3 Responses to “Let’s hope the Congress passes the balanced budget amendment and let’s hope it will be ratified by the states”

1. Daniel Holzer
   July 24th, 2011 @ 9:52 pm

   We don’t need a balanced budget amendment. What we need is for our government to abolish the Federal Reserve Act that was signed into law in 1913 by Woodrow Wilson. This is law that ceded congressional power over our money creation and monetary policy to a group of privately owned banks. In return for this power those banks would give the government a credit card that’s got no limit! That very same year, interestingly enough,the 16th amendment was ratified and added to the Constitution burdening the citizenry of this nation with a progressive income tax, after all, the politicians needed a way to pay for the debt that they knew would accrue as a result of the federal reserve act. What we need to do is take away our governments ability to create debt so easily and take away thier ability to pass that debt burden on to the citizens, that means getting rid of The Federal Reserve, making fractional reserve banking illegal and getting rid of the income tax!! If this law stays in effect as it has for nearly 100 years then nothing will ever change! Ever!

2. Pv
   July 25th, 2011 @ 7:33 am

   Howbout Surplus Budget Amendment?

3. Dan
   July 25th, 2011 @ 3:00 pm

   The Balanced Budget Amendment(HJR-1) will still enable Congress to raise the debt ceiling, increase spending and increase taxes.

   More importantly it will transfer the Congressional power for appropriation bills to originate in the House over to the Executive branch. The last thing we need is a stronger more centralized Executive Branch.

   Also the spending limit is based on a percentage of GDP(18%) instead of limiting spending to within the confines of the enumerated powers in Article 1 Section 8 of the Constitution. Limiting it on GDP will still enable federal agencies not in compliance with any of the enumerated powers to still exist and essentially eliminate the enumerated powers.

   It seems to me anyone who supports defending the Constitution against a violation of Article 2 Section 1 clause 5 would also support defending against a violation of Article 1 Section 8. Defending only portions of the Constitution is tantamount to not defending any portion of the Constitution as everyone will pick and choose which part they will or will not defend.

Leave a Reply