2/3 of the states have now requested a Constitutional Convention, or have they.....

Discussion in 'Politics' started by madanthonywayne, Apr 2, 2014.

  1. madanthonywayne Morning in America Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    12,461
    Michigan has recently passed a law requesting the formation of a constitutional convention aimed at passing a balanced budget amendment. What's particularly interesting about this is the fact that Michigan is the 34th state to do this. 34 is the magic 2/3 number required under article 5 of the constitution to set a constitutional convention in motion.

    I got pretty excited when I read this, but apparently some states have rescinded their request for a convention and the debate now is over whether a state can rescind such a request and whether the bills passed by the various states are similar enough. There has never been an article 5 convention, so no one really knows what the rules are or should happen next. According to the linked article, it's up to congress to determine whether the qualifications for a constitutional convention have been met.

    Putting aside the question of whether or not the threshold for calling a convention has been met, is it a good idea? One reason this method of amending the constitution has never been used is the fear of.a "runaway convention". That is, a convention called to pass a balanced budget amendment ends up rewriting the entire constitution.

    We shouldn't forget that our current constitution is the result of a meeting called merely to amend the articles of confederation. Once they got there, the founding fathers decided to ditch the articles altogether and start from scratch. The point being, once a constitutional convention is created, anything can happen.

    Proponents of an article 5 convention argue that there is little to fear from the process since whatever might get passed at a convention must still be ratified by 3/4 of the states.


    http://p.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/mar/31/constitutional-conundrum-michigan-demand-for-a-bal/
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. spidergoat pubic diorama Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    54,036
    I'm allergic to the Washington Times. Anyway, of course they are going to balance the budget on the backs of the poor, this is just more class warfare from the 1%.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. quinnsong Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,621
    I don't know Spider, things have got so mathematically (economically speaking) out of whack that I cannot see how they can "Rob Peter to pay Paul", anymore. There could be another algorithm out there that they have not employed yet. We will see.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. madanthonywayne Morning in America Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    12,461
    I agree. We are now pilling on so much debt that if interest rates ever rise, we may be unable to even pay the interest.

    Regarding the constitutional convention, Mark Levin is apparently a major factor in the push for it. He has ten amendments he wants to see passed:

     
  8. cosmictraveler Be kind to yourself always. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    33,264
  9. wellwisher Banned Banned

    Messages:
    5,160
    If the attitude is to balance the budget, the first step is to not allow any additional adding to the debt. This means the debt ceiling needs to stop where it is at the amount it is. This does not balance the budget, but it stops the bleeding, so we can stabilize the patient.

    Much of the debt ceiling increase is based on hidden increases built into the system. This leads to an accounting scam that misleads the public.

    When they say we reduced spending, this is an accounting trick. All they do is reduce the built in increase. The cost and debt still goes up, but slower than the inflated rate used for negotiation.

    As an analogy, say you are in debt and you decide to balance your budget. You need to spend $2000 less next year to balance. If you use this government accounting trick, you will say I was planning to go to Hawaii for two weeks next year, at a cost of $5000. What I will do instead, is only go for one week for $3000. This will be a reduction in spending of $2000. I just saved $2000. I am still going to spend $3000 more next year than I have, which defeats the purpose, and I will need another credit card. However, I will pitch this as a spending decrease (based on projection).

    If we eliminate this accounting scam so there has to be a real holding of spending (no trip to Hawaii) it reduces the deficit faster.

    These two changes don't solve the problem, but they stop the bleeding, stabilize the patient and begin the healing.
     
  10. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    30,994
    If what you want is a balanced budget amendment, you do not need or want to call a Constitutional Convention. That would be like tearing the pipes out of the house to replace a faucet.

    The reason the balanced budget folks want a wholesale Convention is that it's their only hope of getting such goofy confusion past normal vetting and consideration. The fact that anyone with actual political influence thinks that would work is good reason to not risk it.
     
  11. joepistole Deacon Blues Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    22,910

    This is just more republican political theater. First, no one in power, especially republicans, wants a constitutional convention as it could end up with unwanted outcomes. If there were a constitutional convention, you cannot limit the outcome or the discussion. And people like me, would want serious and wide sweeping reforms in how we elect our representatives and congressional ethics and that would pose a serious threat to Republican financial sponsors like the Koch brothers. I would push for reforms which would eliminate all the special interest conflicts in our elected representative bodies. Our elected officials should have only one interest and that is the interest of all Americans rather than just the few who line the pockets of our elected officials and regulators with perks, benefits and money as is currently the case. Just as major corporations expect their employees to not be conflicted, the American people should not have their elected officials conflicted. Republican leaders and the republican entertainment industry would view non-conflicted government representatives as a serious threat (.e.g. Sheldon Adelson, Koch brothers, et al). No more secret meetings at luxury hotels. No more traveling across the country to kiss the rings of republican king makers like the Koch brothers and Sharon Adelson. That is probably why some states have reversed their previous votes for a constitutional convention. Election reform is a serious threat to the republican leadership. It's good red meat for the republican base. And as long as it stays red meat only, the financial special interests which fund the party have no problem with it. However, those interests have no desire to actually see a constitutional convention. That is why there will be no constitutional convention. The balanced budget amendment is just another political bauble republican leaders pull out periodically to manipulate he simple minded and ignorant republican base and then quickly retract should it get serious (e.g. debt ceiling).

    Our elected officials and those running for office should not have to kiss the rings of king makers like Sheldon Adelson.

    http://www.mediaite.com/tv/matthew-dowd-blasts-gopers-for-kissing-the-ring-of-sheldon-adelson/

    Additionally, you cannot legislate fiscal responsibility. There is this notion that we can make laws which will cure all of our ills. It’s a myth. You cannot write a sufficiently precise and detailed algorithm for fiscal responsibility and not expect to run off the cliff.

    Even without a balance budget amendment, republicans in congress almost took us into a deep depression in 2008 -2009 when republicans in congress voted against TARP. What we need is a fiscally responsible congress which deficit spends when appropriate and runs surpluses when appropriate. Sometimes it is fiscally imprudent NOT to deficit spend and not to have debt. And then there are times when prudence requires surpluses and debt reduction. If we want fiscal responsibility in our elected officials we need to elect fiscally prudent representatives who act in the interest of nation and not in the interest of those who fund their political campaigns and line their pockets with perks and money. And in order to get that congress we need to reform the way we run our elections and reform ethical standards. And we need better informed voters so we can elect fiscally responsible officials who act in a fiscally responsible manner. If we elect stooges (e.g. Bush II and his Republican congresses) we are going to get stooge fiscal policies.

    The solution is not more stupid laws written by demagogues like Levin who care more about their ratings than they do about the nation. The solution is to get informed voters to elect responsible representatives.

    Just remember it was ideological demagogues like Levin, Limbaugh, Fox News, Hannity, et al. who brought us Georgie Junior who was the most fiscally irresponsible POTUS since The Great Depression. Our election processes are broken. If we want to solve our problems with dysfunctional congresses, we need to solve the way we elect those congresses. The balanced budget amendment is a very dangerous distraction.

    There are legitimate reasons for deficit spending (e.g. The Great Recession, war, national disasters, etc.). Were it not for debt, this nation could not have fought the Revolutionary War, The Civil War, WWI, WWII, or rebuilt post WWII Europe and Japan with the Marshall Plan, or built the interstate freeway system, and could not have effectively prevented and mitigated numerous recessions. There is a difference between responsible deficit spending and the profligate spending we witnessed under Bush II where Vice President Cheney was quoted as saying Ronald Reagan taught republicans that deficits don’t matter.

    The bottom line here, if your arm is broken you don’t get a gun and commit suicide so you don’t feel the pain. You go to the emergency room or physician’s office. The balanced budget amendment is the fiscal equivalent of economic suicide.

    PS: The US government can never run out of money unless congress decides (i.e. chooses) one day to not pay its bills, because unlike you or me, congress can always print more money. And there are good reasons to expand the money supply which are totally independent of debt (e.g. a growing economy). Running the finances of a country is not the same as running the finances of a household. Most people don’t have degrees in economics or business, so they don’t know that. And demagogues like Fox News, Levin and Hannity, et al. take full advantage of that ignorance. And as a matter of note, during Obama’s presidency, the federal deficit has fallen by more than 50% and continues to fall as the economy continues to grow. Further, the US debt is extraordinarily low already by virtually any standard. During WWII, American debt was far higher than it is today. Compared to other countries, American debt is very low. So all of this political demagoguery about the debt might be good for ratings, demagogues, and republicans, it isn’t good for the nation.

    The bottom line is there is no law that can effectively mandate that congress must be fiscally responsible. That is why the founding fathers created Congress and didn’t include a balanced budget requirement. In our system of government, voters are supposed to elect fiscally responsible representatives. And if voters are not electing fiscally responsible representatives, the logical question is, why? The only way to get congress to act in a fiscally responsible manner is to have an election process that elects fiscally responsible congressmen and rewards those congressmen for ethical and responsible behaviors. It is just that simple.

    http://www.usnews.com/debate-club/d...ndment/dangers-of-a-balanced-budget-amendment

    Center on Budget and Policy Priorities
    “A Constitutional Balanced Budget Amendment Threatens Great Economic Damage
    Raises Host of Problems for Social Security and Other Key Federal Functions
    By Robert Greenstein and Richard Kogan

    Related Areas of Research
    Budget — Federal Congressional Action
    Deficits and Projections
    A balanced budget amendment to the U.S. Constitution — including the version that the House is expected to consider this week — would be a highly ill-advised way to address the nation’s long-term fiscal problems. It would threaten significant economic harm while raising a host of problems for the operation of Social Security and other vital federal functions.

    The economic problems are the most serious, and they would pertain to any version of a constitutional balanced budget amendment. By requiring a balanced budget every year, no matter the state of the economy, such an amendment would raise serious risks of tipping weak economies into recession and making recessions longer and deeper, causing very large job losses. That’s because the amendment would force policymakers to cut spending, raise taxes, or both just when the economy is weak or already in recession — the exact opposite of what good economic policy would advise.” http://www.cbpp.org/cms/?fa=view&id=3509

    A balanced budget amendment would put into the Constitution the exact same republican fiscal policies which led to and exacerbated The Great Depression. Do you really want to go back to the good old days of The Great Depression?
     
    Last edited: Apr 4, 2014
  12. spidergoat pubic diorama Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    54,036
    1. Mark Levin is one of the biggest shits in the country.
    2. How about closing some tax loopholes? Or regulations that stop people from hiding their money in offshore accounts? The stock market is doing great, there is no excuse for this. Disparity between rich and poor is increasing. But shrieking nitwits like Mark want to blame the victims of the same policies he advocates.
     
  13. joepistole Deacon Blues Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    22,910
    Ah, no. The first thing to do is grow the economy, which is incidentally what President Obama has been doing. That is why the deficit has been cut by half since Obama's first inauguration. Growing the economy does two things. It increases government revenues while simultaneously reducing expenditures.

    And the only accounting scam is the one between your ears. It's very obvious you have never opened or read an accounting text. I dare say you wouldn't recognize an accounting journal if it hit you in the head. Nor do you have ANY knowledge of finance, economics or business. If you had the slightest inkling of finance, business or economics you would never compare federal government finances to that of an individual household. How many households do you know who can print money and need to print money for the economy to grow? How many households do you know who automatically make more and spend less when the economy grows? How many households do you know who automatically earn less and spend more when the economy slows? NONE, that’s because a household is not a nation and a nation is not a household.

    Congress could eliminate the entire debt of the nation in a matter of days, just by printing more money. That isn't something households can do. But printing more money can have bad as well as good consequences for the economy. That is why Congress created the Federal Reserve System a century ago to control the nation’s money supply. And the Federal Reserve System works well. It most recently saved our collective asses during The Great Recession of 2007-2009. Thanks to the Federal Reserve, the nation recovered quickly from the worst economic recession since The Great Depression. Since the recession ended the economy has been growing at a steady pace and over 8 million jobs have been created – entirely by private enterprise. And inflation remains extraordinarily low and will remain low for the foreseeable future.

    So stop being either a moron or a republican partisan dupe.
     
    Last edited: Apr 4, 2014
  14. Aqueous Id flat Earth skeptic Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,152
    I understand that this is the picture the public has of the economy. But is it realistic? It seems to me that a big game is being played, in which the children are constantly being told that Mom & Dad can't afford Christmas this year, that sort of thing. And yet there is vast wealth around me everywhere I look. And the stock market is ridiculously strong. The roads are choked with commuters and commercial vehicles busily doing whatever they do to bring home the bacon. And lots of nice expensive vehicles, too. Airports are busy as are hotels and restaurants. Night clubs are jumpin. People seem to have money to burn. What's wrong with this picture? How can a patient be told year after year that he's about to croak and yet he's thriving? I don't get it. There seems to be a kind of psychological warfare going on, one which tries to propagandize economics, so that little people will decide that deregulation is good for them after all. If not for that, I probably wouldn't feel my hackles being raised every time another right wing politician starts complaining about the economy. Maybe you guys don't get that same vibe I do. But it seems like "these are the good ole days", know what I mean?
     
  15. mathman Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,002
    The original constitutional convention was called because people realized (after six years) that the Articles of Confederation wasn't working. The present constitution appears to have withstood the test of time, so a new rewrite seems counterproductive.
     
  16. spidergoat pubic diorama Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    54,036
    Algorithm, schmalgorithm, all they have to do is get the rich and corporations to pay their taxes. And possibly reduce military spending, so much of that is a waste.
     
  17. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    21,635
    Good observation, and there are a few reasons for it, I think;

    1) Bad news sells. Good news doesn't. Thus good news doesn't get reported.
    2) The republicans lose if the economy recovers. Thus their only hope is to attempt to portray it as miserable (indeed, in some cases, attempt to derail the recovery itself.)
    3) Few people are willing to say "my company/industry is doing great and we don't need government support/loans/guarantees any more."
     
  18. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    21,635
    They already pay far more than most people.
     
  19. joepistole Deacon Blues Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    22,910
    Ah, no they don't. For example, Romney pay from zero to 9 percent of his income in taxes. Contrast that to the working stiff who pays 25 to 30 percent of his income in taxes.
     
  20. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    30,994
    They quit robbing Peter, and instead started borrowing from Shylock to pay Paul.

    A return to the former practice of 1) borrowing heavily and lavishly to break the liquidity trap following the Crash, and then 2) taxing rich people wallowing in the boom whatever it takes to pay that debt off, while 3) firmly regulating against their attempts to hog the increasing wealth of the recovery,

    as was done to bring the US out of the Great Depression, and continued for fifty years as the foundation of the greatest era of increasing prosperity ordinary citizens have ever known on this planet,

    might be a good idea, eh? It's always worked before, everywhere it's been tried.

    When the rich get richer and the poor get poorer, the rich get richer.

    The upper third of the economy flush, and they have less competition for resources - they are being catered to.

    The lower 2/3 is seeing no wage increases even from the Crash of '08. I'm driving one of those commercial trucks you see as signs of prosperity, in one of my jobs, and the wages for the job I'm doing are 11% lower than they were five years ago in absolute terms - before correction for inflation - and no longer pays any medical benefits (it's been redone as a part time job, and more people hired - a business model that requires a reserve army of the underemployed and unemployed ). I wasn't working for them then, so I did not suffer that as a cut - but it hit some of the regular employees pretty hard.

    The middle class has been badly damaged, the lower middle class has been broken - their wealth accumulation has been negative for several years now, and they are still being mined for their remaining wealth (see: Walmart, TV ads for reverse mortgages, conversion of corporate pension plans and union benefits to private IRAs, etc)

    Random stat: I read in the newspaper a couple days ago that for the first time since WWII or thereabouts, the median US fulltime job cannot buy the median priced new automobile (by the standard formula of prudent expenditure for transportation). That continues a trend beginning with the onset of Reaganomics in which first the median job could no longer buy the median house, and then the median job could no longer rent the median 2 bedroom apartment, and now it can't buy the median car.

    The US has seen thirty years of increasing Reaganomic tax breaks for the very rich, and the results are in. Time to admit that that's a mistake - you simply can't allow the wealthy to hoover up all the productivity increases and wealth creation of a modern industrial economy, and expect that economy to remain healthy and functional and support a modern civilization.
     
  21. joepistole Deacon Blues Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    22,910
    Since the Reagan administration the tax burden has shifted from the Romney's of the world to the average Joe’s. The Romney’s of the world have been getting more and more tax breaks and the average Joe and Jane is has been picking up more and more of the overall tax burden. In addition, government, in partnership with corporations, has been entering into trade agreements which have exported pollution and American jobs. And if that were not enough, government in collusion with private industry has been shifting healthcare and pension costs onto the middle class since the Reagan administration. So is it any wonder the middle class is feeling squeezed?
     
    Last edited: Apr 5, 2014

Share This Page