A Balanced Budget Amendment Needs Sanctions

Ernie Lane ernielane at VERIZON.NET
Mon Aug 1 06:36:08 MDT 2011


On 7/31/2011 1:46 AM, John A. Quayle wrote:
>
>   *A Balanced Budget Amendment Needs Sanctions
>   <http://visiontoamerica.org/2709/a-balanced-budget-amendment-needs-sanctions/>*
>
> Filed under
>
>
>           *Constitution
>           <http://visiontoamerica.org/category/constitution/>, Politics
>           <http://visiontoamerica.org/category/politics/>, Taxes
>           <http://visiontoamerica.org/category/taxes/>*
>
> Comments (56)
> <http://visiontoamerica.org/2709/a-balanced-budget-amendment-needs-sanctions/#idc-container>
>
> 27
> <http://visiontoamerica.org/2709/a-balanced-budget-amendment-needs-sanctions/#>Share
> <??>
> no-more-money
> <http://visiontoamerica.org/2709/a-balanced-budget-amendment-needs-sanctions/>
>
> Most Americans do not know that the Federal government of the United
> States of America is required by law to balanced its budget every year.
> The little known Public Law 95-435 enacted by Congress and signed into
> law by President Jimmy Carter in 1977 has been ignored every year since
> it was enacted. You may ask yourselves why hasn’t Congress been
> balancing the budget if there is a law that exists that requires it? You
> need to remind yourself that Congress ignores the Constitution regularly
> so why should they obey a law?
>
> We must acknowledge something: for a law to have meaning there must be a
> negative sanction for failing to comply. How can laws be enforced if
> there is not reason to comply?
>
> A Balanced Budget Amendment isn’t the perfect solution to our problems
> and its current proposal is no more useful than the law passed in 1977
> because there are no negative sanctions for failing to pass a balanced
> budget.
>
> I suggest we add a particular negative sanction to the proposed Balanced
> Budget Amendment. This sanction needs to have real meaning. It may read
> something like:
> *Post Continues on godfatherpolitics.com

For those of you that didn't follow this link, his two ideas are:

1. For each day a balanced budget has not passed both the House of 
Representatives and the Senate and signed into law by the President of 
the United States, all elected officials of the United States of America 
and their staff will receive no pay. Each day a balanced budget does not 
become law will be equal to 1/365 of their yearly salary.

2. All taxpayer funded services will become forbidden for use by all 
members of Congress and the President for each day a balanced budget 
does not become law.

These are in the silly area.

When you get down to it, a budget itself has no teeth.  Congress 
appropriates things that aren't in the budget all the time.  I'd prefer 
the amendment just say that Congress can't do this, unless the cut an 
equivalent from _appropriations already made_ but not spent yet.  That 
would also mean:  no budget, no spending.  Not even Continuing 
Resolutions.  Of course, the amendment should also say this.

For Quayle and others:  if your post cuts off at the "crunch point," cut 
and paste from the link to add the important stuff.  Posts should always 
be able to stand on their own, and the "it may read something like" is 
kind of important.  You should have included them.



More information about the Rushtalk mailing list