Joe,
I spent some time this morning and Googled “balanced Budget Amendment og 1974”, and found that we already have one that limits spending to the intake of the IRS. It’s beeen amended several times over the years with enough gobbledegook to choke a horse, but we have one. Why would Congress offer to vote in a new one without addressing the one we already have? Further, it also contains “Pay As You Go” clauses. From reading this bill, Congress has been breaking the law for the last 35 years, so why would we need another “BBA” passed this year? If Congress HAS been breaking the law for 35 years, is it not true that the funny money borrowed/ printed/ spent/due and payable an illegal act and not something the general public needs to be accountable for? We were certainly kept in the dark of all the amendments and adjustments made over the years, and certainly created the BBA on purpose to avoid the debt crisis we are undergoing today. I say the People are not responsible for this, but our Government is, and must be de- funded per fax code at that rate.
Thanks, Joe for posting this, sorry for the typos! I got a really good response from the Wicomico Patriots explaining why this has to become a Constitutional Amendment. Amending one federal law gets lost and disregardrd, obviously. But I'm going on to say it is an active law, disregarded or not, which must provide penalty. Here's their response:
ReplyDeletePay go is a Green Light for Spending. It was supposed to ensure future spending is deficit neutral and if our politicians weren't such spineless weasels it might actually work. Politicians exempted major categories of mandatory spending including SS. Medicare was limited to just 4% Pay go has no teeth and therefore is widely ignored. During the the period between 1991-2002 when pay go was in place congress spend $700Bill more w/o cuts and at the last min canceled the auto triggers to cut with in pay go. In short it needs teeth We need an amendment to the Constitution!