Balanced Budget Amendment

[bhsup]

To finally wade into this.... No, I do not support a federal balanced budget amendment. I used to in my past but as I age and become ever slightly more liberal with each passing year (WTH, that's backwards!!) I've come to recognize the stupidity of the idea.

What I -do- support is a Constitutional amendment granting the President line-item veto powers since the Supreme Court decides that was unconstitutional after the Republican congress gave Clinton said power per their Contract with America.

 

[Murky]

If by experts you mean the American voter, then I think I do.

The amendment wouldn't get a public vote. It would first go to a committee who would question a panel of experts. Then the people in the committee form an opinion on if it's worth going forward. Hopefully, the people on the committee will not be ideology driven enough to push it if it doesn't hold up to scrutiny by the experts.

 

[Joecoolyo]

To finally wade into this.... No, I do not support a federal balanced budget amendment. I used to in my past but as I age and become ever slightly more liberal with each passing year (WTH, that's backwards!!) I've come to recognize the stupidity of the idea.

What I -do- support is a Constitutional amendment granting the President line-item veto powers since the Supreme Court decides that was unconstitutional after the Republican congress gave Clinton said power per their Contract with America.

You support line-item veto? It gives the president way too much legislative powers IMO, and only the legislative branch should be legislating.

 

[bhsup]

Absolutely I support it. It gives the President the ability to deal with huge omnibus bills containing a million things that have nothing to do with one another. This leads to issues where a President feels constrained to pass it because it has several critical items that ARE important, but also a buttload of riders that are just porky fat fluff.

I think this, more than anything short of an actual balanced budget amendment, would do wonders in our attempt to cut excess spending.

 

[Cutlass]

Absolutely I support it. It gives the President the ability to deal with huge omnibus bills containing a million things that have nothing to do with one another. This leads to issues where a President feels constrained to pass it because it has several critical items that ARE important, but also a buttload of riders that are just porky fat fluff.

I think this, more than anything short of an actual balanced budget amendment, would do wonders in our attempt to cut excess spending.

The framers of the Constitution assumed, and intended, that Congress be dominant over the executive.....

 

[bhsup]

But when Congress fails to act in an adult and responsible manner, it is necessary to change the rules. The framers understood the Constitution might need amending and allowed for the possibility of change.

 

[Cutlass]

But when Congress fails to act in an adult and responsible manner, it is necessary to change the rules. The framers understood the Constitution might need amending and allowed for the possibility of change.

Glad to see you'll be voting for Obama.

 

[GhostWriter16]

Glad to see you'll be voting for Obama.

You know VRWC is a hardcore Mitt supporter. He even LIKES the guy whereas the rest of the guy just tolerates him because they hate the Kenyan Muslim President

 

[bugwar]

Hopefully, the people on the committee will not be ideology driven enough to push it if it doesn't hold up to scrutiny by the experts.

If by ‘ideology driven’ you mean heed the wishes of the voters who put them in office as their public servants,
I would not think ill of them if they succumbed to that temptation.

 

[bugwar]

I've come to recognize the stupidity of the idea.

OK, that was short and to the point.
Care to enumerate the reasoning behind that thought?

 

[Leoreth]

If by ‘ideology driven’ you mean heed the wishes of the voters who put them in office as their public servants,
I would not think ill of them if they succumbed to that temptation.

Representatives should have the interests of their voters in mind.

 

[bugwar]

The framers of the Constitution assumed, and intended, that Congress be dominant over the executive.....

As ‘VRWCAgent’ put it so well, the framers knew that things change, sh*t happens, and needs evolve.
There is a good reason for the amendment clause in the Constitution, and high time we used it.

 

[Cutlass]

As ‘VRWCAgent’ put it so well, the framers knew that things change, sh*t happens, and needs evolve.
There is a good reason for the amendment clause in the Constitution, and high time we used it.

But not for that. The power is simply far too great.

 

[GhostWriter16]

But not for that. The power is simply far too great.

On the one hand, I sympathize with VRWC's logic To throw out a random example, if there's a bill dealing with tax rates and a gay marriage thing gets thrown on there (That's just a random example) I could see the President being able to say "This gay marriage crap has nothing to do with the economy and so does not fit in this bill."

On the other hand, it would certainly be abused to manipulate bills, even if all of the elements of the bill are interrelated.

There might be a way to amend the constitution to allow the President only to remove unrelated elements, or better, to only allow a bill to cover one broad topic at the time (So you can't slide some abortion subsidies on the sly into a completely unrelated bill, or the like) but I don't know if that's workable.

 

[Murky]

If by ‘ideology driven’ you mean heed the wishes of the voters who put them in office as their public servants,
I would not think ill of them if they succumbed to that temptation.

People don't always vote in their own best interest. I'd estimate the most people would have a problem with a BBA if they knew the consequences.

 

[Cutlass]

On the one hand, I sympathize with VRWC's logic To throw out a random example, if there's a bill dealing with tax rates and a gay marriage thing gets thrown on there (That's just a random example) I could see the President being able to say "This gay marriage crap has nothing to do with the economy and so does not fit in this bill."

On the other hand, it would certainly be abused to manipulate bills, even if all of the elements of the bill are interrelated.

There might be a way to amend the constitution to allow the President only to remove unrelated elements, or better, to only allow a bill to cover one broad topic at the time (So you can't slide some abortion subsidies on the sly into a completely unrelated bill, or the like) but I don't know if that's workable.

On the other hand, it would all be eliminate Congress's ability to do anything at all.

 

[JollyRoger]

There President already has several tools available to line item veto in a practical sense.

 

[Akkon888]

The whole problem with these omnibus billing strategies lie in Congress being unable to use common sense.

Do we need Congress to ratify an amendment forcing them to use common sense?

 

[bhsup]

I would prefer to use a 10,000 volt cattle prod up their backside, but that would probably be considered illegal, so yeah we need an amendment.

 

[GhostWriter16]

On the other hand, it would all be eliminate Congress's ability to do anything at all.

This is, at its core, a very, very positive thing.

So we agree we should do it then?

Anything that makes congress do LESS is a positive in my mind