This is a brilliant idea, and I know so because I advocated it previously. A TABOR-like spending limitation rule could work like PAYGO does now, as a restriction on overall spending.
Setting a long-term target of 15% is a ‘stake in the ground’ for smaller Government overall.

BTW, this can be used to achieve the ‘balanced budget’ goal with just a simple addition: Require a super-majority to raise the debt ceiling, and a super-majority to forgo PAYGO rules.

http://travismonitor.blogspot.com/2009/05/transformational-agenda-for-right.html

“15% Solution: A goal of having a Federal Govt take 15% of GDP, and until that time have the Federal Govt go on a ‘diet’ where it grows no faster than inflation plus population. (The 15% solution)”

http://travismonitor.blogspot.com/2008/03/fundamental-tax-reform-15-solution.html

“1) The Federal Government Costs too much and the burden of Government should be limited.
We can implement this by limiting Government Spending to 15% of GDP as long-term goal. Since WWII, the Federal Government burden has been between 18% and 23% of GDP. It has not shrunk even as Defense spending fell in the post-Cold War era. There is a simple way to cap the burden of Government spending: keep spending, including entitlements, at inflation rate plus population growth. Limit Government spending to that rate, and the Federal Government will shrink relative to the economy, until we reach 15% of GDP as long-term goal.

Without a long-term overarching goal of lessened burden of Government, tax reform is doomed to be ineffective, as the cost of Government pushes tax rates up.”

you intend to keep entitlements plus interest plus military below 20% of an ambiguous moving target like GDP, I don’t think this proposal is amendment-worthy. Drastic cuts in entitlements require across the board cuts of entitlements are impossible in an aging democracy. Let’s not create another amendment just to be ignored.

With a cap, that makes the most sense.

How about at the same time, we give the Senate back to the State Governments and stopped the unfunded mandates at the same time. What we have now is a bunch of Senators who think they have ‘seats for life’ …

One of the first thing the progressives did is destroy the States seat at the federal table.

I looked through this huge pdf file, and found no explanation of why the same goals cannot be attained without a constitutional amendment.

This could all be achieved just as easily — in fact much more easily — via an amendment to the Senate Rules, for example.

I despise most proposed constitutional amendments, because they ignore easier ways of solving the same problem that the amendment would solve. Constitutional amendments are often proposed more for dramatic effect than to actually accomplish anything. When the amendment fails, then everyone throws up their hands and noes absolutely NOTHING. And that is what will happen when this one fails.

To take another example, there were a bunch of pro-life amendments proposed to the US Constitution. But, it would have been much easier for Congress to simply pass a statute saying that any exercise of judicial review under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment must by by a unanimous vote of the U.S. Supreme Court.

99.9999% of proposed constitutional amendments richly deserve to be ignored, IMHO.

Tax at one fifth until our national debt is paid back, (two presidental terms max, if we stop Obama in 2010) keep it there until we are in a position to shrug off any nationwide disaster or a major war. Then park it at one seventh, tied to the GDP forever, taxing at one fifth, perhaps one forth, during declared wartime (a real and equitable obstacle for fending off unpopular action. Tying all social programs to GDP wouldn’t be a bad idea either. Those, too should err just on the side of being a money maker, so that times of particular economic stress a reserve might be tapped.

All that can go right into the amendment, the disparate rates expire when the country has achieved its monetary restoration. Congress won’t like it, but, who asked them?

If the people want more government spending, they’ll just have to find ways to catalyze commerce, rather than discourage, squelch, or stunt, or usurp it, like what the Obama administration is doing in a brazen, dispicable way now.

Yeah, I know, I see the historical graph. 20% is too much. Heck, 14.3% is too much as far as I’m concerned, but I’m not unreasonable.

Or would it force cuts in Medicare? Because if either of those come into play it will be a tough sell politically.

limit social carnage from Alcohol. Tea-Party amendment is meant to limit financial carnage from spending-drunk politicians who have lost their moral center. Might even get passed if the Pols think it will make the Tea-Party go away.

Its Pros are significant, however.

• As an amendment, it would be hard to ignore.
• It addresses the true problem–spending.
• It can be supported with reasonable arguments.

I question if 20% might not be too high. Looks like we need to be a bit lower than that to close the deficit gap, judging from 1995 to 2008. Say one-sixth instead of one-fifth. What percentage of current GDP is the 2007 budget? Let’s go back to that one.

A lower rate would almost certainly result in a faster-growing GDP, which would imply that what we really need to do is to postpone our gratification just a bit, until we get the tax receipts to do what we want, instead of borrowing from our grandchildren to have it NOW. But spending at the level of one-sixth GDP would almost certainly guarantee prosperity.

Although I used to agree with the concept of a Balanced Budget Amendment, I recognize now that it is too easily fudged. Democrats would simply say, “We need to raise the top Income Tax rate to 90% to balance the budget.”

We cannot just send well intentioned people to DC hoping they will make good changes. The system eats most of them up and spits them out as a DC drones drinkin the koolaid. The system needs to be improved to put out a better product for America.

Heck, as much as many of them are lying crooks, I’d even throw in a heft bonus for CONgress to achieve reasonable spending level benchmarks. Kind of like an Xprize bonus. Even if it was a million bucks for each CONgress critter at least they’d be focused on smaller government to get their bonus instead of spending like shopaholics with an unlimited credit card in exchange for votes and campaign money.

they don’t have an “escape hatch” and are thus too inflexible to deal with real emergencies. At a minimum there would need to be a provision where the requirement could be overridden with a real supermajority (2/3 of each congressional house?).

I have often argued that a Balanced Budget does not limit spending, but only necessitates greater taxation to keep the budget balanced. And then there’s the business of non-budgetary items…emergencies…etc.

I have often thought about instituting a flat tax of say 17%, perhaps with predesignated appropriation, 5% to defense, 1% federal law enforcement, etc…..with 2% directed towards deficit elimination, which sunsets. Anyhow, that’s my pipe dream.

Appropriation power is the root of much corruption in Washington. With today’s technology, it is less and less necessary for the people to delegate spending authority to Washington.

If you’re a delegate going to your county convention, send this article’s link to your Precinct Chairman and work on getting a resolution taken to the county convention.

There may be time yet. Our deadline is tomorrow.

Something this good can make it to the state conventions for State Adoption.

If you know any other Precinct Committeemen, contact them as well.

This is what I’ll be doing .. NOW.

Thanks, Erick.

Just like the idea of a Balanced Budget Amendment. Thankfully, neither one will ever see the light of day.

…but not for some of the reasons one might think of.

I find that the point of the Constitution is to stifle debate: it’s in the Constitution, and that’s all there is to it. While we know that the Courts have tended to warp the meaning of certain provisions of the Constitution, on the whole, the function of the Constitution is to stop political debate forever on the topic.

Look at what’s happened to the abortion debate as the result of Roe v. Wade: it has atrophied in our society to a point where the only real energy is on which Supreme Court Justice to appoint.

The topic of the proper size and scope of government is a vital one for the citizens of the democracy to engage in constantly. Frankly, it should happen ever single election cycle, if not every year, every month, every week, and every day. If the American people want a ginormous government, then by all means, they should get a ginormous government with all of its attendant ills.

Freezing debate on the topic strikes me as a solution that will spawn even more problems: a totally disengaged public that doesn’t talk about the hard choices, tradeoffs, and decisions that we (through our reps) have to make.

I would much rather we get an Amendment that inflicts the pain and burden of government _equally_ to everyone including the poor. And let that lead the way to a citizenry that grapples with the thorny problem of the size/scope of government honestly.

-TS

PS: I do support preventing government workers from exercising political power as much possible, as they distort the debate in serious ways.

Obviously, it will be politically difficult. But it will be politically difficult to pass any sort of federal spending limits, and limits must be enacted for the financial viability of the nation.

We’ve seen the consequences of aiming low for years now, and we know that strategy leads to almost complete failure. Might as well aim high and work from there.

I don’t think the people in DC have any clue what “STOP SPENDING” means. They’ve been writing checks with our money for so long that they have no idea what the words “fiscal responsibility”, “balanced budget” and “cut fraud and waste” mean. There’s nothing the voters can do that will take the place of what Congress will NOT do–which is why they need to be replaced with people who WILL represent them. The herd of PAC-pigs need their trough taken away.

There is a better chance of getting term limits on Congress than getting this amendment to the constitution. do you really think these thieves would abide by this? If you close their purse strings you take away most of their reason for being to begin with. Good luck with this one. It makes too much sense.

I doubt it.

Firstly, GDP is a government measurement, not some absolute value. It will be subject to a lot of manipulation by the bureaucracy if we have such an ammendment.

Secondly, since when is the constitution a barrier to libs in congress or the courts. They’ll ignore it, pay lip service and spin things to make it seem like they’re doing the “right” thing,

I believe the Spending Amendment is a great concept however, I think two modifications are necessary. First, the limit should be set at 15% and reduced to 10-12% after the economy gets back on a sound footing. Second, I would delete the ability of Congress to override the limit with 2/3rds majority vote. Also, allowing them to override in the event of war simply gives them an excuse to pick our next military adventure. We all know Congress can’t live within its’ means. Providing them with the ability to override the limit simply means they will do it the very first chance they get. Providing a hard limit will force them to make decisons about what is absolutely necessary and what would be simply nice to have.

The SLA is a great idea! I think another amendment, limiting the terms of all members of the executive and legislative branches (President – 2, six year terms; Senator – 2, six year terms; Representative – 6, 2 year terms) to preclude a cozy club that could constitute a permanent two-thirds majority. For that matter, it might be worthwhile to limit federal judgeships, including the US Supreme Court to 24 years.

Sounds good in theory. However, AndrewHyman has a good point. “I looked through this huge pdf file, and found no explanation of why the same goals cannot be attained without a constitutional amendment.”