force them to do their jobs…..they do whatever they want whenever they want by the rules they set for themselves.
Facts are not his friends.
Again, I ask the question….What Constitutional Article and Section do you find the authority enumerated to the US government to establish and fund your oh, so precious "domestic programs".
There is no middle ground here. Compromise with what? Tyranny with a little mix of federally funded abortions as freedom? It is either a Republican form of government via established Constitutional rule of law, oooooor, tyranny by those few in power, a.k.a democracy.
Nice try with the "corporate profits and the income of the rich are at all time highs" BS. I'm taking a wild stab in the dark here but haven't you ever heard of the 10th Commandment?
"They're viewed the same way Republicans view RINOs"
That's not true. If blue-dog dems were viewed like RINOs, they'd be at the head of the Democratic party.
Marxists rule the Dems, and the RINOpublican party.
"These nervous nilly Dems should grow some backbone and remember that the Founding Fathers could have, but deliberately did not, create any balanced budget rules. "
That's because the founding fathers were saintly holy men by comparison of the thugs we currently have in office. Unless we have a death penalty for deficit spending and that is enforced by a special independent prosecutor at all times, politicians will spend like there's no tomorrow because by then, they'll be retired and out of office.
"Tax breaks for companies that are making record profits" -Like Obama's GE or GM
"subsidies for industries that don't need them anymore" -Like the entire renewable energy scam
SPIN FAIL
What's even more shameful is the Democratzi's ability to inject racism into the question of a balanced budget.
The constitution is a living document…/sarc
Bam!
Nah, can't be the Lakers, they're busy holding out against their corporate masters and stickin' it to the MAN for more money.
Because one is a mandated function of the COTUS while the others are not?
Every "job" government creates is really a parasite sucking wealth out of the private system. If government actually produced its own wealth like a private company does, then it would create legitimate jobs rather then parasitic ones.
Normal people save money for emergencies. Wait, change that. Prudent people save money for emergencies, normal people go up to their eyeballs in debt and then wonder why they keep needing to file bankruptcy.
Of course, they want to be "for" it, but don't want it to actually pass. Still, it would be nice if the idiots were useful to us, for a change.
Uncertainty is why companies aren't hiring. Uncertainty in health care costs, tax costs, and regulations. Moreover, this administration has shown its willingness to work outside what are considered business "diplomatic" rules by which corportations do business. For this administration to put the unions ahead of secured creditors in the bankruptcy of GM and Chrysler was the nail in this administrations coffin. Investors (many of which are actually corporations that invest in expanding their own business) have decided that this administration can't be trusted to abide by longstanding laws and rules of the business world.
It is ironic that in past years many investors would flee with their capital to the US, as we were considered the safest place to put your money during turbulent times, as we were a nation of laws. I see from your wonderful rating you are nothing but a troll intent on driving up your negative number as far as possible. I won't help you with another thumbs down, but maybe, just maybe you'll read this and understand the perspective of someone who is not within your circle of aquaintences and who has a divergent opinion from yours. When I read your diatribe, your flow of logic (if it could be called that) is so full of holes, as to not make you a serious debater. We welcome divergent opinions, provided they are tendered in good faith, yours seem to have been written by Karl Marx.
The record profits are not based on higher profits per unit, they are based on more units sold. Your idea of profits as somehow "wrong" is simply not an arguable premise. It smacks of childish gobbledygook thinking that runs so rampant from those steeped in Marxist theory–which is what you have just espoused.
Your "few missteps" are not few and are deliberate applications of a historically failed and currently failing economic theory designed to break healthy economies in order to grow govt control of said economies and their people. The guy who wrote the theory said this would happen if applied as it has been.
So, the Founders did their work in 1866, there was no famine in the Soviet Union of the 1930s, and the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor. Do I have that right, genius?
A balanced budget amendment in theory is a worthy endeavor. However, it is unclear how it could possibly get a two-thirds vote of both House and Senate in the 112th Congress. At least one-third of each is hardcore leftists who would rather shut down government than have their ability to tax and spend truly and effectively shut down forever. The only way it will get through, even as part of a deal to raise the debt ceiling, would be if it as full of loopholes as PAY-GO.
If we are going to devote resources to a constitutional amendment in the 112th Congress, let's put through an amendment to the amendment process itself which will eliminate the unnecessary convention now required by Article V and permit States to directly initiate amendment proposals. This will break the current de facto federal congressional and judicial monopoly on interpreting the Constitution, and permit grassroots patriots on the state level to pass a real balanced budget amendment.
In addition, other constitutional amendments restoring federalism could then be pursued on the state level without having to go to Washington for approval. Only this will permanently constrain future federal overreach of the sort rejected by the people last year. See http://www.timelyrenewed.com
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/nervous...
"There needs to be middle ground."
There is no middle ground. Either the federal government has authority under the Constitution to undertake an activity or it does not. If it is not in the Constitution as a federal activity then that is left to the States and the People.
Better analogy would be: If you've bloated your belly over 50 lbs. then yes, you should get rid of it.
IOW: you keep what are authorized federal functions under the Constitution. All else belongs to the States and People.
You do realize that companies do not pay the taxes? They are included in the cost of the product or service. IOW you the consumer have to pay more for your products and services. Reducing the taxes for companies means reduced prices for consumers. DUHHHHHH
BTW: if you actually looked at the numbers instead spewing progressive propaganda, you would see that "record" profits come from "record" sales.
You must be logged in to post a comment.