Gingrich Sees Balanced Budget Amendment Coming Back

Reader Comments
Back to blog

Jack of KS,
While I don't agree with everything you say re. problems in the world, those of us across the political spectrum that are concerned with runaway spending need to unite! You make sense in a lot of areas. I remember my Dad ranting back in the 70's that we needed a Federal balanced budget amendment - if only we had the sense to do it then - do we have the sense & fortitude to do it now? Our leaders have zero incentive to spend our tax dollars carefully - how about some sort of commission structure for our Senators? It's funny how much attention is given to Executive compensation in the private sector - how about studies on the compensation of our elected representatives where our tax dollars are involved?
In the end, my wife & I will be ok. I'm just concerned about our 10 yr old daughter, neices & nephews, & the kind of nation we're leaving them with.

J Cilker of CA 5:47PM July 12, 2010

We the People Still Have the Power
Americans can be pandered to with debates on C-SPAN or by watchdogs in the press. Political strategists can assure us the next election will secure our future. Meanwhile, the political class has learned to manipulate the average voter and bureaucrats have deeply imbedded control over our government.
Yet our founders envisioned even this occurrence and created a mechanism for the people and the States to reassert control over an overpowering federal government.
Article V of the Constitution states: “Congress … on the application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, …” But what should our State legislatures seek to amend?
The only way to stop the wasteful spending, and its eventual debilitating taxation, is to starve the government machine. To do this, we need a Constitutional Amendment to insure that:
1. Except in time of declared war against a foreign enemy, the federal government shall balance its budget. This budget shall include all cash expenditures and cash revenues for the federal government and all of its dependent agencies. Further, the total cash expenditures of the federal government shall not exceed eighteen percent (18%) of the prior year’s gross domestic product.
2. Included in the budget’s cash expenditures will be an annual payment to retire the national debt. This payment will be not less than 3% of the principal amount of the prior year’s national debt.
3. Any increase in taxes, fees, or other sources of revenue shall require a 2/3 vote of each chamber of Congress. All tax rates and fees as of January 1, 2010 will be re-established and be considered the baseline for any future changes.
4. No unfunded mandates or requirements shall be placed on state or local governments. The costs of all federal laws must be paid by the federal government and be included in the annual balanced budget.
Should the people decide they wish to spend more on certain items, they can petition their State or Local governments. Clearly, we cannot trust politicians. Unless specifically controlled, they will continue to use our money to buy votes for their own re-election. Encourage your state legislature to reassert its authority: call for a constitutional convention and pass these controls.
Please share with others.
www.IAIresearch.wordpress.com

IAI Research of FL 5:54PM March 08, 2010

I am a Jacksonian Democrat. I'd like to see no deficit, but zero out the debt.The Federal Reserve reminds me too much of the old United States Bank that Andrew Jackson opposed and finally put out of business. I wouldn't go that far but the Federal Reserve needs to be far more transparent than it is. The taxpayers need to know every detail what we're paying for and eliminate waste tom the greatest extent possible.
Paulson made the greatest confession: he made the mistake ofm bailing out the big banks without any strings attached and failed to connect Wall Street to Main Street. Well, whoop de do! We should never give another nickel for bailouts and speculation has to be heavily taxed. The president has to be given the line item veto. Defense contracts need to be scrutinized, and contractors like KBR and Halliburton need to be forbidden from working for the government. In fact, billions of dollars can be saved by not employing outside contractors. Working with other nations to prevent violence from happening in the Middle East and other areas of the world, doing away with weapons of mass destruction, create a million+ force to police the world's trouble spots, eventually limiting our military to defeding our nation, will zero out our debt. We have to give up nationalism for the sake of human survival.

Jack Golding of KS 4:31PM March 04, 2010

If we do not re-gain our spending limits, and perhaps an amendement to limit spending; then, in due time there will be no more a {free people} and United States of America, but a mere shadow of what we once upon a time were; and certain defeat at the hands of China et al that will come a reclaim territory for the dollars we owe them, should we default.
That is how stupid we have become with these numbskulls in power at this time who spend and tax this nation into oblivion!

Dr. Anthony of MT 2:25PM March 02, 2010

I don't care whose administration spent more or added more to the deficit. The bottom line is that this country is trillions of dollars in debt. Each year we spend more than we take in adds to the national debt. By spending less than (or the same as) we take in, we can speed up the long process of paying down our debt.
I also don't care whether it's the Ds or Rs that do it, as long as it gets done. A balanced budget will help all Americans, regardless of party affiliation.
If only there was an amendment that outlawed partisan bickering about every little detail...now THAT's an amendment I could get behind 100%.

Sam F. of VA 9:21AM March 02, 2010

comments, angry that someone, God forbid, wants to only spend whats in the checkbook! Heaven forbid our country settle down and run itself like a business instead of a friggen free for all, led by a madman in the Whitehouse that knows NOTHING about running a government, but is sure happy to throw money at any problem that pops up.
Hes just buying votes and paying off debts to the unions and fellow commies.

Zinc of KS 2:05AM March 02, 2010

Newt Gingrich is out of his mind if he thinks two thirds of the state legislatures are going to ratify a balanced budget amendment, when the federal government's spending is the only thing that can keep the states afloat in a pinch. The real Republican agenda is just to talk this around for the entertainment of the base. They know it cannot pass. So, as always, Newt is a liar.

Muser of NM 10:33PM March 01, 2010

ALL OF THOSE GUYS AND GALS IN WASHINGTON SWORE TO PROTECT AND DEFEND THE CONSTUTION; WHICH BY THE WAY INCLUDES THE NINTH AND TENTH AMMENDMENTS. DOES ANYONE REALLY THINK THAT THEY WILL PAY ANY ATTENTION TO ANOTHER AMMENDMENT?

FRANK of CA 9:46PM March 01, 2010

Reinstating the "balance budget amendment" is all fine and good. However, we clearly cannot balance the budget Until we Pass Strong Health insurance Reforms! The GOP clearly does Not want reforms.
As Congressman Anthony Wiener said last week, "the Republicans are a subsidiary of the insurance companies".
#1.) Pass Comprehensive Health Insurance Reforms. President's proposal is Deficit NEUTRAL.
#2.) Balance Budget

teri of WA 6:46PM March 01, 2010

The truth of the matter is that presidents don't spend the money. All a president can constitutionally do is sign or veto a spending bill.
Congress sends spending bills to the president for a signature.
Nor can the President raise nor lower taxes. Congress does that too. What are popularly (and incorrectly) called "Reagan tax cuts" were actually two tax rate cutting bills, which Pres. Reagan signed. The biggest was officially called the "Kemp-Roth" bill, after the two senators who sponsored it.
Presidents can ask congress to raise or cut spending, and use the "bully pulpit" to pressure Congress. That is all.
Reagan tried to rein in social spending during his presidency, but with little success, particularly when the Democrats held both House and Senate in 1987 and 1988: http://historyhalf.com/the-reagan-deficits/
During the last six years of Clinton's presidency the Republicans controlling House and Senate, many of them fiscally conservative freshmen, were very restrained in their spending.
The Repubs in House and Senate during the Bush Jr. years were much more fiscally liberal. They spent way too much, and paid the price at the polls.

unPC of WA 4:57PM March 01, 2010