You are here: Home » News » Business & Economics » New Goal Post In Deficit Negotiations
New Goal Post In Deficit Negotiations
Posted by: Linda Carbonell on June 30, 2011. 06-30-2011 by Linda S. Carbonell
Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell
The Republicans, in control of the House and with the filibuster power to halt legislation in the Senate, have repeatedly set their goals for passing a 2011-2012 Federal budget and deficit reduction. Each one set the goal just a little further. Once raising the debt ceiling was put in the mix, they came up with a few more shifts.
One percent reduction in spending? Check. One trillion dollars in cuts? Check. Pay-go for all new programs? Check. Pass a balanced budget amendment? Say what????? That’s not just moving the goal post, that’s putting the damned post in the next county and not passing a budget or raising the debt ceiling for years, by which time the American economy would have collapsed completely.
Passing an amendment to the Constitution isn’t like passing an amendment to a bill. This is serious legislative work. First of all, it requires passage by 67 Senators, 290 Representatives and then passage by the state legislatures – both houses – of 38 states. In 201 years, we only added 16 amendments to the Constitution, and one of them voided out a prior one. Six amendments have failed to be ratified by the states and, believe it or not, three of them are still pending since 1789, 1810 and 1924. An additional, technically pending amendment, preserving slavery, was overridden by the 13th amendment. The equal rights for women amendment expired without passage in 1982 (or possibly 1979) and the District of Columbia voting rights amendment expired in 1985. The last amendment ratified, effecting the way Congress gives itself a raise, was passed in Congress in 1789 and was ratified by the last state in 1992. The fastest an amendment was ratified was March to July, 1971, lowering the voting age to 18. Outlawing poll taxes took 16 months.
Ratification of an amendment typically happens within one to two years. Any longer than that and it’s usually not going to pass.
Every state but Vermont has some form of balanced budget amendment, though most are along the lines of Oregon’s which bans surpluses of more than 2% of revenue. The excess is refunded to the taxpayer. You know all those states that are in deficit crisis – Florida, Wisconsin, California, Minnesota, Ohio, etc, etc, etc – well, they all have those balanced budget amendments. In Florida, Wisconsin and Ohio, Republicans rode to power on a promise to defeat that deficit, only to turn around and pass budgets that drastically cut services, hand out billions in tax cuts and do zilch for their deficits. Those states are also the ones with governors and legislators who signed the Norquist pledge. States that seriously tackle trying to balance their budgets do so by raising taxes concurrent with spending cuts, even that one state that doesn’t have a balanced budget amendment. They don’t try to do what Washington’s Republicans want – spending cuts with no tax increases.
On one side, you have states that believe that gutting revenues with tax cuts will somehow magically raise revenues, cut public services to the point of seriously jeopardizing the health and safety of their citizens and don’t balance their budgets. On the other side, you have states that raise taxes to balance their budgets, control costs and come pretty close to balanced budgets. Which group do you think will make up the required 38 states to pass a Federal balanced budget amendment?
The states are dependent on the pay-back to states from the Federal government of taxes collected. What happens to those states when a Federal balanced budget amendment means that states don’t get enough money? There was a crisis in state budgets when President Reagan implemented the block grants for state programs funded by the Fed, replacing the pay for services system. Even New Hampshire had to raise its taxes. Too many states did what Texas did with their stimulus money – plugged their budget holes instead of using it for infrastructure projects. A huge chunk of the “profligate spending” of President Obama went to saving governors like Rick Perry’s butts.
There is a huge difference among Americans between discussions of the Federal budget and discussions of state budgets. State budgets are intimate. They more directly effect voters. Voters are more interested in the budget negotiations in their state houses than in Washington. State budgets are understandable. Millions and billions make more sense than trillions. Cops on the street have more impact than military bases in 73 countries. Once the debate about budgets is brought down to the state level, the whole dynamic changes. That is what would happen if a Federal balanced budget amendment was brought down to that level. The very states that have the greatest alleged support for the Republican agenda are the ones with the most volatile budget battles right now.
On August 3, the countries and foreign banks that are holding $1.4 trillion in our national bonds will raise the interest rate on those bonds. Our Federal government will pay as much as twice what it does now in interest just to sustain those bonds. Imagine if your mortgage holder raised the interest on your mortgage that way. How would you cope? Well, that’s what happened with most of those sub-prime mortgages that went into foreclosure. They were adjustable rate mortgages and the rate went up until the homeowner couldn’t make the payments anymore. Defaulting on our national debt payments would be like telling the loan shark we can’t make a payment – the interest could top 100% within a year. That’s what has happened to Greece. It’s not Greece’s debts that are unsustainable, it’s the interest they are paying on those debts because they defaulted.
By the time we could pass a balanced budget amendment, there would be no need. We would be in IMF receivership. America would be bankrupt. McConnell, Boehner and Cantor, along with their backup singers, need to start talking sense and negotiating for the best interests of this country, instead of for the political power they crave. People really are starting to see that the Republicans are willing to destroy this country just to make Obama a one-term president. With polls showing that the majority of Americans blaming President Bush and the Republicans for our economy and less than 10% blaming Obama, the Republicans are playing a losing game.
Mexican Government Arrest Drug Cartel Leader "El Loco"
And Maxim's Number 69 On The Hot 100 Women Is. . .Stephen Colbert?
Everything You Ever Wanted To Know About Jobs In America
Lesbian Mother Says That Worley's Sermon Par for the Course
NOM's Starbucks Boycott Gets The Face Of A Child Abuser
NC Pastor Wants To Put Lesbians, Gays In A Huge Ghetto And Kill Them
Miley Cyrus Goes TMI Discussing Sex Ed
Let's Talk About Lesbian Bed Death
Vermont Bi-National Lesbian Couple Will Not Be Separated
Tunisia To Extradite Qaddafi’s Prime Minister To Libya
You are here: Home » News » Business & Economics » New Goal Post In Deficit Negotiations
New Goal Post In Deficit Negotiations
06-30-2011 by Linda S. Carbonell
Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell
The Republicans, in control of the House and with the filibuster power to halt legislation in the Senate, have repeatedly set their goals for passing a 2011-2012 Federal budget and deficit reduction. Each one set the goal just a little further. Once raising the debt ceiling was put in the mix, they came up with a few more shifts.
One percent reduction in spending? Check. One trillion dollars in cuts? Check. Pay-go for all new programs? Check. Pass a balanced budget amendment? Say what????? That’s not just moving the goal post, that’s putting the damned post in the next county and not passing a budget or raising the debt ceiling for years, by which time the American economy would have collapsed completely.
Passing an amendment to the Constitution isn’t like passing an amendment to a bill. This is serious legislative work. First of all, it requires passage by 67 Senators, 290 Representatives and then passage by the state legislatures – both houses – of 38 states. In 201 years, we only added 16 amendments to the Constitution, and one of them voided out a prior one. Six amendments have failed to be ratified by the states and, believe it or not, three of them are still pending since 1789, 1810 and 1924. An additional, technically pending amendment, preserving slavery, was overridden by the 13th amendment. The equal rights for women amendment expired without passage in 1982 (or possibly 1979) and the District of Columbia voting rights amendment expired in 1985. The last amendment ratified, effecting the way Congress gives itself a raise, was passed in Congress in 1789 and was ratified by the last state in 1992. The fastest an amendment was ratified was March to July, 1971, lowering the voting age to 18. Outlawing poll taxes took 16 months.
Ratification of an amendment typically happens within one to two years. Any longer than that and it’s usually not going to pass.
Every state but Vermont has some form of balanced budget amendment, though most are along the lines of Oregon’s which bans surpluses of more than 2% of revenue. The excess is refunded to the taxpayer. You know all those states that are in deficit crisis – Florida, Wisconsin, California, Minnesota, Ohio, etc, etc, etc – well, they all have those balanced budget amendments. In Florida, Wisconsin and Ohio, Republicans rode to power on a promise to defeat that deficit, only to turn around and pass budgets that drastically cut services, hand out billions in tax cuts and do zilch for their deficits. Those states are also the ones with governors and legislators who signed the Norquist pledge. States that seriously tackle trying to balance their budgets do so by raising taxes concurrent with spending cuts, even that one state that doesn’t have a balanced budget amendment. They don’t try to do what Washington’s Republicans want – spending cuts with no tax increases.
On one side, you have states that believe that gutting revenues with tax cuts will somehow magically raise revenues, cut public services to the point of seriously jeopardizing the health and safety of their citizens and don’t balance their budgets. On the other side, you have states that raise taxes to balance their budgets, control costs and come pretty close to balanced budgets. Which group do you think will make up the required 38 states to pass a Federal balanced budget amendment?
The states are dependent on the pay-back to states from the Federal government of taxes collected. What happens to those states when a Federal balanced budget amendment means that states don’t get enough money? There was a crisis in state budgets when President Reagan implemented the block grants for state programs funded by the Fed, replacing the pay for services system. Even New Hampshire had to raise its taxes. Too many states did what Texas did with their stimulus money – plugged their budget holes instead of using it for infrastructure projects. A huge chunk of the “profligate spending” of President Obama went to saving governors like Rick Perry’s butts.
There is a huge difference among Americans between discussions of the Federal budget and discussions of state budgets. State budgets are intimate. They more directly effect voters. Voters are more interested in the budget negotiations in their state houses than in Washington. State budgets are understandable. Millions and billions make more sense than trillions. Cops on the street have more impact than military bases in 73 countries. Once the debate about budgets is brought down to the state level, the whole dynamic changes. That is what would happen if a Federal balanced budget amendment was brought down to that level. The very states that have the greatest alleged support for the Republican agenda are the ones with the most volatile budget battles right now.
On August 3, the countries and foreign banks that are holding $1.4 trillion in our national bonds will raise the interest rate on those bonds. Our Federal government will pay as much as twice what it does now in interest just to sustain those bonds. Imagine if your mortgage holder raised the interest on your mortgage that way. How would you cope? Well, that’s what happened with most of those sub-prime mortgages that went into foreclosure. They were adjustable rate mortgages and the rate went up until the homeowner couldn’t make the payments anymore. Defaulting on our national debt payments would be like telling the loan shark we can’t make a payment – the interest could top 100% within a year. That’s what has happened to Greece. It’s not Greece’s debts that are unsustainable, it’s the interest they are paying on those debts because they defaulted.
By the time we could pass a balanced budget amendment, there would be no need. We would be in IMF receivership. America would be bankrupt. McConnell, Boehner and Cantor, along with their backup singers, need to start talking sense and negotiating for the best interests of this country, instead of for the political power they crave. People really are starting to see that the Republicans are willing to destroy this country just to make Obama a one-term president. With polls showing that the majority of Americans blaming President Bush and the Republicans for our economy and less than 10% blaming Obama, the Republicans are playing a losing game.
Related articles
Share This Post
Tweet