News Will past personal issues affect Obama's 2012 campaign?

[WhoWee]

It makes sense to every household that refuses to spend more than they earned that year - which is every household that only pays cash for their cars and only pays cash for their house. There's good reasons to run up debt.

When does it EVER make sense for a household to plan to incur so much debt that they must perpetually borrow at minimum $.43 of every $1.00 spent to meet monthly obligations?

 

[BobG]

The important thing is that your average spending is less than your average income. That what you spent in year one for your house (and the interest to finance it) averages out to less than you make over the course of your mortgage - and that you're not one of those people that once you've spent that money on the house, decide that's the average amount of debt you're going to carry for the rest of your life and keep taking out second mortgages as soon as your equity increases.

When does it EVER make sense for a household to plan to incur so much debt that they must perpetually borrow at minimum $.43 of every $1.00 spent to meet monthly obligations?

Never. I don't disagree that Congress has done a lousy job handling finances. I disagree that a Balanced Budget Amendment is a viable solution. It's acceptance of the fact that we're incapable of electing good leaders and that we'll always be incapable of electing good leaders.

 

[mheslep]

Presidents of both parties have duly submitted a budget proposal as they are required by law for years, in which they not infrequently drive the political discussion with dramatic changes to the status quo. Obama's latest budget cut pretty much nothing while raising income taxes and resulting in large an increasing deficits out to 2020.

By contrast, examples of serious cut and reform proposals would include: Clinton and his http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Les_Aspin#Defense_budget_and_.22bottom-up_review.22" which he pushed in State of the Union address and spent dedicated time on all over the country explaining in detail, allowing it to be attacked in public in detail.

 

[WhoWee]

Never. I don't disagree that Congress has done a lousy job handling finances. I disagree that a Balanced Budget Amendment is a viable solution. It's acceptance of the fact that we're incapable of electing good leaders and that we'll always be incapable of electing good leaders.

To both respond directly and go back to PG's concern - IMO - a good piece of legislation will build in the ability to react to special situations and adjust for changes in GDP.

If the economy slows fixed spending as a percentage will automatically increase and discretionary spending would be adjusted. During boom periods - any fixed spending increases should be delayed and weighed against the normal standard - once again, discretionary spending (or Heaven forbid) debt reduction might be considered.

Legislation of this type (done properly) would mandate responsible management - rather than whatever it is that Congress typically does.

IMO - during the Bush years, there was far too much "compromise" on spending. As a parent of 4 kids I recognize the 'if everybodies doing it - then nobody's to blame game'.

 

[mheslep]

...

Personally, I see the Tea Party movement as giving up on any possibility of ever electing competent people to government. The problem with that idea is that if it's true, then we're pretty much sunk regardless of cute things like a Balanced Budget Amendment or forcing the government to partially shut down to avoid defaulting on its debt.

The Tea Party appeals to the pessimists.

I disagree and think the reverse is true, the difference being I think in the curious notion that optimism and pessimism need be about the federal government of all things, as opposed to the people and private institutions of the US and what they might create and build absent a parasitic government. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EU-IBF8nwSY" commercial, probably the most successful ever made, followed this theme with not a mention of how the government was needed to come and fix this or that.

 

[mheslep]

...I disagree that a Balanced Budget Amendment is a viable solution. ...

Why, when 49 states have BB laws?

 

[WhoWee]

Why, when 49 states have BB laws?

Good point!

If anything, the balanced budget requirement will provide Congress with a framework of how to manage their time and priorities. IMO - when they have too much free time they get us into trouble.

 

[BobG]

Why, when 49 states have BB laws?

This is very old (BALANCED BUDGET REQUIREMENTS - State Experiences and Implications for the Federal Government) and the details are probably wrong by now, but it at least compares all 50 states in one document and illustrates some of the differences between state budgets and federal budgets.

For one thing, most states have requirements to balance their general fund, not the entire budget. Capital projects, such as building projects to improve infrastructure, are still financed via debt and only the debt payments have to be included in the balanced budget requirement (this is a sensible provision - if comparing to households, it's similar to how households buy a car). While each state varied in this report, general funds accounted for about 54% of the overall state budgets.

For another, almost all states have requirements for the proposed budget and/or the enacted budget to be balanced. That's not the same as requiring the budget to balance at the end of the year. In fact, in many states, any end of year deficits are just rolled into the next year's budget - i.e. an end of year deficit hurts what the state can do the next year and ensures budgets balance in the long term, but it doesn't cripple a state when things don't go as planned.

It's a system that can be abused. Proposing an overly optimistic economy and underestimating costs is a perfectly legal way to balance the budget on paper without balancing it at year end. Balancing the budget, but then passing emergency supplemental bills during the year is another perfectly legal way to balance the budget on paper without balancing it at year end (given that the government has to have the flexibility to respond to emergencies, crises, etc, any rational balanced budget amendment would still have to allow emergency supplemental spending bills even if there were a likelihood of abuse).

While many states have no legal requirement to balance the budget at the end of the year, most still do. One method used to do this is to give the state governor authority to impose unilateral spending cuts of some kind. The federal government could also do this - allow the President to make unilateral spending cuts or tax increases - and it couldn't be considered unconstitutional if were authorized by a constitutional amendment. It would be a rather substantial transfer of power over the budget from the legislative branch to the executive branch, however.

Most federal balanced budget amendment proposals have balked at transferring power from the legislative to the executive and have proposed some formula for automatic spending cuts. In my opinion, putting the budget on autopilot and allowing those set formulas to take control are the worst option, but that's purely a subjective opinion.

A better option is to require Congress to make adjustments during the year, as some state legislatures do. Everything is still under human control without transferring legislative authority to the executive branch. They still have to have the flexibility to handle situations where the end of year is not going to be balanced no matter how much we might wish it would.

There's two other reasons state budgets usually balance at the end of year even though they're only legally required to balance when enacted: tradition and credit ratings.

State budget officials told us that in addition to the requirements themselves, the expectation or tradition of balanced budgets as well as concern over bond ratings were important motivating factors in their states' efforts to balance budgets. Without these other factors, balanced budget requirements may not be sufficient to ensure balanced state budgets. While present at the federal level, concerns over long-term budget balance and credit worthiness have not been historically strong enough to maintain a balanced federal budget.

The federal government still has almost no recent history of balanced budgets, but concerns about its credit worthiness may just have gotten a lot stronger. While state budgets usually do balance, it's debatable whether the legal requirements are the reason or if state budgets balance because voters expect state governments to balance their budgets.

 

[WhoWee]

A better option is to require Congress to make adjustments during the year, as some state legislatures do. Everything is still under human control without transferring legislative authority to the executive branch. They still have to have the flexibility to handle situations where the end of year is not going to be balanced no matter how much we might wish it would.

What if they choose not to take action - how do you propose to "require Congress to make adjustments during the year"?

 

[mheslep]

This is very old (BALANCED BUDGET REQUIREMENTS - State Experiences and Implications for the Federal Government) and the details are probably wrong by now, but it at least compares all 50 states in one document and illustrates some of the differences between state budgets and federal budgets.

For one thing, most states have requirements to balance their general fund, not the entire budget. Capital projects, ...

Yes there innumerable variations. Fine. Still much better than the current federal situation.

For another, almost all states have requirements for the proposed budget and/or the enacted budget to be balanced. That's not the same as requiring the budget to balance at the end of the year. In fact, in many states, any end of year deficits are just rolled into the next year's budget - i.e. an end of year deficit hurts what the state can do the next year and ensures budgets balance in the long term, but it doesn't cripple a state when things don't go as planned.

Still much better than the current federal situation.

It's a system that can be abused.

As can our entire system of government, and is.

Proposing an overly optimistic economy and underestimating costs is a perfectly legal way to balance the budget on paper without balancing it at year end. Balancing the budget, but then passing emergency supplemental bills during the year is another perfectly legal way to balance the budget on paper without balancing it at year end (given that the government has to have the flexibility to respond to emergencies, crises, etc, any rational balanced budget amendment would still have to allow emergency supplemental spending bills even if there were a likelihood of abuse)...

Still much better than the current federal situation.

...While many states have no legal requirement to balance the budget at the end of the year, most still do. One method used to do this is to give the state governor authority to impose unilateral spending cuts of some kind. The federal government could also do this - allow the President to make unilateral spending cuts or tax increases - ...

Not 'or tax increases'. I am unaware of any state granting a Governor the authority to unilaterally impose tax increases.

Most federal balanced budget amendment proposals have balked at transferring power from the legislative to the executive and have proposed some formula for automatic spending cuts. In my opinion, putting the budget on autopilot and allowing those set formulas to take control are the worst option, but that's purely a subjective opinion...

You've read some of the literature and thus must know that 'autopilot' is not what happens in most of the states, most of the time, yet fall back to a counter factual as a summary of the nature of BB laws? In the federal case by contrast most spending, especially the entitlements SS and Medicare is already on autopilot.

 

[ParticleGrl]

The obvious reason states have balanced budgets and the federal government does not is that STATES CAN NOT PRINT MONEY. That makes the federal government a very different beast (and its different from a household budget in the same way).

When talking about US federal debt we have to remember that we CHOOSE to operate the government via selling treasuries because its more predictable than printing money to cover government purchases.

 

[WhoWee]

The obvious reason states have balanced budgets and the federal government does not is that STATES CAN PRINT MONEY. That makes the federal government a very different beast (and its different from a household budget in the same way).

When talking about US federal debt we have to remember that we CHOOSE to operate the government via selling treasuries because its more predictable than printing money to cover government purchases.

And yet there's talk of QE-3?

I'm trying to figure out what good it would do (after buying Treasuries off the banks with printed Dollars under QE-2) for the banks to then buy more Treasuries (not sure what they've done with the cash?) - only to sell them to the Fed for more printed Dollars under QE-3?

 

[BobG]

You've read some of the literature and thus must know that 'autopilot' is not what happens in most of the states, most of the time, yet fall back to a counter factual as a summary of the nature of BB laws? In the federal case by contrast most spending, especially the entitlements SS and Medicare is already on autopilot.

I don't believe any states use a formula (but California did for a while - it was actually implemented once and the formula requirements were suspended each subsequent year until the formulas were eliminated). The federal government did use formulas in Gramm-Rudman, a deficit reduction bill passed to head off a previous balanced budget amendment attempt and in some other bill that tried to enact a balanced budget through legislative means. Some balanced budget amendments have proposed formulas - most haven't (there have been several attempts at a balanced budget amendment). Looking closer, the formula idea seems to be a fad that was popular in the 80's and early 90's, not a normal method used to balance budgets.

The amendment that came closest to passage (http://rpc.senate.gov/releases/1997/v5.htm ) did not use formulas and only required the budget be balanced when enacted.

The most recent version (S. J. RES. 23 - Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States relative to balancing the budget) proposed by Snowe (ME) and DeMint (SC) also does not use formulas and only requires the budget be balanced when enacted (but makes it a lot harder to balance the budget via raising taxes).

No states authorize the governor to unilaterally raise taxes. It's still a valid possibility (even if unlikely). Giving the governor authority to unilaterally raise taxes is on the exact same level as giving the governor the authority to unilaterally cut spending. Both are powers normally held by the legislative instead of the executive. In any event, it's unlikely Congress would give the President authority to do either.

 

[BobG]

What if they choose not to take action - how do you propose to "require Congress to make adjustments during the year"?

Interestingly, one could say that's the shortfall of most state requirements to balance the budget. There's no sanctions or penalties for failing to balance the budget. The few states that do have some sort of sanction or penalty have never implemented them.

None the less, states usually do balance their budget. Tradition and expectations carry a lot of weight, at least at the state level and below, where government is sometimes actually functional.

At a federal level, I imagine that could be a bit more problematic.

Actually, a separate thread discussing what a Balanced Budget Amendment should include (if, for some reason, one were silly enough to think it would be a good idea in the first place) would probably be better than derailing this thread.

 

[BobG]

I'm not sure 'But I'm better than Bush was! ' Is going to fly next year.

The logical reply to Obama using that tactic is "So what? So was Carter!"

 

[mheslep]

There's nothing new under the sun. Here are earlier and better considered responses to objections to the '81 Balanced Budget amendment by Milton Friedman (1983)
http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/1983/02/washington-less-red-ink/5450/

 

[russ_watters]

And my comments about our ability to elect competent leaders applies to government in general; not just our economic problems. You can't solve problems about the quality of our leaders by making them powerless to make decisions. It defeats the purpose of having any leaders at all.

You certainly can't solve all of them, but at the same time, if not for lack of quality leaders, we wouldn't need a Constitution in the first place, would we? Distill all of our history down and this flaw in humanity is the one and only reason our Constitution - our country - exists. A single leader can't be trusted to act in the best interests of a country, so our country/constitution was created to both limit and diversify the power of governance.

The Constitution did a pretty good job of limiting and diversifying power, but it is 200 years old and isn't perfect. It has been amended in the past, again, for precisely this reason, for example for the Presidential term limit.

In the present case, our founders couldn't possibly have imagined a government so big and so heavily involved in social programs. The flaw that has enabled the current situation simply didn't manifest until the 20th century.

A Balanced Budget Amendment makes it practically impossible for government to react to a crisis, a war, a huge natural disaster in any sort of timely manner.

[and to P_G] There is no need to assume that a balanced budget amendment would be a simplistic and inflexible one-liner. I haven't fully developed what I'd like to see, but for starters it wouldn't, strictly speaking, be a balanced budget amendment, but rather a debt level amendment. It would set a target debt-to-gdp ratio and a ramp to achieving it. It would allow (as the link WW posted included) exceptions by 2/3 majority in the event of a major emergency.

It takes away the responsible things a Congress might possibly do as well as takes away the damage they might do. I think in our current times, it might be reasonable to say people in Congress are more likely to do damaging things than responsible things, but that's a problem with our ability to choose leaders - not a problem with our current system.

I'd be willing to entertain an alternate amendment that fixes our ability to choose quality leaders, if you have one. Personally, I think the flaw is a flaw in human nature, so I doubt it would be possible to correct it.

It's acceptance of the fact that we're incapable of electing good leaders and that we'll always be incapable of electing good leaders.

Well, let's attack it this way: can you think of a time in modern history when a US government existed that successfully dealt with such issues as we're seeing today?

 

[russ_watters]

I would expect variables of this type to be anticipated in the design of serious proposals.

Yes. It annoys me that people assume it wouldn't. This is a problem that makes it difficult to have a serious debate in this forum: don't assume the people you are arguing with aren't more nuanced than the most simplistic interpretation of what they say.

 

[mheslep]

... I haven't fully developed what I'd like to see, but for starters it wouldn't, strictly speaking, be a balanced budget amendment, but rather a debt level amendment. ...

That's prescient; you have some good company in that line:

[Objection] 6. The key problem is not deficits but the size of government spending.

[Response] My sentiments exactly. Which is why I have never supported an amendment directed solely at a balanced budget. I have written repeatedly that while I would prefer that the budget be balanced, I would rather have government spend $500 billion and run a deficit of $100 billion than have it spend $800 billion with a balanced budget.

 

[russ_watters]

Presidents of both parties have duly submitted a budget proposal as they are required by law for years, in which they not infrequently drive the political discussion with dramatic changes to the status quo. Obama's latest budget cut pretty much nothing while raising income taxes and resulting in large an increasing deficits out to 2020.

By contrast, examples of serious cut and reform proposals would include: Clinton and his http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Les_Aspin#Defense_budget_and_.22bottom-up_review.22" which he pushed in State of the Union address and spent dedicated time on all over the country explaining in detail, allowing it to be attacked in public in detail.

Expansion: the other half (1/5?) of the current issue is tax increases. Spending cuts are complicated, but a specific spending plan is required of a President. Tax plans are not required, but they are typically so simple that there is no good excuse for not being specific about what you want. Tax bracket increases can be detailed with a 3x5 card of bullet points or in 15 seconds in a speech. In the case of the current situation, a one-liner is all that is really needed:

-Repeal the Bush tax cuts.
or
-Repeal the Bush tax cuts for upper income earners, but extend them for everyone else.

Caveat, of course: If you want to actually reform our tax system, ie, with deduction cuts, that takes more detail.

 

[mheslep]

Expansion: the other half (1/5?) of the current issue is tax increases. Spending cuts are complicated, but a specific spending plan is required of a President. Tax plans are not required, but they are typically so simple that there is no good excuse for not being specific about what you want. Tax bracket increases can be detailed with a 3x5 card of bullet points or in 15 seconds in a speech. In the case of the current situation, a one-liner is all that is really needed:

-Repeal the Bush tax cuts.
or
-Repeal the Bush tax cuts for upper income earners, but extend them for everyone else.

Interestingly your first option, raise everyone's taxes which might eliminate a ~quarter of the deficit, has been rejected as an option in a pledge by [STRIKE]the terrorist Tea Party[/STRIKE] [STRIKE]Grover Norquist[/STRIKE] http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/obameter/promise/515/no-family-making-less-250000-will-see-any-form-tax/"

"I can make a firm pledge. Under my plan, no family making less than $250,000 a year will see any form of tax increase. Not your income tax, not your payroll tax, not your capital gains taxes, not any of your taxes."

 

[russ_watters]

Here is the glaring problem- lots of programs (unemployment, medicaid, etc) should cost little in good times, but might cost quite a lot during recessions, which is just the time that revenues fall. A good budget should probably run surplus in good times, and deficit in bad times.

I don't see that as a problem with a balanced budget amendment at all, I see that as a manifestation of the exact problem that we're all in here discussing! And the solution really isn't all that complicated:

Make the government insurance programs actually function like insurance programs. Unemployment should be a rainy-day trust fund that accumulates value in good times and loses value in bad times. The fact that we now don't force these funds to run surpluses in good times, causing them to get buried in bad times is exactly the problem I'm trying to address!

No, it doesn't. The US has among the weakest safety nets of the first world countries- we haven't been piling on social programs and debt. [emphasis added]

The first sentence has nothing to do with what I said (just because others have been piling them on faster doesn't mean we haven't been piling them on as well) and the part after is wrong. Sure, it hasn't been a continuous thing, but rather had some big jumps, such as with the creation of Social Security. Also, with social security, despite the fact that it is supposed to be a trust fund, our unfunded obligations are not typically counted as debt. That may have been ok when the pyramid scheme was working and it had plenty of money, but now that it is faltering, the gap between the obligations and what's in the trust fund is growing. So the debt problem is actually a lot worse than the typically cited debt numbers indicate.

Keep in mind only two presidents in the history of the country have accumulated debt in a time of economic expansion, Reagan and W. Bush. Clinton ran surpluses...

As if that mattered, it's nonsense: Clinton left us a higher debt than existed when he entered: $5.7T vs $4.2T. http://www.treasurydirect.gov/NP/NPGateway

Inflation adjusted, it looks to me like about $5T to $5.5T: http://www.brillig.com/debt_clock/faq.html

Clinton saw 2 years of surplus in his 8 years of presidency.

 

[mheslep]

... The US has among the weakest safety nets of the first world countries- ...

While I wish the US was more frugal in this regard compared to other nations, and certainly more effective if not frugal, I seriously doubt this is true on a money spent per capita basis. Federal entitlement spending alone, Medicare+SS+Medicaid is about $1500 billion/yr or about $5000/yr per capita in the US across the entire population. This does not include federal unemployment insurance or and numerous other transfer payments counted under 'discretionary' spending. Then there is state and local spending, including some $1000 billion/yr of state and local spending for free K-12 or subsidized university education, and we still haven't touched the hundreds of billions spent on private charity or 'obligated' aid such as the EMTALA law which obligates emergency rooms to treat all comers.

 

[BobG]

You certainly can't solve all of them, but at the same time, if not for lack of quality leaders, we wouldn't need a Constitution in the first place, would we? Distill all of our history down and this flaw in humanity is the one and only reason our Constitution - our country - exists. A single leader can't be trusted to act in the best interests of a country, so our country/constitution was created to both limit and diversify the power of governance.

The Constitution did a pretty good job of limiting and diversifying power, but it is 200 years old and isn't perfect. It has been amended in the past, again, for precisely this reason, for example for the Presidential term limit.

In the present case, our founders couldn't possibly have imagined a government so big and so heavily involved in social programs. The flaw that has enabled the current situation simply didn't manifest until the 20th century.

There's a difference. Generally, we limit whole areas that government can't affect. The constitution makes the budget one of Congress's primary jobs (Article 1, Sections 7 & 8).

A balanced budget amendment affects one of Congress's primary responsibilities!

I don't see that as a problem with a balanced budget amendment at all, I see that as a manifestation of the exact problem that we're all in here discussing! And the solution really isn't all that complicated:

Make the government insurance programs actually function like insurance programs. Unemployment should be a rainy-day trust fund that accumulates value in good times and loses value in bad times. The fact that we now don't force these funds to run surpluses in good times, causing them to get buried in bad times is exactly the problem I'm trying to address!

I'm not sure that would technically be a balanced budget as much as it would be setting a debt limit that couldn't be exceeded. You're still running surpluses and deficits. You just don't let the deficits run your balance down to zero.

 

[mheslep]

Its a mistake to see the constitution as laying out primarily what the government should do. Most of the constitution, and all of the Bill of Rights, lays restrictions on what the government may not do. There are very good arguments that federal government is fragrantly exceeding those bounds: 10th amendment is completely ignored, commerce clause abuse, and so on.

 

[BobG]

Its a mistake to see the constitution as laying out primarily what the government should do. Most of the constitution, and all of the Bill of Rights, lays restrictions on what the government may not do. There are very good arguments that federal government is fragrantly exceeding those bounds: 10th amendment is completely ignored, commerce clause abuse, and so on.

It's a mistake to see these sentences as laying out what Congress should do?

All bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives; but the Senate may propose or concur with Amendments as on other Bills.

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

To borrow money on the credit of the United States;

Or was your post in response to something else?

 

[russ_watters]

There's a difference. Generally, we limit whole areas that government can't affect. The constitution makes the budget one of Congress's primary jobs (Article 1, Sections 7 & 8).

A balanced budget amendment affects one of Congress's primary responsibilities!

Agreed, but I don't see why that is an issue. It's not like specific powers haven't been clarified or constrained before. Not sure if it is really Constitutional, but there's the War Powers Act, for example.

I'm not sure that would technically be a balanced budget as much as it would be setting a debt limit that couldn't be exceeded. You're still running surpluses and deficits. You just don't let the deficits run your balance down to zero.

In the short term, it would require a surplus, in the long term a constant debt rate. Zero is just a number - there are a lot of numbers out there. 1, 2, 3...5 sounds like a good number to me. How 'bout a maximum 5% debt to GDP ratio?

 

[SixNein]

Agreed, but I don't see why that is an issue. It's not like specific powers haven't been clarified or constrained before. Not sure if it is really Constitutional, but there's the War Powers Act, for example.
In the short term, it would require a surplus, in the long term a constant debt rate. Zero is just a number - there are a lot of numbers out there. 1, 2, 3...5 sounds like a good number to me. How 'bout a maximum 5% debt to GDP ratio?

IMO people on the right are way to quick to make alterations to the constitution where alterations have very long term consequences.

 

[WhoWee]

IMO people on the right are way to quick to make alterations to the constitution where alterations have very long term consequences.

Of course that's your opinion - my opinion - is that people on the left are too quick to ignore it and try to find ways around it.

 

[daveb]

Its a mistake to see the constitution as laying out primarily what the government should do. Most of the constitution, and all of the Bill of Rights, lays restrictions on what the government may not do.

This is true of the Bill of Rights, but not the Articles themselves. Ignoring most other sections (since they deal with procedural or organiational aspects of Congess) Section 8 of Article 1 (which are the enumerated Powers of Congress) lists about 19 separate powers of Congress, whereas Section 9 (which are the restrictions) only lists 8 or 9 restrictions.

 

[daveb]

Of course that's your opinion - my opinion - is that people on the left are too quick to ignore it and try to find ways around it.

Both sides are quick to do whatever is in their interest. For example

Many on the right forget the 9th Amendment when they say there is no "Right to an abortion, to privacy, burn the flag, etc." in the Constitution.

I haven't heard many calls on the left for changes to the Constitution, but yes, many do ignore it by trying to restrict "hate speech" and enacting "hate crime legislation".

 

[russ_watters]

IMO people on the right are way to quick to make alterations to the constitution where alterations have very long term consequences.

What is "quick" about this?

 

[mheslep]

It's a mistake to see these sentences as laying out what Congress should do?

I said:

as laying out primarily what the government should do. Most of the constitution,

in response to your suggestion that somehow placing additional restrictions on Congress was contrary to the sense of the constitution.

A balanced budget amendment affects one of Congress's primary responsibilities!

A BB amendment doesn't deny Congress the roles granted under A1,7-8, unless you attempt to interpret them curiously, simply by being there, as meaning no further restriction can be placed on Congress.

 

[WhoWee]

I guess the call for civility fell on deaf ears?
http://content.usatoday.com/communities/theoval/post/2011/08/Obama-Romney-camps-mix-it-up-414421/1

""It is disgraceful that President Obama's campaign has launched his re-election with the stated goal to 'kill' his opponent with an onslaught of negative and personal attacks," said a statement from Romney campaign manager Matt Rhoades.

The "kill Romney" comment is from an anonymous "prominent Democratic strategist aligned with the White House" quoted in Politico, which says Obama is focusing on Romney as the likely GOP nominee."

 

[daveb]

I'm guessing both sides will likely resort to the personal attacks - it is par for the course in politics, after all.

 

[mheslep]

Its a mistake to see the constitution as laying out primarily what the government should do. Most of the constitution, and all of the Bill of Rights, lay restrictions on what the government may not do. ...

This is true of the Bill of Rights, but not the Articles themselves.

That's a curious take on the Articles which use 'no' 26 times and 'not' 15 times.

Ignoring most other sections (since they deal with procedural or organiational aspects of Congess) Section 8 of Article 1 (which are the enumerated Powers of Congress) lists about 19 separate powers of Congress, whereas Section 9 (which are the restrictions) only lists 8 or 9 restrictions.

[Highlights mine] Those caveats either take away all useful meaning of your statement or are attempt to say the Articles have no meaningful restrictions.

One can say the Articles contain limited, enumerated powers especially in Art 1, but not that the they are otherwise unrestricted.

 

[WhoWee]

I'm guessing both sides will likely resort to the personal attacks - it is par for the course in politics, after all.

"Kill Romney" seems a bit more extreme than the Palin bullseye map - where's the outrage - especially after the President called for an end to this type of rhetoric after the AZ shootings?

 

[mheslep]

Both sides are quick to do whatever is in their interest. For example

Many on the right forget the 9th Amendment when they say there is no "Right to an abortion, to privacy, burn the flag, etc." in the Constitution.

The 9ths' "others [rights] retained by the people." clause does not mean people have "rights to everything".

 

[WhoWee]

These poll results from Reuters don't look very good for the President.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/08/10/usa-poll-idUSN1E7790RQ20110810

"Aug 10 (Reuters) - Americans by a large majority believe the United States is on the wrong track and nearly half think the worst is yet to come in the economy, a Reuters/Ipsos poll said on Wednesday.

U.S. President Barack Obama's approval rating dropped to 45 percent from 49 percent a month ago, according to the poll conducted from last Thursday to Monday -- a period that included a historic downgrade of America's credit rating, new recession fears and the start of a stock market sell-off.

The poll found that 73 percent of Americans said the United States is on the "wrong track," and just 21 percent said the country is headed in the right direction.

This is the highest figure measured so far since Reuters/Ipsos began polling American public opinion in February 2009."

 

[daveb]

That's a curious take on the Articles which use 'no' 26 times and 'not' 15 times.

[Highlights mine] Those caveats either take away all useful meaning of your statement or are attempt to say the Articles have no meaningful restrictions.

One can say the Articles contain limited, enumerated powers especially in Art 1, but not that the they are otherwise unrestricted.

Well, if you want to argue semantics, then fine. I simply meant that the number of times the Constitution enumerates powers versus the number of times it restricts is greater. Of course, with the inclusion of the 9th Amendment, you can say,

Congress can't do A (since it doesn't say they can)...
Congress can't do B (since it doesn't say they can)...

etc., and the number of things they can do is a drop in the bucket compared to the number of things they can't do. I was specifically responding to the part

Most of the constitution, and all of the Bill of Rights, lays restrictions on what the government may not do.

I do agree that it's silly to view it as a statement of what they should do.

 

[daveb]

"Kill Romney" seems a bit more extreme than the Palin bullseye map - where's the outrage - especially after the President called for an end to this type of rhetoric after the AZ shootings?

I see no differenece between "kill Romney" and the Palin "bullseye". As for the outrage, since it is a quote from a campaign strategist on what they might do, that might explain it. I for one would be pissed off it is was actually used.

 

[mheslep]

Regarding the quickness of alterations to the Constitution, by my count there were 4 amendments in the 19th century, 12 in the 20th century including a repeal. A decade into 21st century would not be that quick to add one more in my view.

 

[WhoWee]

I see no differenece between "kill Romney" and the Palin "bullseye". As for the outrage, since it is a quote from a campaign strategist on what they might do, that might explain it. I for one would be pissed off it is was actually used.

Fair enough.

 

[daveb]

The 9ths' "others [rights] retained by the people." clause does not mean people have "rights to everything".

I never said rights to everything...please don't put words in my mouth.

As for the 9th, it says:

The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

The main point I'm referring to is that many on the right say, "It's not in the Consitution, so there is no right..." I'm saying, no, the Consitution says that sinc it isn't mentioned, it doesn't necessarily mean there is no right - there may actually be no such right (that's what the SCOTUS and subsequent Amendments determine).

Put into set theory terms, if A is the set of all rights, the Constitution delineates some of those rights (B which is a subset), but that the mention of B doesn't mean there is not B^C contained also in A.

 

[daveb]

BTW, just for clarification, I think a balanced budget amendment would be a good thing (assuming it allows for emergency action of some kind) since, as mheslep said, it is within the spirit of the Constitution to further restrict the power of Congress. As much as I despise the idea that it would take 2/3 of Congress (or whatever it was that Snowe's proposed amendment used) to raise taxes, it is certainly within the spirit to have such an amendment. Amendments, IMO, should either (in order of decreasing importance) 1) enumerate further rights of the People, 2) further restrict the Government, or 3) further enumerate a power of the Government (but only to deal with certain issues which were nonexistent way back when).

 

[daveb]

I disagree and think the reverse is true, the difference being I think in the curious notion that optimism and pessimism need be about the federal government of all things, as opposed to the people and private institutions of the US and what they might create and build absent a parasitic government.

I agree with this in part. The beginnings of the TP are from the Ron Paul folks. Libertarianism to me is very optimistic. It assumes people will do the right thing, businesses won't pollute or take advanatge of employees, etc., and because of this, government can be limited since it doesn't need to regulate these businesses.

I'm a pessimist. Once you introduce money into the equation of society, it will appeal to the base greed of some individuals, who will do anything short of illegal (and even then sometimes illegal, but Libertarians understand at least that part requires some kind of governmental regulation) to get more money. In a way, I see Libertarianism as taking the idea of market forces and applying them to social issues as well...if enough people don't like what company A is doing, they'll go to Company B instead. The problem with this is there are no controls to prevent Company B from doing the same thing, and Company X (who does things in an ethical way) gets steamrolled by all the otehr companies who aren't ethical.

So, IMO, governmental regulation is necessary to stem that base greed.

 

[mheslep]

I never said rights to everything...please don't put words in my mouth.

You said:

Many on the right forget the 9th Amendment when they say there is no "Right to an abortion, to privacy, burn the flag, etc." in the Constitution.

Which it if means anything, must mean the 9th shelters an existing right to abortion and other 'etc' rights.

...The main point I'm referring to is that many on the right say, "It's not in the Consitution, so there is no right..." I'm saying, no, the Consitution says that sinc it isn't mentioned, it doesn't necessarily mean there is no right - there may actually be no such right (that's what the SCOTUS and subsequent Amendments determine).

Put into set theory terms, if A is the set of all rights, the Constitution delineates some of those rights (B which is a subset), but that the mention of B doesn't mean there is not B^C contained also in A.

Agreed. One can then also say there is a set of behaviors Not A, say theft, murder, genocide, living in a house, dental care, that are not rights in A unless and until we establish them as such through careful scrutiny. I object to the attempt to include them in A by hand waiving and thus cast objectors as cretins. For some to say this or that behaviour is not in the constitution and is not a right doesn't require that they've somehow forgotten or misconstrued the 9th.

 

[mheslep]

I agree with this in part. The beginnings of the TP are from the Ron Paul folks. Libertarianism to me is very optimistic. It assumes people will do the right thing, businesses won't pollute or take advanatge of employees, etc.,

To my mind Friedman is THE American libertarian thinker, so consider reading Capitalism and Freedom to see what libertarian thought 'assumes', which at least in his case is not as you have described. Or to start just search for regulation here.
http://books.google.com/books?id=iCRk066ybDAC&printsec=frontcover#v=onepage&q=regulation&f=false

and because of this, government can be limited since it doesn't need to regulate these businesses.

Concerning the federal government, on this part I consider that the US Constitution doesn't leave the matter up to the simple majority to decide. The government was created highly limited, with only certain enumerated powers, end of story. If you don't like it, the answer should have been petition your state or local government, or amend the constitution, or move to Cuba. Unfortunately the progressive courts of the early 20th century under FDR's threats changed that interpretation, so far.

 

[daveb]

Which it if means anything, must mean the 9th shelters an existing right to abortion and other 'etc' rights.

Well, privacy and abortion are inferred according to SCOTUS (from which I don't remember), and burning the flag is considered free speech (though you have to do it in a manner that wouldn't violate fire code). But you said (my bold)

The 9ths' "others [rights] retained by the people." clause does not mean people have "rights to everything".

I never said everything. But even though the 9th is (mostly) ignored nowadawys, there are some things that should fall under it, but I don't want to derail this thread (which is about Obama strategies) to talk about those.

I object to the attempt to include them in A by hand waiving and thus cast objectors as cretins. For some to say this or that behaviour is not in the constitution and is not a right doesn't require that they've somehow forgotten or misconstrued the 9th.

Neither have I done any "hand waving" by trying to claim these (murder, etc.) are rights nor have I called anyone a cretin. All I have been pointing out is that some people on each side (the left and the right) forget parts of the Constitution whenever it suits them.

 

[daveb]

To my mind Friedman is THE American libertarian thinker, so consider reading Capitalism and Freedom to see what libertarian thought 'assumes', which at least in his case is not as you have described. Or to start just search for regulation here.
http://books.google.com/books?id=iCRk066ybDAC&printsec=frontcover#v=onepage&q=regulation&f=false

I'll have to pick that up. I'm vaguely familiar with Friedman's ideas, but not entirely.
I was mostly going off of my interpretation of the http://www.lp.org/platform"(which is why I said "my opinion").

Concerning the federal government, on this part I consider that the US Constitution doesn't leave the matter up to the simple majority to decide. The government was created highly limited, with only certain enumerated powers, end of story. If you don't like it, the answer should have been petition your state or local government, or amend the constitution, or move to Cuba. Unfortunately the progressive courts of the early 20th century under FDR's threats changed that interpretation, so far.

Umm...huh? I never said the scope of government was not limited, nor up to a majority to decide, with numerous unenumerated powers. I have no idea how you are reading into my words things I haven't said. The "love it or leave it" attitude is beneath you (well, I hope it is, otherwise, there's no point in rational discussion).