New debt deal looks like a lot of nothing.

[RandySF]

Congress would have to send a Balanced Budget Amendment to the states or cuts kick in? Bullshit. Future Congresses will ignore that.

[nadinbrzezinski]

1. It reflects not knowing how ammendments work

sadly though, currently... they might have enough state houses to actually pass it.

[RandySF]

2. I would be surprised if this passes.

I see the teabaggers and progressive Democrats shooting this turkey down.

[nadinbrzezinski]

5. The tea baggers want it...

http://teapartyconnections.com/tag/balanced-budget-amendment/

Yes that is a link to one of the many tea parties

[Chan790]

10. They don't.

It's not even a question, they don't have enough. They need 38 and just 13 can vote it down and kill it.

I can name 13 states it's DOA in with no effort or thought:

1. Maine
2. Vermont
3. Massachusetts
4. Rhode Island
5. Connecticut
6. New York
7. New Jersey
8. Delaware
9. Maryland
10. Oregon
11. Washington
12. California
13. Hawaii
    
    It's got a one-armed man's chances in a clapping contest in:
    
    
14. Michigan
15. Pennsylvania
16. Colorado
17. West by-God Virginia
18. New Hampshire
19. Minnesota
    
    By next month you can probably add
    
    
20. Wisconsin
    
    to the first list.
    
    

[aquart]

12. The states would be the first ones screwed with a BBA.

[FBaggins]

13. How many of those states have their own BBA?

It almost certainly could be ratified... Though not quickly.

[Chan790]

16. Every US state but VT.

Most NE and WC states; CT, NY and CA stand out on this point; are generally screwed at the moment because of theirs, making them even less likely to pass a federal one.

Barring a sea-change in the legislatures of the NE states there is no way for the GOP get to 38 ratifying states...we're likely more than half way there on killing it before we ever get west or south of Albany, NY. The Democratic advantage in the Northeast states' state legislatures (and New England in particular) is overwhelming. NY has a GOP-controlled state Senate that has been trending away from the GOP for 20 years...they retain it now pretty much only out of incumbency and by 2 seats, GOP vote-defections are common. NY's State Assembly is just short of a Democratic super-majority.

It almost certainly could not be ratified at-all, at least not within the foreseeable future. (I'm talking less time than the ERA has been outstanding.)

If it looked more like the BBAs common of the states and less like Grover Norquist's masturbatory fantasy it might have a shot.

Further, it's DOA in the US Senate...it will never make it to the states.

[Syrinx]

3. I bet they include provisions to exempt war funding from being counted

[KansDem]

11. Why, yes, of course...!!!

You can't put a monetary limit on our nation's security!!! Just how much is your freedom worth?




:sarcasm:

[Tx4obama]

4. Regarding the BBA

From the Associated Press

SNIP

Congress would be required to vote on a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution, but none of the debt limit increase would be contingent on its approval.

SNIP

http://tinyurl.com/3ryomow



So, yes it is a bunch of nothing.
The Senate can vote 'no' on the BBA.
Also, it would have to be ratified by the states in order to become law - and that just ain't gonna happen.

----------

An amendment may be ratified in three ways:

The new amendment may be approved by two-thirds of both houses of Congress, then sent to the states for approval.

Two-thirds of the state legislatures may apply to Congress for a constitutional convention to consider amendments, which are then sent to the states for approval.

Congress may require ratification by special convention. The convention method has been used only once, to approve the 21st Amendment (repealing prohibition, 1933).

Regardless of the method of proposing an amendment, final ratification requires approval by three-fourths of the states.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Constitution#Article_Five:_Amendments

[ProgressiveProfessor]

6. Why are you so sure "that just ain't gonna happen"?

Given some of what I have seen, I believe it could be passed...

[Tx4obama]

7. Because ..

I do not believe that the Senate will pass it,
and I do not believe that the needed 35+ states will ratify it - especially the dem states would probably not agree to ratify it because they would know that the only reason there would be voting on it was due to the GOP holding the dem Senate and Obama hostage forcing the stipulation to vote on it into the negotiated agreement.

[joshcryer]

9. They need at least 46 Dems to cross the isle in the House and 19 in the Senate before it goes...

...to the states. It's ridiculous. Utterly ridiculous.

[joshcryer]

8. That's preposterous. It needs 2/3rds in both the House and Senate before it can go forward.

As it stands now the 112th United States Congress is split 45%D / 55%R, the Republicans need at least 66% to make the amendment stand, it's ridiculous. They can make up all of the amendments they want, it's posturing and stupid, and intended to directly address low information voters who are two stupid to read their constitution.

Yes, yes, they can make an amendment to "vote on some action in the future" it simply will not be able to pass muster under the current makeup of the Congress.

[FBaggins]

14. You assume that it would be a party-line vote

A number of democrats have said in the past that they would support a BBA.

My suspicion is that it would fail, but that it would be closer than you think as democrats up for election try to balance who gets to vote for it.

[Chan790]

17. A BBA, not *this* BBA.

There is a bipartisan BBA that could be constructed (to my Keynesian chagrin) that would be not only viable but popular with Democrats, but it bears no resemblance to this one.

Something that:

*Contained a rebate-kicker like OR has.
*Does not cap or place limitations on future tax increases, but requires they be offset by budget-trimming. (Typically, this mean pork-killing not major cuts.)
*Stipulates that all surpluses must first be applied to outstanding debt and in the case of no debt, placed into rainy-day funds.
*Allows suspension by super-majority, in addition to emergency suspension.

would probably pass the states easily...that looks like what most states have. (Except the OR thing...but the GOP would piss all over themselves to include it as it would allow them to claim constantly that they lowered taxes without actually having to lower taxes.)

[tanyev]

15. I doubt that a Republican president really wants a BBA, either.

Funny how Republican leaders only drag the idea out whenever a Democrat is in the White House.