Balanced budget amendment rejected by House of Representatives

[JAD_333]

What would change if this amendment was adopted?

By SEUNG MIN KIM | 11/18/11 2:04 PM EST

The House voted 261-165 on Friday to reject a balanced-budget amendment to the Constitution — falling short of the two-thirds majority needed.

The balanced-budget amendment that failed to pass was similar to the version voted on in 1995, which passed the House by 300-132 but fell short by one vote in the Senate. It required a simple majority to raise taxes and a three-fifths vote to raise the nation’s debt limit.

Most Democrats opposed the balanced-budget amendment, but a handful of Republicans joined them, including House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan (R-Wis.), who argued this version wasn’t tough enough.

“I’m concerned that this version will lead to a much bigger government fueled by more taxes,” he told POLITICO. “Spending is the problem, yet this version of the [amendment] makes it more likely taxes will be raised, government will grow and economic freedom will be diminished.”

Many conservative House Republicans had pushed for a tougher balanced-budget amendment that would require a two-thirds majority to raise taxes as well cap spending at 18 percent of GDP.

House Majority Leader Eric Cantor acknowledged earlier this week that he would’ve preferred the stricter bill but a majority of House Republicans favored the so-called “clean” version to try to muster up more Democratic votes.

The GOP got 25 Democrats to join them in supporting the balanced-budget amendment, but four Republicans — Ryan, Reps. Justin Amash, David Dreier and Louie Gohmert — voted against it.

Seven Democrats who voted for the balanced-budget amendment in 1995 flipped to a “no” for Friday’s vote: Reps. Rob Andrews, Jim Clyburn, Mike Doyle, Steny Hoyer, Marcy Kaptur, Jim Moran and Frank Pallone.

Under the terms of the August debt-limit agreement, both chambers must vote on a balanced-budget amendment before the end of the year. The amendment doesn’t need to pass and be sent to the states. If the amendment somehow got the two-thirds majority of both the House and Senate, it would need ratification from three-fourths of the states.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid said earlier this month that the upper chamber would likely vote on a balanced-budget amendment after Thanksgiving.

Read more: Balanced budget amendment rejected by House of Representatives - Seung Min Kim - POLITICO.com

[Roosveltrepub]

it was never more than politics if they waned a balanced budget they would never of cut taxes to begin with what they want is re-election hence the disgusting break down of that debt committee

[Genosaurer]

it was never more than politics if they waned a balanced budget they would never of cut taxes to begin with what they want is re-election hence the disgusting break down of that debt committee

Of course, because at our previous tax rate we were well on our way to paying off the national debt...

Give me a break.

[Roosveltrepub]

Of course, because at our previous tax rate we were well on our way to paying off the national debt...

Give me a break.

Nah even before the meltdown and the wars the tax cuts were unaffordable that's why they were temporary. I'd love to see something contrary to that.......but I won't because it's the freaking truth

[bonehead]

Nah even before the meltdown and the wars the tax cuts were unaffordable that's why they were temporary. I'd love to see something contrary to that.......but I won't because it's the freaking truth

Ah come on. You know good and well that if we give the rich all they desire they will let the wealth trickle down and give us all jobs out of the goodness of their hearts.Only then the economy will be booming again. Just look at how many jobs they created when we handed them a trillion dollars.

[JAD_333]

Nah even before the meltdown and the wars the tax cuts were unaffordable that's why they were temporary. I'd love to see something contrary to that.......but I won't because it's the freaking truth

Prior to the Bush 2001 tax cuts, the national debt increased under every president as far back as your namesake. Thus, on the face of it, presiding over an increase in debt is not unique to Bush. Furthermore, revenue only dropped in the first 2 years of the Bush tax cuts. They soared as the economy picked up and did not sag until the recession hit near the end of his final term.

Altogether the debt rose about $6.4 trillion under Bush, admittedly a pretty hefty increase compared to previous administrations. So far, in 3 years under Obama the debt has risen $4.3 trillion and will come close to topping the total for Bush's 8 years in office by the end of Obama's term.

No one who knows the facts would blame Obama for the increase under his watch. We all know he inherited an economy in steep decline and a broken banking system. But to claim that the Bush tax cuts are responsible for today's the debt is simply untrue. They did not cause Wall Street to collapse or the economy to tank.

What if the Bush tax cuts had never come about? Total revenue "lost" to them since 2001 is about $2.1 trillion or about 15% of the national debt, which hit $15 trillion this week. But it would be unrealistic to say the debt would be lower today if we could turn back the clock or that if we had let them expire in 2010 we would be better off. People would be paying more taxes and have less to spend. That's not a prescription for economic recovery.

How about letting the cuts expire on just the wealthy? It's a political ballet. About half, or about $1.06 trillion of the revenue loss from the Bush tax cuts since 2001 benefited the top 5% income earners, and more than 75%, or $780 billion, of that went to the top 1% income earners. In the 5% group, the average revenue lost since 2001 comes to about $100 billion a year and in the 1% group, about $75 billion a year. That's a lot of money, but only a small fraction of the debt. The Democrats are right that it would help reduce the debt, but the Republicans can see that it won't reduce it much. The reality is that reducing the debt mainly depends on reducing government spending.

[DOR]

Ah come on. You know good and well that if we give the rich all they desire they will let the wealth trickle down and give us all jobs out of the goodness of their hearts.Only then the economy will be booming again. Just look at how many jobs they created when we handed them a trillion dollars.

It is important to differentiate between saving the global financial system from implosion and a jobs stimulus package.

Unless, of course, you're looking at it from the side that doubled the national debt (from a position of annual surpluses for four years in a row), and only concerned with ensuring that people forget that bit of fiscal terrorism as quickly as possible.

[DOR]

To remind,

Admin _ _ Rise in Gross Fed Debt _ _ p.a. _ _ _ As a share of starting GDP

1953-60 _ _ _ _+$31.4 billion _ _ = +$3.9 bn p.a. _ _ = 1.0% p.a. of 1953 GDP

1961-68 _ _ _ _+$76.0 billion _ _ = +$9.5 bn p.a. _ _ = 1.7% p.a. of 1961 GDP

1969-76 _ _ _+$263.2 billion _ _ = +$32.9 bn p.a. _ _ = 3.3% p.a. of 1969 GDP

1977-80 _ _ _+$202.6 billion _ _ = +$50.7 bn p.a. _ _ = 2.5% p.a. of 1977 GDP

1981-88 _ _ _+$1,606.3 billion _ = +$200.8 bn p.a. _ _ = 6.4% p.a. of 1981 GDP

1989-92 _ _ _+$1,334.0 billion _ = +$283.5 bn p.a. _ _ = 5.2% p.a. of 1989 GDP

1993-00 _ _ _+$1,323.1 billion _ = +$165.4 bn p.a. _ _ = 2.5% p.a. of 1993 GDP

2001-08 _ _ _+$4,217.3 billion _ = +$527.2 bn p.a. _ _ = 5.1% p.a. of 2001 GDP


NB: I've lumped together Kennedy and Johnson, and Nixon and Ford, for simplicity.

[JAD_333]

Dor

According to a chart on Wiki the total for 2001-2009 is $6.656 trillion. How does that correspond to your figure of $4.217 trillion for 2001-2008, or is Wiki wrong?

National debt by U.S. presidential terms - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[bonehead]

It is important to differentiate between saving the global financial system from implosion and a jobs stimulus package.

Unless, of course, you're looking at it from the side that doubled the national debt (from a position of annual surpluses for four years in a row), and only concerned with ensuring that people forget that bit of fiscal terrorism as quickly as possible.

I screamed and hollered when the debt exploded in the 80's to pay for tax cuts but thats another story. Unfortunately the trend continued as the only people concerned with the rising debt were the ones that were in the minority of congress and/or didn't hold the WH. There are legitimate times to borrow, war, catastrophe natural/economic etc, but the money still has to be spent wisely. Simply handing it over to the 1% and having faith that they will do the right thing doesn't work.

As far as the stimulus/bail out, I see that as a republican/democrat gang raping the 99% and rewarding the 1%. Talk about a big fat DP. I confess that something had to be done in 2007-2008 but the way the system is set up if the 99% had been directly bailed out the money would have almost as quickly ended up in the hands of the 1%. Case in point, vouchers for the 99% to pay debt which would have largely gone to the banks in the form of mortgage payment, credit card payment etc. The banks would have still gotten their money yet the rest of us would have had more spending money to contribute to the economy, keep demand and jobs up. Less homes would have been foreclosed as well. Would have been nice if the powers that be had focused on jobs the last several years instead of pissing in the well in a test of wills. Today each side freely points fingers and blames the other but realistically, did either side suffer the last 3 years? Hell no! It is the 99% that was and still is taking it in the shorts. Giveaways are not the answer at this stage. We need sustained increases in good wage jobs. Turning the U.S. into a retail/hospitality economy isn't going to cut it. We need to get back to doing what we do best. R&D and associated manufacturing. We also need a clearly defined energy policy that transcends administrations and we have to tackle healthcare costs in an intelligent way.

[Blue]

What do we expect from a bunch of ignorant idealogues? really? Does this surprise anyone?

I say let the budget cuts roll!!

[Red Team]

Dear God...I thought casting blame and incessantly arguing was supposed to be my line of work. Nice going Congress, you took my job.

[gunnut]

Balanced budget amendment is a bad idea. California has one in the state constitution. Look how well we're doing.

[DOR]

Dor

According to a chart on Wiki the total for 2001-2009 is $6.656 trillion. How does that correspond to your figure of $4.217 trillion for 2001-2008, or is Wiki wrong?

National debt by U.S. presidential terms - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

One's Federal debt held by the public; the other (mine) is gross Federal debt.
Take your pick.

[Roosveltrepub]

Prior to the Bush 2001 tax cuts, the national debt increased under every president as far back as your namesake. Thus, on the face of it, presiding over an increase in debt is not unique to Bush. Furthermore, revenue only dropped in the first 2 years of the Bush tax cuts. They soared as the economy picked up and did not sag until the recession hit near the end of his final term.

Altogether the debt rose about $6.4 trillion under Bush, admittedly a pretty hefty increase compared to previous administrations. So far, in 3 years under Obama the debt has risen $4.3 trillion and will come close to topping the total for Bush's 8 years in office by the end of Obama's term.

No one who knows the facts would blame Obama for the increase under his watch. We all know he inherited an economy in steep decline and a broken banking system. But to claim that the Bush tax cuts are responsible for today's the debt is simply untrue. They did not cause Wall Street to collapse or the economy to tank.

What if the Bush tax cuts had never come about? Total revenue "lost" to them since 2001 is about $2.1 trillion or about 15% of the national debt, which hit $15 trillion this week. But it would be unrealistic to say the debt would be lower today if we could turn back the clock or that if we had let them expire in 2010 we would be better off. People would be paying more taxes and have less to spend. That's not a prescription for economic recovery.

How about letting the cuts expire on just the wealthy? It's a political ballet. About half, or about $1.06 trillion of the revenue loss from the Bush tax cuts since 2001 benefited the top 5% income earners, and more than 75%, or $780 billion, of that went to the top 1% income earners. In the 5% group, the average revenue lost since 2001 comes to about $100 billion a year and in the 1% group, about $75 billion a year. That's a lot of money, but only a small fraction of the debt. The Democrats are right that it would help reduce the debt, but the Republicans can see that it won't reduce it much. The reality is that reducing the debt mainly depends on reducing government spending.

The fact is revenue will need to be part of the equation to restoring fiscal sanity and those tax cuts were never affrodable. It's unrealistic to think we are going to get out of this without a mix of tax increases and spending cuts. With the enormous growth in income at the high end that is where the money is. 100 billion a yr is not chump change. Those taxcuts were never supposed to be permanent because they were never affordable. As I understand it the deal the republicans refused in the summer was 80 percent cuts and 20 percent taxes.