Feigning Powerlessness to Retain Power
House Republicans are certainly afraid that they could be accused of causing a default on the debt. But with almost $200 billion in monthly revenue, there is no shortage of money to pay the necessary $39 billion monthly tab to the creditors of the United States. Any accusation of precipitating a “default” on the national debt is absurd — unless President Obama and his friends at Goldman Sachs want such a crisis for their own purposes.
It is a certainty that deep spending cuts would alienate the recipients of government largess, but if that price is too high to pay, we are all doomed anyway. Must we always wait until after the next election? Let’s eat the peas now, defund great swaths of the federal bureaucracy for an entire fiscal year — before the spenders could regain power. Who knows — the fired bureaucrats might even get honest jobs, and learn to like it.
The House Republicans need to assume the political risk for the sake of the country. Inaction would require political courage, but would it be easier if we wait until the burden of nation’s debt is allowed to shoot up by another $2.4 trillion? If not now, when? TO READ THE ENTIRE ARTICLE CLICK HERE
“Cut, Cap, and Balance” Means Leviathan State, Forever
Which do you value more? …smaller government or a balanced budget?
If we refuse to raise the debt ceiling, we get BOTH.
NEITHER party on Capitol Hill wants that, because a smaller State means less power for them.
That’s why the Republicans have a scheme to extend the debt limit by $2.4 trillion, provided that Congress passes a Constitutional Amendment that . . .TO READ REST OF THE ARTICLE CLICK HERE
EVERYONE NEEDS TO SEND THIS LETTER TO THEIR HOUSE REP AND SENATOR AND ONE TO JOHN BOEHNER
You may borrow from or copy this letter . . .
I support a balanced budget. But I oppose the “Cut, Cap, and Balance” plan offered by Republicans because it raises the debt limit by $2.4 trillion. I also don’t think I want it etched in Constitutional stone that the Federal State will be 18% of the national economy. That’s too big.
In the post-WWII era, spending has generally hovered around 20% of GDP. http://bit.ly/oAMrH4
So, in essence, this amendment says that the Federal State should be ONLY 10% smaller than it has been during most of our lifetimes.
And given how the rest of the Constitution is followed, what so-called “unintended consequences” will follow the ratification of this amendment. Will…
* estimates of GDP will be manipulated by politicians in the executive and legislative branches?
* Congress would be motivated to spend UP to 18% of GDP, instead of being pressured to spend LESS?
I don’t think a Balanced Budget Amendment should have a specific GDP percentage.
The 18% GDP cap may require minor spending cuts here and there, but it won’t…
* Force the Pentagon to have a “Defense” budget as opposed to a “World Police” budget
* Compel fundamental reforms or phase-outs of unconstitutional programs like Medicare, which has made medical care MORE expensive, even for the elderly
* Leave most powers to the states or individuals, as the Ninth and Tenth Amendment requires
You can get a balanced budget IMMEDIATELY by refusing to raise the debt ceiling, thus requiring spending cuts across the board.
DON’T compromise. DON’T negotiate. Simply, DON’T raise the debt limit! Instead…
* Reform the tax code so that it’s easier to do business in the USA * Downsize the Pentagon
* Downsize to eliminate EPA
* Downsize Depts i.e Education and Agriculture
* Deregulate American industry
* Transfer most of what you do to the states and the people
This will all make the people more prosperous and freer. DON’T raise the debt limit. Instead, cut spending and regulation!