Showing posts with label Balanced Budget Amendment. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Balanced Budget Amendment. Show all posts

Thursday, August 4, 2011

The Fast of Tisha B'av, The Two Kamtzas and the Debt Ceiling Debate



On the evening of Aug. 8th, Jews across the world begin their observance of the fast of Tisha B’Av, mourning the loss of the two Jerusalem Temples (and many more calamities to the Jewish people). The Talmud tells us the cause of the Second Temple’s destruction was senseless hatred and political insults.

We are taught that during the first century CE,  a man threw a party and intended to invite his good friend Kamtza. His servant screwed up and mistakenly invited the host’s enemy, Bar Kamtza. This led to the insulting of Bar Kamtza, his slandering of the Jewish people to Caesar, and Bar Kamtza’s purposeful wounding of an animal Caesar sent to the Holy Temple to be sacrificed as a peace offering making it unfit to be used.

The offering was rejected by the Great Sanhedrin (think of the Sanhedrin as a Rabbinical Supreme Court whose 71  Judges were some of the wisest  scholars who ever lived.) The Sanhedrin met at the Holy Temple in Jerusalem until it was destroyed, after which they moved to Tiberius where today sits the Holy Land's greatest Kosher Chinese restaurant, Pagoda (personally I do not believe that is a coincidence, from this we learned that the wise Rabbis of the Great Sanhedrin enjoyed take out now and then).

Anyway, Caesar took  the fact that his animals was rejected as a political insult and rebellious move  so he invaded, resulting in the destruction of the Holy Temple.

The public insulting of one man by one other man steamrolled out of control with the ultimate consequence of the destruction of the Holy Temple, and the exile of the Jewish people from Israel (and the ultimate Kosher Chinese place)  for almost 1900 years. 

The story of the Kamtzas is apropos for the solemn day of Tisha B’Av,  but is also be a warning for America following two months of a debt ceiling debate riddled with personal insult and hateful rhetoric.

Despite the insults within and between both political parties, the compromise deal gives a political victory for some and though impotent in a cost cutting way,  it does provide an opening for our leadership to take use this "starting point" as a platform for the additional change necessary so the United States may avoid the Greece scenario and return to fiscal heath.

Although many in the movement would vehemently deny it, the big winner in the debate is the tea party movement. As recently as June 22nd the progressive Democratic Party were talking about a new stimulus package as part of a debt ceiling bill...but thanks to the tea party movement that scenario is long dead. The tea party movement switched the debate from “spending vs. cutting,” to how “much should be cut and/or from where,” a huge accomplishment.

Major tea party demands going into the talks were achieved; no new taxes and cuts to the deficit larger than any increase in the debt ceiling. The biggest demand not achieved through the negotiation was the passage of the Balanced Budget Amendment (BBA). The bill passed by the House required that the Senate pass the Amendment, while the final compromise merely requires a vote. The difference is a huge one.  Since almost all of the states have a balanced budget requirement of some sort, and polls report that somewhere between 70-75% of voters want a BBA, once passed by two-thirds of each house of Congress this amendment is likely to "speed" its way thorough the state approval process (75% of the States must approve for it to be added to the constitution). A BBA would most certainly pass the house, house but will be rejected by the progressive-controlled Senate whose members are reluctant to give up their unlimited credit card.

Speaker Boehner and Minority Leader McConnell were also winners. They held to the "no new taxes" pledge despite rumors they had folded. Boehner gets more credit as he was the face of the opposition, took most of the heat, and showed himself willing to compromise not only with Democrats but with his own coalition to make a deal happen.

Opinion polls also reflected a voter demand that the the two sides play nice together, however the progressive strategy ignored the public will. They tried to falsely brand the tea party movement as evil, stubborn terrorists whose only desire was to push granny off a cliff and ride their private jets to the yacht club (like Democratic Senator John Kerry?).

President Obama was the big loser. When the United States needed a leader he was a fear-monger. There was never a chance of the country defaulting on its debts, even without a debt ceiling increase the regular influx of tax dollars proved for the payment of the interest on the debt, medicare, medicaid, payment of all salary and other obligations to military and tens of millions of take out orders from the Tiberius Chinese place.   Rather than explaining the real reasons he felt the increase necessary the President preferred to use frightening rhetoric about defaulting thus rattling an already shaky investment community. Obama also demonized GOP Congressmen who were part of the tea party movement, for being extreme, or being terrorists "holding a gun to our heads" when they   simply trying to keep campaign promises (remember when that was a good thing?) .

On top of the slanders from the government, their lapdogs in the mainstream media blindly followed their lead. One extreme example is Martin Bashir of MSNBC who interviewed Stanton Peele, a psychologist and an "expert on addiction,"trying to prove  that Tea Partiers ‘Delusional’ Addicts.



Obama's demand that any agreement go past the 2012 election, extended the crises an additional week and undoubtedly will be exploited by  his eventual opponent who will justifiably claim  Obama chose politics over the needs of the country.

The President's relationship with Democrats in Congress was severely damaged by this debate. Senior Party members felt Obama’s reluctance to commit on a plan of his own, demonstrated a lack of leadership leaving them to twist in the wind. Party leaders didn’t want speeches, they wanted Obama to roll up his sleeves and come up with his own deal.

Most members of the liberal wing of the Democratic party were horrified by the details of the compromise. Influential Democratic Rep John Conyers didn't blame the deal on tea party pressure, he said that the House GOP Caucus was simply doing what they were elected to do. Conyers a senior House Democrat placed the blame squarely on  the shoulders of Barack Obama.  He called for a massive rally outside the White House to "educate" President Obama.

The ever-hapless Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid was a victim. He had negotiated a deal with the GOP a week before the final deal was struck, but the POTUS nixed the deal, leaving Reid to waste the next five days demonizing the Boehner plan (which Reid helped to write). An Obama plan would have prevented this delay and embarrassment.

Looking to the crystal ball this compromise achieved little real savings. Prior to any the deal it was projected  the national debt will grow from the present $14.5 trillion to $26 trillion in ten years. When  the deal  is factored in, the projection drops to a bit to just over $24 trillion, still an unsustainable burden on the economy.

As the American economy continues to slide toward insolvency, it is urgent our leaders keep spending under control and it that control has to start with each politicians worst nightmare,  entitlement reform. Last year entitlements such as Social Security and Medicare accounted 56% of the total US Budget, with the onset of real Obamacare spending in 2014 entitlement costs will grow dramatically.

Sadly most politicians try to avoid that issue.  The liberal side of our government chooses turn any discussion of entitlement reform as an opportunity to demonize the reformer. For example Congressman Paul Ryan's reform plan was quickly followed with a Democratic party ad showing a Paul Ryan look alike pushing his wheel-chair bound grandmother down a hill and off a cliff, a prototypic example of the nasty progressive rhetoric during this round of the budget debate.

Those who objectively followed the discussion over the past few months, saw the GOP bashing Democratic party proposals with facts and charts, but the Democrat's arguments against Republican plans were void of any facts, but laden with histrionics and name-calling.


This compromise was a small victory in the battle to keep the United States  from the abyss of over-indebtedness. As pressure-filled this first skirmish was, future ones will be worse, as they will have to deal with the more emotional issues surrounding entitlement reform.

In order for our country to survive,  our leaders will have to cut our spending without cutting each others throats by falling into the typical Democratic party strategy of  insults, ego and vitriolic rhetoric. As we learned in the story of the Kamtzas hateful words are sufficient go begin a process here the holiest place on earth is destroyed, imagine what it could do to  country, although great does not posses the holiness of the Second Temple.

Sunday, July 31, 2011

Boehner Releases "Sell Piece" Giving Details Of Compromise (Embedded)

 Embedded below is a power point Presentation sent out by the Speaker to sell the House on the compromise deal worked out between GOP leadership and the POTUS this weekend. I received the presentation from a Congressional Staffer so I know its legit.

As we stand right now, Harry Reid has endorsed the plan  pending approval of his caucus.  McConnell and Boehner negotiated the plan and endorse it, and irony of ironies, Nancy Pelosi wants to read the full bill before she gives an opinion.

This is a huge victory for the Conservative wing of the party.
TWO-STEP APPROACH TO HOLD PRESIDENT OBAMA ACCOUNTABLE
Emerging framework has three main features:
(1) cuts government spending more than it increases the debt limit;
(2) implements spending caps to restrain future spending;
(3) advances the cause of a Balanced Budget Amendment
Framework accomplishes this without tax hikes, which would
destroy jobs, while preventing a job-killing national default.

As Far as the BBA, well sorry Jennifer Rubin, the deal calls for a BBA vote, but it doesn't  require its passage, but there is a penalty if the BBA is not sent to the states:
BALANCED BUDGET AMENDMENT
‣ Same as House-passed bill, framework requires both House & Senate to vote on a BBA
after Oct. 1, 2011 but before the end of year.
‣ Similar to House-passed bill, framework authorizes POTUS to request second tranche of
debt limit increase of $1.5T if:
‣ Joint Committee cuts spending by greater amount than the requested debt limit hike,
OR
‣ A Balanced Budget Amendment is sent to the states.
‣ Creates incentive for previous opponents of a BBA to now support it.

Read the full plan below. (If you cannot see the embedded presentation below please click here) And make sure to look below the Boehner Power Point for what finally seems to be a look at the President's plan.


3 7-31-11 Debt Framework Boehner

The White House Released his summary of the agreement, to be used sell the public.  The Obama version doesn't mention the BBA, probably because the POTUS doesn't believe a BBA is a "good thing"



Fact Sheet: Bipartisan Debt Deal: A Win for the Economy and Budget Discipline

  • Bipartisan Debt Deal: A Win for the Economy and Budget Discipline
Removes the cloud of uncertainty over our economy at this critical time, by ensuring that no one will be able to use the threat of the nation’s first default now, or in only a few months, for political gain;
  • Locks in a down payment on significant deficit reduction, with savings from both domestic and Pentagon spending, and is designed to protect crucial investments like aid for college students;
  • Establishes a bipartisan process to seek a balanced approach to larger deficit reduction through entitlement and tax reform;
  • Deploys an enforcement mechanism that gives all sides an incentive to reach bipartisan compromise on historic deficit reduction, while protecting Social Security, Medicare beneficiaries and low-income programs;
  • Stays true to the President’s commitment to shared sacrifice by preventing the middle class, seniors and those who are most vulnerable from shouldering the burden of deficit reduction. The President did not agree to any entitlement reforms outside of the context of a bipartisan committee process where tax reform will be on the table and the President will insist on shared sacrifice from the most well-off and those with the most indefensible tax breaks.
Mechanics of the Debt Deal
  • Immediately enacted 10-year discretionary spending caps generating nearly $1 trillion in deficit reduction; balanced between defense and non-defense spending.
  • President authorized to increase the debt limit by at least $2.1 trillion, eliminating the need for further increases until 2013.
  • Bipartisan committee process tasked with identifying an additional $1.5 trillion in deficit reduction, including from entitlement and tax reform. Committee is required to report legislation by November 23, 2011, which receives fast-track protections. Congress is required to vote on Committee recommendations by December 23, 2011.
  • Enforcement mechanism established to force all parties – Republican and Democrat – to agree to balanced deficit reduction. If Committee fails, enforcement mechanism will trigger spending reductions beginning in 2013 – split 50/50 between domestic and defense spending. Enforcement protects Social Security, Medicare beneficiaries, and low-income programs from any cuts.
1. REMOVING UNCERTAINTY TO SUPPORT THE AMERICAN ECONOMY
  • Deal Removes Cloud of Uncertainty Until 2013, Eliminating Key Headwind on the Economy: Independent analysts, economists, and ratings agencies have all made clear that a short-term debt limit increase would create unacceptable economic uncertainty by risking default again within only a matter of months and as S&P stated, increase the chance of a downgrade. By ensuring a debt limit increase of at least $2.1 trillion, this deal removes the specter of default, providing important certainty to our economy at a fragile moment.
Mechanism to Ensure Further Deficit Reduction is Designed to Phase-In Beginning in 2013 to Avoid Harming the Recovery: The deal includes a mechanism to ensure additional deficit reduction, consistent with the economic recovery. The enforcement mechanism would not be made effective until 2013, avoiding any immediate contraction that could harm the recovery. And savings from the down payment will be enacted over 10 years, consistent with supporting the economic recovery.
2. A DOWNPAYMENT ON DEFICIT REDUCTION BY LOCKING IN HISTORIC SPENDING DISCIPLINE – BALANCED BETWEEN DOMESTIC AND PENTAGON SPENDING
  • More than $900 Billion in Savings over 10 Years By Capping Discretionary Spending: The deal includes caps on discretionary spending that will produce more than $900 billion in savings over the next 10 years compared to the CBO March baseline, even as it protects core investments from deep and economically damaging cuts.
  • Includes Savings of $350 Billion from the Base Defense Budget – the First Defense Cut Since the 1990s: The deal puts us on track to cut $350 billion from the defense budget over 10 years. These reductions will be implemented based on the outcome of a review of our missions, roles, and capabilities that will reflect the President’s commitment to protecting our national security.
  • Reduces Domestic Discretionary Spending to the Lowest Level Since Eisenhower: These discretionary caps will put us on track to reduce non-defense discretionary spending to its lowest level since Dwight Eisenhower was President.
  • Includes Funding to Protect the President’s Historic Investment in Pell Grants: Since taking office, the President has increased the maximum Pell award by $819 to a maximum award $5,550, helping over 9 million students pay for college tuition bills. The deal provides specific protection in the discretionary budget to ensure that the there will be sufficient funding for the President’s historic investment in Pell Grants without undermining other critical investments.
3. ESTABLISHING A BIPARTISAN PROCESS TO ACHIEVE $1.5 TRILLION IN ADDITIONAL BALANCED DEFICIT REDUCTION BY THE END OF 2011

  • The Deal Locks in a Process to Enact $1.5 Trillion in Additional Deficit Reduction Through a Bipartisan, Bicameral Congressional Committee: The deal creates a bipartisan, bicameral Congressional Committee that is charged with enacting $1.5 trillion in additional deficit reduction by the end of the year. This Committee will work without the looming specter of default, ensuring time to carefully consider essential reforms without the disruption and brinksmanship of the past few months.
  • This Committee is Empowered Beyond Previous Bipartisan Attempts at Deficit Reduction: Any recommendation of the Committee would be given fast-track privilege in the House and Senate, assuring it of an up or down vote and preventing some from using procedural gimmicks to block action.
  • To Meet This Target, the Committee Will Consider Responsible Entitlement and Tax Reform. This means putting all the priorities of both parties on the table – including both entitlement reform and revenue-raising tax reform.
4. A STRONG ENFORCEMENT MECHANISM TO MAKE ALL SIDES COME TOGETHER
  • The Deal Includes An Automatic Sequester to Ensure That At Least $1.2 Trillion in Deficit Reduction Is Achieved By 2013 Beyond the Discretionary Caps: The deal includes an automatic sequester on certain spending programs to ensure that—between the Committee and the trigger—we at least put in place an additional $1.2 trillion in deficit reduction by 2013.
  • Consistent With Past Practice, Sequester Would Be Divided Equally Between Defense and Non-Defense Programs and Exempt Social Security, Medicaid, and Low-Income Programs: Consistent with the bipartisan precedents established in the 1980s and 1990s, the sequester would be divided equally between defense and non-defense program, and it would exempt Social Security, Medicaid, unemployment insurance, programs for low-income families, and civilian and military retirement. Likewise, any cuts to Medicare would be capped and limited to the provider side.
  • Sequester Would Provide a Strong Incentive for Both Sides to Come to the Table: If the fiscal committee took no action, the deal would automatically add nearly $500 billion in defense cuts on top of cuts already made, and, at the same time, it would cut critical programs like infrastructure or education. That outcome would be unacceptable to many Republicans and Democrats alike – creating pressure for a bipartisan agreement without requiring the threat of a default with unthinkable consequences for our economy.
5. A BALANCED DEAL CONSISTENT WITH THE PRESIDENT’S COMMITMENT TO SHARED SACRIFICE
  • The Deal Sets the Stage for Balanced Deficit Reduction, Consistent with the President’s Values: The deal is designed to achieve balanced deficit reduction, consistent with the values the President articulated in his April Fiscal Framework. The discretionary savings are spread between both domestic and defense spending. And the President will demand that the Committee pursue a balanced deficit reduction package, where any entitlement reforms are coupled with revenue-raising tax reform that asks for the most fortunate Americans to sacrifice.
  • The Enforcement Mechanism Complements the Forcing Event Already In Law – the Expiration of the Bush Tax Cuts – To Create Pressure for a Balanced Deal: The Bush tax cuts expire as of 1/1/2013, the same date that the spending sequester would go into effect. These two events together will force balanced deficit reduction. Absent a balanced deal, it would enable the President to use his veto pen to ensure nearly $1 trillion in additional deficit reduction by not extending the high-income tax cuts.
  • In Securing this Bipartisan Deal, the President Rejected Proposals that Would Have Placed the Sole Burden of Deficit Reduction on Low-Income or Middle-Class Families: The President stood firmly against proposals that would have placed the sole burden of deficit reduction on lower-income and middle-class families. This includes not only proposals in the House Republican Budget that would have undermined the core commitments of Medicare to our seniors and forced tens of millions of low-income Americans to go without health insurance, but also enforcement mechanisms that would have forced automatic cuts to low-income programs. The enforcement mechanism in the deal exempts Social Security, Medicaid, Medicare benefits, unemployment insurance, programs for low-income families, and civilian and military retirement.



 And the President's Plan?
Enhanced by Zemanta

Friday, July 29, 2011

The Balanced Budget Amendment Text in Boehner 2.0

Having just gotten off the phone with some house staffers I can confirm the following:

A balanced budget amendment has been added to the Boehner bill.  After this morning's caucus meeting, GOP leadership is confident that the bill now has enough support to pass.

The details of the BBA provision are:

  • In order for the second debt ceiling rise to happen in 6 months a BBA must be passed by both Houses and sent to the states.
  • The original house version of the BBA which requires a 2/3 majority for a balanced budget to be waived in time of crisis is not part of the language.
Now there is no reason to object to the bill, it is a short term so the cuts are not as big as we would like to see, but as promised the cuts cover the amount the debt ceiling is raised, plus it sets a spending cap and requires a BBA.

For those who say that the inclusion of a BBA is an indication that the GOP is unwilling to compromise...Horse Poop!  The Democrats originally complained they didn't have enough time to consider a BBA, this bill gives them six months to have a nice discussion.

Another complaint of the Democrats was the 2/3rds majority needed for the balanced budget to be waived. Here is another compromise. This provision leaves it open to be negotiated between the two houses.

The choice is clear, pass Boehner plan and the conservative wing of the party will most likely win the battle and  gain an advantageous position to win the war (2012 Election) giving us a the opportunity to exorcise Obamacare,  and make the necessary  changes needed to save our country.  Reject the Boehner plan, we may very well lose the battle and the war.

The vote is will happen early this afternoon. I urge you to call your Rep and ask for the passage of  the Boehner plan.


Full Text of the Amendment to the Boehner Bill below as posted by the House Rules Committee.


AMENDMENT TO S. 627
AS MODIFIED BY THE AMENDMENTS IN HOUSE
REPORT 112-184

In section 301, in the matter proposed to be inserted as section 3101A(a)(2)(A) of title 31, United States Code, strike ‘‘is greater than $1,600,000,000,000’’ and insert ‘‘is greater than $1,600,000,000,000 and the Archivist of the United States has submitted to the States for their ratification a proposed amendment to the Constitution of the United States pursuant to a joint resolution entitled ‘Joint resolution proposing a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution of the United States’ ’’.
◊

Enhanced by Zemanta

Thursday, July 28, 2011

The Boehner Debt Ceiling Bill: Why It Needs To Pass

Allow me to begin by saying as a true large-sized tea party hobbit, I am disappointed in John Boehner's plan to raise the debt limit.  I was hoping for much deeper cuts along the lines of the Ryan budget plan, and the thought of new bi-partisan committee to come up with ideas to close the budget as the second half of the speaker plan gives me the creeps. Somehow those groups always come up with tax increases instead of budget cuts. That being said, I believe it essential for the house to vote yes on the bill today.

On the positive side, the plan cuts spending $1 trillion dollars immediately, does not raise taxes and imposes a spending cap.  In all probability it will not pass the Senate, but the plan's passage put the onus on the progressives to finally come up with a plan and eventually it will lead to a deal.

The bottom line is, as Charles Krauthammer told Bill O'Reilly the other day
“I respect what they want to do; I share what they want to do: shrink the government. But at a time when the country is going into debt and destroying everything in its path, Conservatives need to understand the only way to stop the damage, according to our Constitutional system, is to control the White House and the Congress.
“You cannot govern from one branch. All the Conservatives control now is half a branch … and under our system, you’ve got to have it all.” he said. “All of us respect the Constitution; it sort of defines the new Conservatism. If you believe in it, then respect the Constitution, understand its restraints, and win the election in November.”
Allow me to explain where this will end up. If the Boehner plan passes the House it will not pass the Senate, if the Senate passes the Reid plan it will not pass the House, but as sources inside the Beltway are starting to whisper, the plans are close enough that it will lead to a compromise.

In all probability, if it does lead to a compromise, it will probably take the debt ceiling past the election, have cuts higher than the rise of the debt ceiling ($2.6-2.8 trillion), will not count the bogus war savings, will not raise taxes  and will require a vote in the Senate for the Balanced Budget Amendment.

Think about that for a second, before this debate really heated up, if conservatives were presented with a plan legitimately cutting $2.6 trillion, no taxes and a balanced-budget Amendment vote there would be a huge celebration, not only for what we got, but for the major defeat suffered by President Obama.

And look what the house works on next the budget debate--- an opportunity to cut more.

On the other hand, practically speaking if the Boehner bill fails today, the conservative position loses its leverage, the progressives in the Senate will passe the Reid plan with its bogus cuts and they become the ones who offered the only compromise plan.

Barack Obama and the progressives will become heroes, and the message"the house filled with those evil tea party-backed Republicans who want Granny thrown off the cliff is even too radical to get a plan passed"

As Bill Kristol said yesterday:
To vote against Boehner is to choose to support Barack Obama. It is to choose to increase the chances that worse legislation than Boehner's passes. And it is to choose to increase the chances that Obama emerges from this showdown politically stronger. So when the Heritage Action Fund and the Club for Growth, and Senators Vitter, Paul, et al., choose to urge House Republicans to join the Democrats to defeat Boehner, they're choosing to side with Barack Obama.
The Boehner plan, whether it passes the Senate or leads to a compromise, shackles Obama for the final year and a half of his first term and shows Obama to be ineffectual in this debate. A missile shot into his chances of (God Forbid!) being elected for a second term.

The choice is clear, pass Boehner plan and the conservative wing of the party will most likely win the battle and  gain an advantageous position to win the war (2012 Election) giving us a the opportunity to exorcise Obamacare,  and make the necessary  changes needed to save our country.  Reject the Boehner plan, we may very well lose the battle and the war.

The vote is around Five-O'clock this after noon. I urge you to call your Congressman and tell them to support the Boehner plan.
Enhanced by Zemanta

Friday, May 27, 2011

New Poll: Almost Two-Thirds of Voters Want a Balanced Budget Amendment



Since Congress won’t fix the problem, Americans want a Constitutional amendment to protect them from Congress. A new Sachs/Mason-Dixon Poll released by the Daily Caller this afternoon finds that almost two out of every three Americans (65%) support a constitutional amendment that would require the budget to be balanced every year.

“Americans are concerned about our nation’s deepening deficit and as a result, an overwhelming number support a balanced budget amendment,” said Alia Faraj-Johnson, Partner and Executive Vice President of Ron Sachs Communications. “Candidates from both parties would be wise to support the measure, which will help keep Congress’ spending in check and ensure our government is tightening its belt, like many American families.”

Support for the Amendment is wide-spread; Republicans (81%) and Independents (68%) support an amendment.  As expected Democrats are more reluctant to give up their “political crack,” but still slightly more 45% support the amendment than oppose it.

A balanced budget amendment would put the federal government on the same footing as most of the state budgets. According to the National Conference of State Legislatures 45 of the 50 states have a constitutional provision requiring that the budget be balanced each year.  Four states are required to have a balanced budget by statute only (and we know how easy it is to amend statutes). One state, Vermont has neither.  

The survey also reports that 46% of Americans would be more likely to vote for a presidential candidate who supports a balanced budget amendment while 21% indicated they would be less likely to vote for such a candidate.

Just as with the first question there are vast differences depending on party affiliation. Only 21% of Democrats would be more likely to support such a candidate (versus 37% who would be less likely), 64% of Republicans would be more likely (versus 7% less likely) and 51% of Independents (versus 19%).


Two things could be gleaned from these results. First the American people are serious they want the country to find a way to dig out of the budgetary hole we created by over spending. The second point is for potential GOP presidential candidates. Unless a particular candidate is hoping to get most of its votes from the opposition party, there is no downside to supporting a balanced budget amendment, Republicans and Independents both will be more likely to vote for a candidate supporting the amendment.

American's simply do not trust politicians to fix the problem themselves, only through an amendment to the Constitution will our leaders be forced to deal with the hard choices that need to be made.

Enhanced by Zemanta
 

KENJI Sponsored by TOPHANT