A balanced budget amendment would be disastrous!
By Jack E. Lohman
“The time has come for a balanced budget amendment that forces Washington to balance its books. If these debt negotiations have convinced us of anything, it’s that we can’t leave it to politicians in Washington to make the difficult decisions that they need to get our fiscal house in order. The balanced budget amendment will do that for them. Now is the moment. No more games. No more gimmicks. The Constitution must be amended to keep the government in check. We’ve tried persuasion. We’ve tried negotiations. We’re tried elections. Nothing has worked.”
Indeed elections don’t work because they have become auctions, with corrupt politicians and judges, and whichever party raises the most money from their special interests typically wins. Recently it’s mostly been the Right wing, which spends more on campaign bribes than the Left (unions).
The debt ceiling is a ping pong ball, and our politicians are going to milk it all the way to the August 2nd deadline. Who caves first? My guess is Obama, but then we have every reason to toggle congress to the Dems with a clear mandate to undo the damage.
A balanced budget amendment?
Are you kidding???
This “sounds” like absolutely the right thing to do; getting our politicians locked into a balanced budget. But NOT with our current moneyed political system that is controlled by the highest bidder!!!
Remember “payback time.” A balanced budget amendment would immediately turn this nation into a Banana Republic. Can you imagine what would happen if they had to cut spending or raise taxes to balance the budget, and YOUR side didn’t come up with enough bribes?
If you think things are bad now, just wait until these jokers make it better. This will allow them to give away the store… your store… and never look back.
Let me repeat from my Jan. 17th blog:
Ask these questions:
- If your politician’s choice is to “balance the budget” by either (a) cutting entitlement or social spending, or (b) cutting spending on pork barrel projects or no-bid contracts for the corporate interests that fund his elections, which way do you think the vote will go?
- If your politician’s choice is to raise taxes on the top 3% of wage earners, or not, would you expect him to do that if those top 3% are the funders of his campaign? Even if raising those taxes are necessary to the vital interests of the state or nation? Or would he instead cut entitlements to protect his funders?
There *IS* just one solution… public funding of campaigns.
Corrupt politicians got us into this mess, and only removing the corruption will correct it.