If you are like most Americans you remember much ado about Republicans who voted for an increase in the debt ceiling (I still maintain, a huge mistake) in exchange for a chance to vote on a Balanced Budget Amendment to the Constitution before the end of the year.  Well – how did that turn out?

What Happened to the 2011 Balanced Budget Amendment?

Remember the epic Balanced Budget Amendment that was to be voted on before the end of the year?  The one that the “tea party hobbits” wanted?

On November 18th, just after the national debt crossed the $15,000,000,000,000 mark, a  roll call vote failed to get the required 2/3 majority in the House.  Unless you were paying very close attention it probably escaped your notice.  For some reason Republicans didn’t want to make a big deal out of it, and the media didn’t find it interesting enough to put in the spotlight.  Maybe everyone knew it was justWashingtongoing through the motions.  Republicans had used the promise of a balanced budget amendment as their cover for increasing the debt limit earlier, and now nobody really cared whether it passed or not.  After all, we were told, it would have died in the Senate.

The Balanced Budget Amendment was rotten anyway

There were a few good points, but if you are going to amend the Constitution you need to do it right and not just settle.  The amendment required the President to submit a balanced budget, and it did allow an exemption if we were at war.  But, if 2/3 of Congress approved, the amendment allowed the budget to be balanced with a tax hike.  Simply let Democrats, or big government Republicans, get a majority and that hurtle would barely be a speed bump.

Republicans who voted to raise the debt limit earlier certainly felt they had to vote for the amendment as cover, whether they liked it or not.  To their credit, a handful of true conservatives voted against the resolution, including two of my favorites – Paul Ryan, R-Wisconsin and Louie Gohmert, R-Texas.  Their main complaint was that it allowed the budget to be balanced by raising taxes.  Representative Gohmert said that given the choice he would rather have a cap on spending.  Paul Ryan had pushed for a tougher version of the amendment that would have also set tight caps on annual spending.  Maybe in 2012 we can elect Representatives who will follow their lead and we can get something that conservatives can be proud of.

I consider it a complete, thorough waste of time and energy to pass the FairTax, as its currently written.

There is one simple reason:  there is no super-majority requirement to raise the tax rate in the future.  If the currently-drafted FairTax is passed, the US Congress will be able to raise the tax rate — constantly, forever — through a simple majority vote.

FairTax supporters talk about a national sales tax rate of 23%.  Fine.  But it’s delusional to think that this tax rate won’t increase, and over a very short amount of time.

Again:  it’s entirely unreasonable to assume that politicians won’t raise the sales tax rate, and quickly.

Neal Boortz, a FairTax supporter, asked “What Happened to the FairTax?” on a “Contract from America” offered by the Tea Party Patriots group.  But Boortz answers his own question, by listing the Tea Party group’s “Contract,” in which the first goal mentioned is this:  ”DEMAND A BALANCED BUDGET: Begin the Constitutional amendment process to require a balanced budget with a two-thirds majority needed for any tax hike.”

The Tea Party Patriots remind us of another important hold-out within the FairTax:  there is no balanced-budget amendment included within the FairTax legislation. Rather than cut wasteful spending, the US Congress will continue to be able to pass on unnecessary debt to future generations, again through a simple majority vote.

I do not oppose the FairTax, and I do oppose the current “system” of taxation.  I say “system” because it’s not a system, but rather something that is rigged in favor of government.  It’s manipulative, burdensome, and confusing.  It’s all-around-bad for Americans.  Yes, we definitely need to change — no, overhaul — the current tax code.

But it’s not “change” to remove one really bad tax code, in order to replace it with another really bad tax code.

The “fuel” of government is money — our money.  It’s too easy for Washington to get our money.  And when they run out of our money and don’t have the votes to increase taxes, it’s too easy for Washington to spend our grandchildren’s money.

Regardless of the form of taxation, we need a Constitutional amendment that requires the support of a super-majority of Congress before taxes are increased.  We also need a balanced budget amendment: a Constitutional amendment that requires the support of a super-majority of Congress before the national debt is increased (I’m fine with some sort of “war-time exemption,” if necessary, though we should be prepared for that also to be abused).

I do want a major change to the current income tax.  Frankly, I’m indifferent to a flat tax or a national sales tax — one or the other, not both, of course.

Again, I don’t oppose the main premises of the FairTax.  Rather, I do oppose participating in pointless causes.  It takes an enormous effort to successfully change the US Constitution.

And so I must ask:  Why should conservatives spend the time, money, and political capital in order to pass the FairTax Constitutional amendment, but NOT also include a super-majority “plank” to increase the tax rate?  In my firm opinion, there is no good answer to that question.

I respect anybody who wants to volunteer their time and money for a political cause.  Therefore, I’m not going to tell FairTax folks, “Stop your efforts.”

What I am saying is that I firmly believe the currently-drafted FairTax, if passed, would result in a “no-net change” for Americans, after just a few decades.  It’s a waste of time to spend huge amounts of political capital on something that won’t change a thing.

Ramesh Ponnuru wrote in March 2010:

“Over time, wouldn’t it become just as riddled with exemptions and loopholes as the income tax is? Or as existing state sales taxes are? Or more so: How hard is it to imagine Congress adopting different tax rates for recyclable and non-recyclable products? And wouldn’t the FairTax be at least as easy for politicians to raise as the income tax?”

With all the research that has been presented by FairTax supporters to defend the idea that a national sales tax is superior to an income tax, and when FairTax supporters appropriately understand that politicians use and change the tax code in a manner that is hostile to freedom, I’m befuddled why they haven’t formally recognized that future politicians will also increase (and manipulate with exemptions) a national sales tax.

Read More →