Progressive Groups: Balanced Budget Amendment is a Terrible Idea

[TomCADem]

Source: Mother Jones

On Wednesday, 247 national progressive and good government organizations, including the AFL-CIO, Democracy 21, National Coalition for LGBT Health, and OMB Watch, co-signed a letter opposing House Judiciary Committee Resolution 1—better known as the balanced budget amendment. Both the House and Senate are expected to vote on the measure next week.

The bill would cap government spending at 18 percent of gross domestic product (GDP). That would slash spending much deeper than Rep. Paul Ryan's (R-Wisc.) Medicare-privatizing, Medicaid-gutting, rich people-coddling budget plan, which holds spending between 20 and 21 percent of GDP over most of the next two decades (currently, spending is around 24 percent of GDP). The proposal also makes it exceedingly difficult for Congress to undo the budget damage inflicted by the cap: it requires a supermajority in both houses to break the cap, increase the debt limit, raise taxes, or close loopholes, strangling the government's ability to increase spending on social programs, health care, or unemployment benefits. Effectively, the bill would shackle Congress to a foolish piece of legislation that could torpedo the economy and send it spiraling into another recession.

This irresponsible requirement would create an extremely steep hurdle to raising any revenues—effectively blocking revenue measures even as part of packages to restore long-term solvency to Social Security and Medicare—while protecting the more than $1 trillion a year in "tax expenditures" and forcing severe program cuts.

In short, this amendment is a recipe for making recessions more frequent, longer, and deeper, while requiring severe cuts that would harshly affect seniors, children, veterans, people with disabilities, homeland security activities, public safety, environmental protection, education and medical research. It would almost certainly necessitate massive cuts to vital programs including Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, veterans’ benefits and other programs, and, as noted, lead to even deeper cuts than the House passed budget.


Read more: http://motherjones.com/mojo/2011/07/progressive-groups-balanced-budget-amendment-terrible-idea

---

It is amazing the blackout that is being given to the radical nature of the so-called "balanced-budget" amendment, except that Democrats oppose it. It is a Protect The Rich, And Screw Everyone Else Amendment, particularly the restrictions on raising taxes in an amendment that allegedly promotes balancing the budget. Under this amendment, Social Security and Medicare woulds essentially need to be wiped out during a recession.

We are not talking a trim. Heck, the Amendment would make Ryan's Medicare plan look like socialism!!!

But, you do not hear about progressive groups opposing this legislation. You do not hear that this legislation could mean the end of Medicare and Social Security All you hear are Democrats strongly opposing this amendment, but the reasons are censored.

The corporate media is once again hijacking the debate, and trying to run interference for Republicans who are on the verge of sending this nation into default.

So, its Blame The Democrats, and Give Republicans a Free Pass.

[OHdem10]

1. At some point the MSM is going to have start playing it straight

and being so darn obvious in protecting Republicans.
It is disedifying to the Public.

[provis99]

2. well, it would drive the military budget down to near zero.

I'm not quite sure that's what the repukes were think of though.

[TomCADem]

5. Sorry, The Amendment Has An Exception For Military Conflicts

And, the exception is limited to expenditures that are necessary for the military conflict. This a Republican pushed amendment afterall.

[provis99]

8. that figures.

It would still cut veterans' benefits though. why don't the Republicans do something honest and write an amendment that takes away voting rights from everybody except white male millionaires? They'd at least be true to their beliefs.

[PSPS]

3. An amendment requires 2/3 of both houses and 3/4 of the states. Will never happen.

[TomCADem]

6. But The Corporate Media Is Pushing The Amendment to Demonstrate Democrats Are Just As Stubborn...

...about spending as Republicans, but the corporate media does not tell the truth behind the radical pro-war, protect the rich amendment.

[FreakinDJ]

4. Because everyone knows it takes years to ratify an amendment

How long did the ERA languish in Amendment Limbo

[Firebrand Gary]

7. It's best be accompanied with a War time TAX on the TOP 1% of the population.

[msongs]

9. Once again repubs control the agenda in the face the hapless democrat. pathetic nt

[TomCADem]

10. Yup - "Blame The Democrats, and Give Republicans a Free Pass"

The corporate media narrative lives, right on cue.

[midnight]

11. K&R

[thecrow]

12. Have we outsourced our policy writing to China?

[jimlup]

13. We shouldn't be having to fight this one!

We need to have real leadership from our Champion so that we don't have to fight stupid fights like this. Seriously!

[No Elephants]

14. No worries. It ain't gonna happen. And, if it does, it will have so many loopholes,

it will be meaningless and non-controversial.

No amendment that is the least bit controversial had made it into the Constitution in over 50 years. And the partisan divide is worse than ever.

[blkmusclmachine]

15. So-called "MSM" bought out long ago:

It's now 100% RW propoganda, 100% of the time. Don't trust them to "come to their senses"...they're paid the big bucks NOT to.

[no_hypocrisy]

16. If a balanced budget amendment ever were added to the Constitution,

expenses for wars would always be protected and social programs cut. Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid would be whittled away into extinction.

Notice that this is similar to the modus operandi to "ban" abortion without re-criminalizing it: you take away the money and render the ability to offer services as neutralized.