A balanced budget amendment would stop American warmongering in it's tracks.

[Union Yes]

It's why Rethugs scrapped it with little fight back in '95. A BBA was part of their "Contract with America".

Rethugs knew a BBA would deal a blow to every elected warpigs grip on power. Hence the BBA was scrapped faster than an empty beer can.

We cannot maintain this war machine without deficit spending. Every elected WARPIG knows this.

How sick is it, that an elected person will send another person to their death in order to maintain their grip on power and bankrupt our nation in the process.

It's called being drunk on power.

[chimpymustgo]

1. Check this out: I JUST posted it. Make Congress raise taxes and institute a draft.

Is Obama this SMART?? BRILLIANT NYT reader comment with SOLUTION to Afghanistan decision.

This is a comment to Bob Herbert's "A Tragic Mistake" in the NYT. Is there any chance Obama could do this? It would be BRILLIANT. Does he have the guts? What do you think?

9.
MNW
Connecticut
December 1st, 2009
7:20 am

A serious, viable, realistic, politically expedient scenario follows:

President Obama presents his case for additional troops for Afghanistan, along with the rationale for this action, and fulfills the requests of military commanders and Secretary of Defense Gates. Whether or not his reasoning is compelling remains to be seen.

He will then call upon the Congress to establish a Draft to supply the necessary manpower for these additional troops. He will also ask the Congress for an increase in taxes - via the tax code or by a special war tax - to provide the revenues to cover the costs of expanded operations in Afghanistan. Failure to take these steps represents a lack of responsible leadership and a neglect of the fiscally prudent measures necessary to support a continued costly war effort. (Note www.costofwar.com )

The ball will thus be firmly placed in the Congressional "court", which is exactly where it belongs, given the requirements of the US Constitution. As a Constitutional scholar and professor of this subject matter, the President is well aware of these necessary steps in the process of shared governance with the Congress. Wars and the purse strings are the provenance of the Congress and rightly so, as the Congress represents the people - or at least they have a moral obligation to do so.

This approach, if Obama has the fortitude for it, will be a master stroke - politically speaking - and totally compatible with his nature. (Remember that the ball is in their court.) There will be no more avoidance of war-making decisions by the Congress who prefer to spare themselves and to leave it up to any President. (Great skirts to hide behind.) Why put their political lives on the line, after all. But then there is that pesky Constitution.

The usual resulting chaos in the Congress will place the Republicans war seekers on the horns of a dilemma (with friction in their ranks) because they prefer not to ask for a Draft (politically dangerous as the electorate on the whole does not favor war escalation) and they prefer to avoid taxes of any kind as they believe only in a "borrow and spend" mode of fiscal activity. All their concerns regarding deficit spending (remember Health Care reform) will disappear immediately, strangely enough.

Sensible Congressional Democrats will weigh the political consequences and support neither the Draft, the taxes, or the war in Afghanistan in its entirety. (Sorry, Mr. President, but our constituents do not support these efforts.) Or they will do what they do best - forego a unified front, and that for once will be to our advantage. Obama will retire to the Oval Office, look over the Rose Garden, and await Congressional decisions. (I await also - all the Op-Eds.)

The monkey wrench, of course, is if Obama throws in with the Republicans, which means he isn't as thoughtful or politically astute as one might hope. But then is being a one-term President worth a problematic "finish the job" proclamation and its possible failure? (And we do need him as a Democrat, in the last analysis.) Who's to say, but a viable third party candidate may have my vote this next time around, since I prefer careful thinkers in any political driver's seat. (And the above scenario does get him off the Afghanistan hook, after all. Not a bad result.)

So lessons are learned and we may have to finally accept the fact that possibly charismatic oratory does have its limitations. Fool me once......

http://community.nytimes.com/comments/www.nytimes.com/2...

[Union Yes]

4. I read it and recd it even before you replied =)

:thumbsup:

[metalbot]

8. No draft

As a former soldier, I'd like to point out that I don't want the guy next to me to be there because he happened to get unlucky with a draft number. I'd like to be next to a guy who signed up to do the same job I'm doing. We have a standing army of more than half a million, with another half a million reserve soldiers. We don't lack the manpower to stand up 100k soldiers in Afghanistan on yearlong deployments.

[Ozymanithrax]

2. Republicans scrapped the balanced budget amendment (Contract with America)...

because they never meant to enact one. It was a way to get their base inspired to vote. I think the term is bait and switch.

There are problems with a balanced budget amendment.

Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, and most social programs could be construed as violating a balanced budget. I money going out must equal money coming in, a simple majority decides what is on the chopping block. Republicans wanted a balanced budget amendment because they promised it would lead to an end to Social Security, Medicare, and other big entitlement programs.

There are times when a Nation must be able to borrow money. A major natural disaster, such as Katrina or an earthquake, violated budget integrity. You have to write in exceptions for acts of nature and national defense. Pearl Harbor require massive borrowing to rebuild the military in the face of legitimate military threat. Do we borrow or let Americans die. If we can not increase the military in the face of a legitimate act of aggression, do we simply allow a foreign power to have whatever chunk of the US they decide to take.

Certainly, you seem to be implying that a balanced budget would lead directly to a reduction of the military. Who determines whether we cut social programs and our military budget, which does create a lot of jobs? Senators and congressmen fight to get military appropriations for companies in their states because it brings home jobs while it benefits big bussiness.

[Union Yes]

5. I totally agree that a BBA was a bait and switch by Thugs in '94.

Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid are backed by law. They are untouchable unless said laws are repealed.

Defense spending is appropriated annually and not backed by a permanent law.

Rethugs already tried their best to repeal and/or privatize SS and totally failed at doing so.

However, I am fully aware that a BBA could threaten certain safety net programs.

When you asked "Who determines whether we cut social programs and our military budget, which does create a lot of jobs?"

The House Appropriations Committee and Senate Finance Committee. They can't touch SS as explained earlier. They determine our annual defense budget.

[Ozymanithrax]

9. Allmost all of the budget is backed by law.

Changing the Constitution calls every law into question. They would all be evaluated and possibly abolished if they did not fit the "ballanced budget."

Now, if we have a permanent Democratic Majority where no Democrat has any National Security Jobs in his distract and never takes money from Denfense industries it might work. Carl Rove really beleived in permanent majorities until November 2006. History shows that no majority will ever be permanent.

The SCOTUS would be busy for decades with lawsuits against every law that has a budget item in it. Most of them do. I recently read most of No child Left Behind, the Civil Rights act of 1964, Title IX, and a few others. They all had provisions that called for funding. These provision would be called into quesiton.

One thing about Constitutional ammendments. It is very dificult to get an ammendment approved. Such an ammendment could be considered an attack on every state that relies on the U.S. Government for money. (They all do.) A ballanced budget ammendment would never be ratified by the states, or passed by the House and the Senate. And because governments must at times borrow money, it is a bad idea.

[OHdem10]

3. Since both parties have embraced much of PNAC Foreign Policy

a balanced budget gives the Conservatives in each party the
opportunity to gut or even end the Social Safety Net.

A Draft and a War Tax that lasts as long as the war is the
way to make Leaders think long and hard about starting wars
and if started getting them over with fast.

[Union Yes]

6. Please read reply 5.

I agree with the war tax and draft idea. It forces accountability on warpig politicians.

[yurbud]

7. a balanced budget amendment would be used to cut social programs not defense

count on it.

[Vidar]

10. If only . . . Recommended.

[anonymous171]

11. If I recall it would have made exceptions for "times of war."

All Bush would have to say is "WAR AWN TERROAR" and congress would be able to feed the machine to their hearts content.

[chimpymustgo]

12. Damn...the warmongers are furiously unrec'ing. Fuck em. Hope they're enlisting.