Publius Huldah: Balanced Budget
Amendments (BBA) Gut Our Constitution and Don’t Reduce Spending
Q: Doesn't our
Constitution already provide for controlling federal spending?
A: Yes. It lists the
purposes for which Congress may spend money. Spending is limited by
the "enumerated powers" listed in the Constitution:
- If it's on the list of powers delegated to Congress or the President, Congress may lawfully appropriate funds for it. Read the Constitution and highlight the delegated powers – then you will know what Congress may lawfully spend money on.
- If it's not listed, Congress may not lawfully spend money on it.
Q: What is the connection
between the Oath of office (Art. VI, cl. 3) and federal spending?
A: All federal and State
officials take an Oath to support the federal Constitution. The Constitution
lists what Congress may lawfully spend money on. When people in Congress spend
money on objects not listed in the Constitution; and when State officials accept
federal funds for objects not listed (race to the top, common core, etc.) they
violate their Oath to support the Constitution.
Q: Are the federal
departments of Education, Agriculture, Labor, Energy, Housing & Urban
Development, Health & Human Services, DHS, etc., etc., constitutional?
A: No!
- Power over education, agriculture, labor relations, energy, etc., etc., was NOWHERE in the Constitution delegated to the federal government. Those powers were reserved by the States or the People.
- DHS – a national police force under the President's control – is becoming our version of the East German STASI. Yet the States colluded with the feds in nationalizing law enforcement because they wanted the federal funds and military equipment.
Q: How did we get a national
debt of over $17 trillion, plus trillions more in unfunded liabilities?
A: Congress spent on
objects for which it has no constitutional authority, such as teaching Chinese prostitutes how to drink responsibly, bailouts of private businesses, welfare
handouts, farming programs, education schemes, and grants paid to States to
bribe them into implementing unconstitutional federal programs. It was the
unconstitutional spending which gave us this crushing debt.
Q: The 10th
Amendment says all powers not delegated to the federal government by the
Constitution are reserved to the States or to the People. What happened to
these reserved powers?
A: The States sold them
to the federal government. The States have become administrative
subdivisions of the federal government, and their aim is to siphon as much money as possible from the
federal government.
Q: What should we do about
the unconstitutional spending?
A: We must eliminate pork.
We must systematically dismantle unconstitutional federal departments &
agencies. Except that the Department of Education should be shut down, and its
bureaucrats sent home, by this Friday at 5:00 p.m. All these functions must be
restored to The States or The People.
Why Balanced Budget Amendmentss Are Destructive
The Black section is the unconstitutional social program spending.
Q: Why won't a Balanced
Budget Amendment fix our debt problem?
A: They don't address the
cause of the problem: Congress spends where they have no constitutional
authority to spend. The Balanced Budget Amendments don't eliminate the
unconstitutional spending; and they place no limits on the amount of the
unconstitutional spending.
Q: Is a Balanced Budget
Amendment harmful?
A: Yes. All versions of
the Balanced Budget Amendment legalize spending which is now illegal and
unconstitutional as outside the scope of powers delegated to Congress or the
President.
Q: Would a Balanced Budget
Amendment fundamentally transform our Constitution?
A: Yes. All versions of
the Balanced Budget Amendment amend out the enumerated powers limitations on
the federal government and transform the federal government into one of general
& unlimited powers where the feds may spend money on whatever they want as
long as they don't exceed the spending limits "imposed" by the
Balanced Budget Amendment.
Q: So a Balanced Budget
Amendment changes the constitutional criterion for spending?
A: Yes! All versions of
the Balanced Budget Amendment change the criterion from:
- WHAT Congress spends money on (it must be an enumerated power), to
- A LIMIT on total spending where Congress can spend money on whatever they want.
Q: How are spending limits
in the various versions of the Balanced Budget Amendment set?
A:
- by the amount they take from us in taxes, or
- by a certain percentage of the GDP, or
- by the additional amounts they borrow to finance their spending.
Q: Can these limits on
spending be raised?
A: Yes! In most versions
of the Balanced Budget Amendment, Congress can vote to raise the spending limit
(just as they vote every few months to raise the debt limit). In the version of
the Balanced Budget Amendment by Nick Dranias and Compact for America, Congress and at least 26 States can vote at
any time to raise the spending limit.
Not
only do the Balanced Budget Amendment s fail to address the cause of the
problem (Congress spends on unconstitutional objects); none of them limit the amount of Congress'
spending because the spending limits can be raised whenever they want to raise
them.
So!
Just as Congress votes every few months to raise the debt ceiling; they can vote whenever they want to raise the spending limit.
A: Levin's amendment makes
lawful the spending which is now unconstitutional. And his amendment does
nothing to control spending:
- Levin substitutes a "budget" [which permits spending on whatever people in the federal government want] 1 for the enumerated powers listed in the Constitution; and,
- While it pretends to limit spending to income, it actually permits Congress to suspend the spending limit and to continue to raise the national debt limit.
So!
Like all other Balanced Budget Amendment s, Levin's legalizes the present
unconstitutional spending and does nothing to curb spending. It legalizes
the status quo. And it guts our Constitution by erasing the enumerated
powers limitations on spending.
Q: What about Randy
Barnett's version of a Balanced Budget Amendment? [See Barnett's 8th amendment here.]
A: Randy Barnett, law
professor, redefines "unbalanced budget" to mean a budget where
the national debt is greater than it was the previous year. [Yes, you read that
right.]
Barnett's
amendment doesn't address the unconstitutional spending which caused
the massive debt.
And
it delegates sweeping new powers to the President to stop funding anything he
doesn't want funded. E.g., it permits him to ban appropriations authorized by
the Constitution, such as all funding for our military (which is authorized by
Art. I, Sec. 8, clauses 11-14).
Q: What is the real
purpose of all versions of the Balanced Budget Amendment?
A: The sole purpose is
to remove the enumerated powers limitations on the federal government and give
it general & unlimited powers.
Folks! You must read the texts
of the proposed Balanced Budget Amendment s and see what they actually say. Do
not stop with the name and just read in your own understanding of what it means
to "balance a budget."
For
more information on various versions of the Balanced Budget Amendment see:
Endnotes:
1 The federal government
didn't have a budget until the Budget Act of 1921, which purported to grant budget making power (taxes &
appropriations) to the President.
The
Budget Act is unconstitutional. Article I, Sec. 8, cl. 1, delegates to
Congress Power to lay and collect Taxes; and Art. I, Sec. 9, next to
last clause, delegates to Congress Power to make appropriations:
"No
Money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of Appropriations
made by Law; and a regular Statement and Account of the Receipts and
Expenditures of all public Money shall be published from time to time."
Before
the Budget Act of 1921, Congress made appropriations for items listed in the
Constitution as the need arose; determined the taxes, and kept records of both.
Comments:
The
description of our dilemma outlined above is true.
Norb
Leahy, Dunwoody GA Tea Party Leader
No comments:
Post a Comment