From State Senator Jim Oberweis, running for the U.S. Congress:
Jim Oberweis signs Balanced Budget Amendment Pledge
Sugar Grove, IL – Jim Oberweis, candidate for Congress in the 14th District, has pledged his support for the Balanced Budget Amendment because he is concerned about the growing national debt and the negative impact this will have on future generations.
“Spending is out of control,” Oberweis. “We have a national debt approaching $23 trillion. There is no fiscal restraint when it comes to spending in Washington D.C. We are stealing the future of our children and grandchildren by continuing to spend money we do not have. If Congress can’t voluntarily rein in spending, then we need a Constitutional Amendment to force some fiscal restraint.”
Specifically, Jim is pledging to support a U.S. Balanced Budget Amendment that at a minimum:
- Prohibits total annual federal spending from increasing faster than inflation up to 2% plus population growth with exceptions for social security and national emergencies.
- Stipulates the state convention mode of ratification (a vote of the people)
He also is supporting the Let Us Vote for a Balanced Budget Amendment Resolution that:
- Sets the time and place (“call”) for an Article V Convention of States to propose a U.S. Balanced Budget Amendment,
- Voids any convention-proposed amendment unrelated to balancing the federal budget and
- Stipulates the state convention mode of ratification (a vote of the people).
According to Let Us Vote for a Balanced Budget Amendment, regardless of which party has been in charge, the “national debt has grown, steadily, for the last sixty years. The Swiss, by contrast, adopted a constitutional fiscal limit they call the “Debt Brake” in 2001, which slowed total spending growth to about 2% per year. Subsequently, Switzerland has surpassed the U.S. in per-capita GDP, and while debt has risen dramatically across the world’s advanced nations, Swiss debt has declined without raising taxes.”
I agree that this amendment should be ratified by the people of the states as opposed to state legislatures.
In regard to calling the question in the first place, I don’t really care which method is used (whether through state legislatures or through congress).
The convention of states method has never been used and I don’t think Mike Madigan has any interest in this.
Limiting your cause to a convention of states is handicapping it.
Now on to the issue of the amendment itself…
What is laid out here does not balance the budget.
It’s just a limit on how much the federal government can raise spending each year.
It doesn’t say anything about outlays being less than or equal to receipts.
So if the federal government spends 4 trillion this year, they can spend up to 4 trillion and 80 billion next under this “balanced budget amendment” with no regard to how much was taken in.
It’s probably better than what we have now, but it doesn’t guarantee a balanced budget.
More politicians need to stand up to reckless spending, even when it’s proposed by people in their own party, instead of
wishing for a magical balanced budget amendment to do their job.
A good pledge might be that you will vote against any budget with a deficit above x percent of outlays/receipts/GDP.
That pledge would mean more to fiscal conservatives than a pledge to a doomed constitutional amendment.
There goes Correcting, again, our blog know-it-all.
There’s a slight problem tho Correcting. It involves the Consitution.
Did he literally sign this on the same day that his god-emperor said the following:
“Who the hell cares about the budget?” – Trump told attendees at a private fundraiser.
(The deficit is already up 50% under Trump).
______
The GOP is an awful joke these days.
‘Balanced Budget’ just means the govt has taxed people enough to pay for all their sh!t.
It doesn’t mean much. Now LIVING WITHIN THEIR MEANS is a real accomplishment !
The national debt grew the most dollar wise-
8.588 Trillion