New Amendment Of our Constitution: failed

Balanced Budget Amendment: no state will spend more then its income.
The last amendment was passed in 1992.

www.gpo.gov...

en.wikipedia.org...

Cspan Alert: Balanced budget amendment fails in house.

I didn't see anything about an amendment to the Constitution, except the little thing at the end about needing one before exceeding the spending amount proposed. This looks like just another crap spending bill from the House that has no chance in the Senate. Or am I missing something here?

Cspan.. now. That will tell you everything.

Now if it had read, "The Federal Government shall not spend more than it's income," THAT would be something to cheer about.

ETA: I guess it did:

The U.S. House is poised to vote on H.J. Res. 2, a constitutional amendment requiring a balanced budget. The measure would amend the Constitution to mandate that Congress only spend the money it takes in each year. U.S. involvement in war or a vote with the support of three-fifths of the U.S. House would override the balanced budget requirement. C-Span

reply to post by BruceEFury
Perhaps I've missed something, but looks like this just amends a few existing Acts (including the Congressional Budget Act of 1974) and includes a requirement that the Treasury can't utilize the additional borrowing authority allowed in this bill unless a few things (including a constitutional amendment) are done:

SEC. 301. REQUIREMENT THAT A BALANCED BUDGET AMENDMENT BE SUBMITTED TO STATES. (a) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary of the Treasury shall not exercise the additional borrowing authority provided under subsection (b) until the Archivist of the United States transmits to the States H.J. Res. 1 in the form reported on June 23, 2011, S.J. Res. 10 in the form introduced on March 31, 2011, or H.J. Res. 56 in the form introduced on April 7, 2011, a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution, or a similar amendment if it requires that total outlays not exceed total receipts, that contains a spending limitation as a percentage of GDP, and requires that tax increases be approved by a two-thirds vote in both Houses of Congress for their ratification.

And it FAILS to pass.

Who'da thunk it?

reply to post by OldCorp


I don't think the government could function if this passed in the confines of our current FIAT economic system. A capitalism 2.0 system is needed. Much like capitalism the new system should reward productivity but unlike the old system it should not reward those that cause economic problems. The people that are mainly responsible for our economic collapse on a global scale lost nothing, gained a lot, and even got bonuses for their poor performance. Go figure.

Originally posted by OldCorp
Now if it had read, "The Federal Government shall not spend more than it's income," THAT would be something to cheer about.

ETA: I guess it did:

The U.S. House is poised to vote on H.J. Res. 2, a constitutional amendment requiring a balanced budget. The measure would amend the Constitution to mandate that Congress only spend the money it takes in each year. U.S. involvement in war or a vote with the support of three-fifths of the U.S. House would override the balanced budget requirement. C-Span

edit on 11/18/2011 by OldCorp because: (no reason given)

This can pass all they want, it means NOTHING, since the US has been involved in war almost constantly since its inception. In fact, there has only been NOT a war for very few years out of the 245 so far. Like, aren't we in one (or two, or three) right now?

Go ahead and pass the bill to make all the chumps feel good. It's already been established that we are now on a PERMANENT war footing. In case you chumps hadn't noticed.

reply to post by CaptChaos
Now that we've got the right legislation in focus, I have to agree with it not passing. Paul Ryan's comment says it well:

"I’m concerned that this version [of the balanced budget amendment] will lead to a much bigger government fueled by more taxes. Spending is the problem, yet this version of the BBA makes it more likely taxes will be raised, government will grow, and economic freedom will be diminished. Without a limit on government spending, I cannot support this Amendment."

Like most legislation, it's presented with the right motivation, but the wrong methods and focus - let's remember unintended consequences.

What we need is to go back to older tax systems from before Reagan and enforce antitrust laws on companies that are swallowing up and/or merging with other companies.

We need to make it possible for people to once again receive pensions and benefits from their workplace.

Most people have horrible insurance policies...if they are even lucky enough to get that. Most places don't even offer dental anymore....good look getting major dental work if you don't have dental insurance...unless you have loads of cash on you.