Are you SERIOUS?
https://actionnetwork.org/petitions/stopbba
Republicans handed massive tax breaks to the richest 1% and multinational corporations. Now Paul Ryan is trying to pass a so-called “balanced budget amendment” to force the rest of us to pay the price.
Such an amendment would force automatic cuts to Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid, and other critical programs for working families and older Americans. It would jeopardize our retirement security and the security of veterans, people with disabilities, children and surviving spouses.
Sign the petition to demand that Congress reject Ryan's so-called “balanced budget amendment” which would cause automatic cuts to Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid.
MORE:
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2018/04/08/house-republicans-vote-balanced-budget-amendment-conservative-ire-spending/493728002/
WASHINGTON – The Republican-led House of Representatives will vote this week on a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution, an effort to quell anger from conservative activists who say Congress presides over a ballooning debt and out-of-control spending.
Lawmakers return to Washington after a two-week recess, during which many fielded complaints from constituents unhappy with the $1.3 trillion spending bill Congress passed last month. President Trump grudgingly signed the measure but vowed never to support such a massive spending bill again.
"I had people calling me up saying, ‘I’m done, I quit, I’m not voting. I’m totally fed up,’ ” said Rep. Dave Brat, R-Va. Brat and dozens of other conservatives voted against the legislation and railed against GOP lawmakers who supported it.
. . .
Democrats said the push for a balanced budget amendment is a political ploy — and a hypocritical move from Republicans who passed a tax cut law projected to add $1.5 trillion to the debt.
“I look at this as much more than a showboat, but actually putting some teeth in it and putting some people on record,” said Rep. Mark Walker, R-N.C., chair of the Republican Study Committee, a conservative caucus of more than 150 House members.
. . .
Walker helped GOP leaders win enough votes for a budget bill last fall, in exchange for a promise that the House would vote to balance the budget. He said this week's vote on a balanced budget amendment has been in the works for a while and is not a direct result of the voter pushback over the spending bill — though he acknowledged the base outrage adds to the amendment's urgency.
The measure the House will consider this week, introduced by Judiciary Chairman Bob Goodlatte of Virginia, would amend the Constitution to say Congress can't spend more than it takes in in federal revenue, unless three-fifths of both the House and Senate vote to do so. Congress could achieve the balanced budget through spending cuts or by raising taxes, though the latter step would also require a three-fifths vote in both the House and the Senate. Similarly, Congress could not raise the debt ceiling without super majority votes.
Social Security has a $2.9 trillion surplus. This is the American people’s money and NOT part of the federal budget. But if this amendment passes, it would prevent Social Security from using that surplus to pay benefits, leading to massive cuts. It would guarantee that each time Republicans cut taxes for the rich, you and I suffer.
MORE:
Constitutional Balanced Budget Amendment Poses Serious Risks
Would Likely Make Recessions Longer and Deeper, Could Harm Social Security and Other Trust Funds
https://www.cbpp.org/research/federal-budget/constitutional-balanced-budget-amendment-poses-serious-risks
A balanced budget amendment to the U.S. Constitution would be an unusual and economically dangerous way to address the nation’s long-term fiscal problems. It would threaten significant economic harm, as explained below. It also would raise a host of problems for the operation of Social Security and other vital federal programs. It’s striking that the House Republican leadership intends to schedule a vote on a balanced budget amendment just a few months after the President and Congress enacted a tax cut that will increase deficits by as much as $2 trillion over the next decade.[1]
The economic problems with such an amendment are the most serious. 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. THE AMENDMENT WOULD FORCE POLICYMAKERS TO CUT FEDERAL PROGRAMS, RAISE TAXES, OR BOTH WHEN THE ECONOMY IS WEAK OR ALREADY IN RECESSION — THE EXACT OPPOSITE OF WHAT GOOD ECONOMIC POLICY WOULD ADVISE.That’s because the amendment would force policymakers to cut federal programs, raise taxes, or both when the economy is weak or already in recession — the exact opposite of what good economic policy would advise.
When the economy slows, federal revenues decline or grow more slowly and the cost of unemployment insurance and other social programs increases, causing deficits to rise. Rather than allowing the “automatic stabilizers” of lower tax collections and higher unemployment and other benefits to cushion a weak economy, the amendment would force policymakers to cut programs, raise taxes, or both. That would launch a damaging spiral of bad economic and fiscal policy: a weaker economy would lead to higher deficits, which would force policymakers to cut programs or raise taxes more, which would further weaken the economy.
If a such an amendment had been ratified when Congress last voted on these proposals and had been enforced for fiscal year 2012, “the effect on the economy would be catastrophic,” Macroeconomic Advisers, one of the nation’s preeminent private economic forecasting firms, concluded at the time. It would have caused the unemployment rate to double from 9 percent in that year to 18 percent by throwing an additional 15 million people out of work, according to the firm. Not only that, “recessions would be deeper and longer” under a constitutional balanced budget amendment, and uncertainty would be cast over the economy that could retard economic growth even in normal economic times, the analysis concluded.
. . .
Beyond the economy, a balanced budget amendment would raise other problems. That’s because of its requirement that federal expenditures in any year must be offset by revenues collected in that same year. Social Security could not draw down the balances it has accumulated in previous years to pay benefits in a later year but, instead, could be forced to cut benefits even if it had ample balances in its trust funds; currently, those balances approach $2.9 trillion.
= new reply since forum marked as read
:kick:
