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

[johnwk]

.
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 (http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c112:H.J.RES.1.RH:...)

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 receipts” turns the entire amendment into a rubber ruler to be defined and manipulated by Congress!


Bottom line is, we need to discuss the facts surrounding the amendment and have Michele Bachmann and her so called “fellow conservatives” explain the above provisions and exactly why they are supporting such BS?


If we are going to amend our Constitution to require an annually balanced budget, then the wording must be designed to accomplish that end and not be riddled with legislative trickery designed to con the American People who are finally rising to the occasion and demanding Congress’ hands be tied to end the reckless spending and borrowing. Thomas Jefferson succinctly warned us: "In matters of Power, let no more be heard of confidence in men, but bind him down from mischief by the chains of the Constitution" I am one who listens and respects the wisdom of our founding fathers, especially their intended method to deal with deficits using an apportioned tax among the States!


JWK
We are here today and gone tomorrow, but what is most important is what we do in between, and is what our children will inherit and remember us by.

[johnwk]

Just for the record, I think DeMint and Bachmann may very well be honorable people. But that will not stop me from asking questions and questioning with boldness.

But in response to a super majority being needed under the proposal, 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 then 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 effect” the weasel wording which follows would be laughable if America’s national debt were not so grave, not to mention a mere majority vote is needed to give the finger to the entire balanced budget amendment! The flimflamery under this section is disgusting. 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 “crisis” scare tactic mentality has been used to plunder our federal treasury under TARP? How it has been used to bail out auto companies which have blood sucking unions? Has been used to send BILLIONS upon BILLIONS of American taxpayer dollars to foreign banks (http://www.freedomworks.org/blog/jborowski/federal-reserve-documents-reveal-massive-foreign-b), and used to increase the national debt beyond human comprehension?

NOTE:
Brussells and Paris based Dexia SA received 33 billion dollars
Dublin based Depfa Bank Plc received 24.5 billion dollars.
The Bank of China borrowed 198 million dolllars.
Arab Banking Corp, 29% owned by the Libyan central bank at the time, received 73 different loans.

And we, the American People are left on the hook for this money laundering scheme the federal reserve has cooked up.

But getting back to DeMint, maybe this fault in Section 6 simply slipped by DeMint and questioning the provision will bring it to his attention and he will demand to have it re-worded. But I still support the Fair Share Balanced Budget Amendment requiring each State’s Congressional Delegation returning home with a bill in hand to pay for the pork they purchase when they cannot pay for their pork with imposts, duties, (taxes at our water’s edge) and miscellaneous excise taxes on judiciously selected articles of consumption. I’m a firm supporter of our founding fathers concept of Representation with proportional obligation!

We need to always “question with boldness” !

Regards,
JWK


“Honest money and honest taxation, the Key to America’s future Prosperity“ ___ from “Prosperity Restored by the State Rate Tax Plan”, no longer in print.

[johnwk]

Friday morning I heard Doc Thompson on WRVA promoting the “cap, cut, balance” pledge and promoting the “balanced budget amendment“. But when someone called in and asked which balanced budget amendment Doc was talking about, it was clear Doc had never read the text of any of the proposed balanced budget amendments including the one promoted by members of Congress who support “cap, cut, and balance” The only thing Doc Thompson did was filibuster, cut the caller off and repeat the talking points in support of H.J.RES.1, and he offered no comments on the actual text of the amendment.

I know it is sometimes difficult for a radio talk show host to find time to do research in between doing shows, but one should study the actual text of a proposed piece of legislation before putting one’s good name behind it! And so, I’m still waiting for all those who support H.J.RES.1, to explain why they call it a balanced budget amendment when there is nothing, absolutely nothing in its text to require Congress to balanced the annual budget? It sure would interesting, for example, to hear Mark Levin (another talk show host who supports the balanced budget amendment) to answer the question. But I suspect if Mark actually read the text, he would be as outraged as I am in the weasel wording and various loopholes which have been cleverly weaved into the fake balanced budget amendment, H.J.RES 1.

Finally, I do know that the “good-cop bad-cop” con game does not work if there is no “good cop” in the game! I’m just wondering why not one of our “good cops” (Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck, Sean Hannity, Laura Ingraham, Schnitt, Doc Thompson, Mark Levin, Dennis Prager, Bill O'rielly, Mike Gallagher, Lee Rodgers, Neal Boortz. Tammy Bruce, Monica Crowley, Herman Cain …. etc..) have pointed out the fact that the so called balanced budget amendment has no provision to actually balance the budget when Congress borrows to meet its expenses, and yet, the proposed legislation is called a “balanced budget amendment”. Something stinks like a fish and it’s not our founding fathers original instruction manual, nor their Fair Share Balanced Budget method.

JWK