Conference back40::soapbox

    It would be a start in the battle of the deficits and the mortgaging of
    our kids futures if getting each current years budget balanced...then
    to work on the deficit would become impossible

	Why don;t we cut spending to a bare minimum?  For most agencies, that 
would be a good idea.

ME

    Well, anyone can draw up a list. Getting a majority of Congress and
    their individual constituencies to  *agree* on that list (hold it
    there, podner, that mohair subsidy is off limits) is another thing.
    
    The Republican free-lunch answer to that was supply-side economics.
    Propose budgets that cut taxes but not spending, and make up the
    difference in increased tax revenue. Presto: ballooning deficits. It's
    unlikely they could get away with it again (though this is what is
    implied in the Contract). And if they do, and if people still care
    about deficits, they're finished for another generation.
    
    Kit

...in the report of the Grace Commission.

   Pick up your very own copy at the bookstore.

   -Jerry

A-to_Z will likely pass next congress. This may negate the need for BBA
in the long term ...

Doug.

    Don't we already have one?  Not that it matters, because Congress can
    always find a way around an amendment....look at the Second, the First,
    the Fourth, the Tenth...etc.
    
    Won't do any good, IMO, unless Congress is serious about making some
    hard cuts to fluff programs.
    
    -steve

    A balanced budget ammendment, though I am always for this, will
    probably just result in higher taxes. The people will hear, and finally
    be convinced, that the detriment to the country's prosperity is
    dependent on removing the deficit. However, those who think that the
    government should play parent will cry if their precious social
    programs are cut. The republicans now in congress want to increase the
    military budget. Protecting its citizens is one of only a handful of
    federal government responsibilities. However, the government is so
    inefficient that more money will be required than is necessary. Pork
    barrel politics will continue, because it is required to insure
    incumbant re-election. The politicians will finally conclude that the
    way to balance the budget is to tax, tax, tax. Who then will pay? Only
    those who produce something of value. Problem is these people are
    getting fewer and fewer.
    
    ...Tom

Does it strike anyone else as curious why the right, the purported 
protectors of the FF original vision, are so busy proposing amendments to 
the Const? Balanced budget, prayer in school.

Prayer in school? who? where? 

daryll

    What I'd like to do is hand the congressional delegation from each
    state a summary of all the money that state gets from federal programs, 
    and say, "You can't touch welfare, because that's too easy.  Now, cut
    n% from this list."
    
    I'd like to force federal bureacracies, and the Pentagon in particular,
    to reform their purchase practices.  We have warehouses of stuff going
    to waste, not to mention inflated purchase prices.
    
    I'd like to trim the federal bureaucracies.  I'd like to be able to
    smack Congress every time they pass a bill that micromanages some
    federal program.
    
    I'd like to change the budgetary process.  Each department has to
    accomplish certain things, period.  If you can do this within budget,
    we let you expand without hassling you.  If you do it under budget, the
    money you save is placed in a reserve fund for your department; you can
    draw on it in the future, if needed, and any interest it generates in
    the meantime goes toward reducing the deficit.

    Sure, some things from Grace, A-Z, Gore will cut a little here and
    there. Same as it ever was, starting with the Hoover Commission
    (Herbert, a decade or so after leaving office). Don't amount to a hill
    of beans.
    
    A recent Frontline showed why. They focused on the Dept of Agriculture
    (it featured a great blast from the past - Earl Butz, Nixon's ag sec,
    who still looked shell-shocked from what he found). It's not just that
    the rural electrification commission still trundles on decades after
    the job was done, or that immense agribusinesses flout the law on
    subsidies with impunity (they use a loophole on limits by naming a
    bunch of straws as members of a corporation, and the subsidies are
    based on the number of members whether or not they invest anything or
    get anything back).  But, they also interviewed a congressman from
    western Nebraska or Kansas who defended the most egregious
    examples, and denied he was in the pocket of the special interests who
    financed his campaigns, saying he was only looking out for his
    constitutents interests. He's probably right. His party's now in the
    majority, and I think it would be naive in the extreme to believe that
    he is going to change his ways.
    
    Kit 

re: .10, Chelsea

>    What I'd like to do is hand the congressional delegation from each
>    state a summary of all the money that state gets from federal programs, 
>    and say, "You can't touch welfare, because that's too easy.  Now, cut
>    n% from this list."

C'mon - let's be fair. The fact of the matter is that Welfare, also, needs
to be cut.

How about a plan that says "Disregarding Welfare, cut n% from the balance
and then you can match it dollar for dollar with welfare cuts."?

    Re: .12
    
    >The fact of the matter is that Welfare, also, needs to be cut.
    
    Certainly welfare needs to be addressed.  But not in a piecemeal,
    state-by-state process.  The exception was not to avoid cutting
    welfare, but to make them cut something _besides_ welfare.  As I said,
    welfare is too easy a target.

    The DoA could be cut 90%...I think they could live without a 1/1 ratio
    of farmer/bureacrat.

    The IRS could be cut 100% with a flat tax rate program.   Who needs
    'em.

    Federal welfare could be cut 100%...giving all welfare funds back to
    the sovereign states.

re: .13

>   welfare, but to make them cut something _besides_ welfare.  As I said,
>   welfare is too easy a target.

If welfare is such an easy target, why hasn't it already been cut???

Bob

    All federal police forces could be abolished, saving tax payers
    billions...also would save us from more waco's.  Would make creating a
    police state fairly difficult, as well.

    All land taxes should be abolished.  If you have to pay a yearly tax or
    the state can confiscate it, then you never truly own it.  Abolish land
    taxes.  
    
    Won't help the deficit or anything, but I rather like the idea.

    re: Leech. in .19
    
    The gov't doesn't tax Private property, does it?
    They do tax Personal property however, right?
    
    Think about it.

    Re: .17
    
    >If welfare is such an easy target, why hasn't it already been cut???
    
    It's an easy target in the scenario I described.  You're a
    congresscritter, you have to reduce the amount of money flowing into
    your district, you don't want to annoy your constituents, who might
    feel impelled to elect someone else to your office next time.  So, pick
    on the welfare recipients; they probably don't vote that much, and they
    certainly don't make campaign contributions.

Getting back to my question, Chelsea, would you favor a dollar for dollar
cut to the welfare funds if they met your percentage in the rest of the
budget?

    >would you favor a dollar for dollar cut to the welfare funds if they
    >met your percentage in the rest of the budget?
    
    Probably not.  Consider what happened within Digital with headcount
    reduction driven by percentages -- some pretty stupid stuff.  Do the
    same thing with welfare, and what you could wind up with is, "Okay,
    we'll just reduce benefits by x% and that'll do it."  That saves money,
    but it doesn't fix the problems associated with welfare.  What I think 
    should happen with welfare is not a percentage cut but more along the 
    lines of reengineering.  Decide what you want to accomplish, then 
    implement welfare in a way that accomplishes it.

  You know a balanced budget amendment would be fun. Think about it, what would
happen if Congress and the President went over budget? 

  Well I doubt they would go to jail but what would happen no doubt is that
someone would take the Federal government to court and after the usual early
rounds it would no doubt end up in the Supreme Court. 

  And what would they decide? Well let's consider the choices. 

  They couldn't rule it Unconstitutional since it is part of the constitution
so they would have to order the government to balance the budget; but how? 

  Would they order cuts in revenue bills? Well to do that they would have to
set up their own complex Supreme Court budget office. How could they ever begin
to figure out what to cut? Across the board cuts wouldn't work because many
thing are not variable such as the interest on the national debt and it could
be dangerous cutting something like the air traffic control system. 

  In fact, the only thing they could do would be to order the IRS to raise the
personal income tax to cover the deficit. 

  Can you imagine the breast beating that would go on when that happened?

  I love it, yes, pass the Balanced Budget Amendment,

  George

    
    whatever happened to Gramm-Rudman?

    	re .24
    
    	It would make a public spectacle of government spending habits.
    
    	Hopefully it would occur right before the next election.

RE              <<< Note 50.26 by CSC32::J_OPPELT "Oracle-bound" >>>

    
>    	It would make a public spectacle of government spending habits.
>    
>    	Hopefully it would occur right before the next election.

  And then what? A new Congress, a new President, and the Courts would still
raise taxes if they failed to balance the budget.

  They'd have no choice. The budget is far to complex for a court to ever
figure out what should be cut. Their only choice would be to raise taxes to
cover a deficit no matter how many elections you held.

  Yeah, keep the ball rolling, a balanced budget amendment would be a liberals
dream.

  George

So raising taxes is a liberal's dream?

Most of us knew that, but it's still a surprise to see someone 
admit it.

daryll

  Yes I don't think that is in question. Liberals believe in tax and spend,
conservatives believe in borrow and spend.

  Since a balanced budget amendment would stop Reagonomics (or the Contract
on American as it is now called) but not liberal programs it is a liberal's
dream.

  George

Is it not the case that when municipalities go bankrupt, or overspend
to the point that they cannot borrow through bonds, they are put into
receivership rather than being granted carte blanche to raise taxes?
Why wouldn't something similar happen to the Fed?

    
    
     I do believe this last election had the populace say something to all
    the "spend" freaks in Washington.... no?
    
      We'll keep throwing them out until they stop spending and start
    cutting.... eventually they WILL get the message...
    

    
    Does anybody here have the actual text of the proposed amendment ?
    
    The reason I ask is that the Constitution is mostly a legal
    document, to be used by courts in settling litigations and
    legal dispute.  So the only way to evaluate any amendment is
    to understand what kind of case it is supposed to settle, and
    how.
    
    A 'budget' is just a plan.  That is, a piece of paper with numbers
    on it for 'predicted' revenues and expenditures.  Humans lack the
    capability of predicting the future with any certainty, so actual
    'income statements' virtually never agree with 'budgets'.
    
    So if the amendment actually says what it sounds like it says, for
    what courtroom purpose is it intended ?
    
      bb

    I think there are several proposals floating around; they'll have to
    settle on one.
    
    It could be as simple as "The Government of the United States cannot
    spend more in a calendar year than it receives in revenues."  Weasel
    words could be "unless Congress shall vote by a [insert large fraction
    here] majority" and "This amendment shall take effect in [insert large
    number] years."
    
    The Supreme Court challenge when (not if, when) we get out of balance
    is an interesting point.  I could certainly see the Court imposing
    across-the-board spending freezes to get things into balance.  Either
    that or both parties could quietly conspire to resolve to let things
    remain out of balance.  (They do that now -- do you know why we have
    never reached the legal limit on the national debt?)

    > I'd like to force federal bureacracies, and the Pentagon in
    > particular, to reform their purchase practices. 
    
    They don't control them.  Congress has mandated the current regime.
    It is congress that insists upon the system, with built-in overheads
    and long-drawn-out inefficient system ramps, that costs so much.
    
    DougO

    Re: .34
    
    Well, then, see the point about smacking Congress everytime they pass
    another micro-managed program.

    > Well, then, see the point about smacking Congress everytime they pass
    > another micro-managed program.
    
    I did.  It belonged in there, so I didn't call you on it.
    
    DougO

    The "McLaughlin Group" talk-head wise guys commented on the Contract
    With America this morning.  Even with Elanor out, they agreed (well,
    McLaughlin didn't, but he was quite outgunned even on his own show on a
    matter close to his own heart 8^) that while the tax-cut  provisions
    could pass and perhaps be paid for, the BBA cannot be ratified and
    would not work.  (One recalled the signing ceremony and commented,
    "Whenever you see politicians waving flags, watch out.")  There was
    something about the unfunded-mandate problem and how the states will
    realize that they're being sold a bill of goods before ratification
    finishes.
    
    As for the tax cuts, one of them suggested that things will look great
    for a couple of years.  That troubles me: will people be fooled again
    by the appearance of economic prosperity while debts explode?  There
    are still a lot of rubes out there who think the Reagan years were
    wonderful...
    
    Actually, I'm amazed how quickly this group of conservative
    commentators have shifted gears from criticizing the Clinton
    Administration to criticizing the Republican Party (as opposed to Rush,
    say, who has not).  You'd think they'd be in hog heavan, but except for
    the eponymous Mr. McLaughlin, they most certainly are not.

    
    80's under jimmeh and walter would have been a disaster
    by comparison.
    
    

    
    So, this will no doubt be readdressed with the new congress. 
    
    
    What do you think?
    
    
    Will it pass the congress?
    
    
    Will it be vetoed?
    
    
    Discuss
    

    
    I guarantee it won't be vetoed.  Under the U.S. Constitution, the
    President has no votes on constitutional amendments.  2/3 of both
    houses of Congress, 3/4 of states.
    
    It depends on the wording.  Toughest in Congress.  States would be
    easy (contrast with ERA, easy in Congress, tough in states).
    
      bb

    
    
    
    oops, a pox upon me for the amendment thing.  I guess an amendment is
    the only chance this has since legislation wouldn't work as was proved 
    by the Gramm/Rudman/Hollings legislation.
    

   It may well sail through the Congress, and as you say President Clinton
   (or any president) has no say in the matter.  But whether it will sail
   through the states is another matter.  State legislators have already
   seen the folly of unfunded mandates and felt the pain of picking up the
   slack of federal cutbacks of desirable programs.  The Balanced Budget
   Amendment looks like much, much more of the same.  The states may very
   well resist the attempt to make them the bad guys.

    As usual, if it's passed, it will be ignored.
    Just like Gramm-Rudman...quit fooling yourselves...or whatever
    you're doing to yourselves. ;^)

    whether the states pass or nix the proposed amendment is orthogonal to
    the republican promise to get the amendment through congress.

    Would not this lead to all kinds of "creative" accounting practices,
    and bring the courts into the middle of the budget process (i.e.
    on the basis of ruling whether or not particular budget proposals are
    "constitutional"?)
    
    -Stephen
    
    

    Ten years from now we could have the Supreme Court taking the federal
    government into receivership and freezing spending to ensure that the
    budget is balanced.

    really good be less than 10 years if no more than a handle on the deficits 
    is achieved by '97

    .7
    
    Sorry, that happened in 1933.  You remember, when they outlawed gold ?
    
    

    
    Was listening to Henry Hyde on WGN (Chicago radio station).  He'll
    be chairman of the House Appropriations Committee.  His main point
    was that there is no magic way to balance anybody's budget.  We have
    all done this in our own lives when income < outgo.  We've seen
    Digital do it the last few years.  It's exactly the same process.
    He expects it to go in three stages :
    
      (1)  The Balanced Budget Amendment.  Really this is a promise to do
          it, and a convenient excuse for the nasty things that come after.
          All politicians are weak-kneed, yes even conservatives.  How do
          you tell people their activity is cancelled ?  How do you lay
          people off, cancel benefits, throw the needy on the streets ?
          Of course, you impersonalize it - "sorry, my job description
          says I have to do this, whether I like it or not".  This is
          better for all concerned.  It reduces, but cannot eliminate,
          the hatred level that must inevitably follow.
    
       (2)  The spending cuts.  Some 1300 departments and agencies will
          be set to zero, and each will get a hearing before the committee,
          at which time, they will predict the end of civilization if they
          are not reinstated.  Thousands of bureaucrats are rehearsing
          their sob stories in front of mirrors, doctoring their stats,
          preparing their constituencies.  A real circus.  It will never
          happen unless the politicians see the goodies at the end :
    
       (3) Tax cuts !  These are going to happen as a reward, so all of
          them can take goodies home to their constituencies, but only to
          the extent that the spending cuts allow them.  No spending cuts,
          no tax cuts.  Not Gingrich's, not Clinton's, not Gephart's,
          not anybody's.  Bank the spending reductions, then reward
          yourself with a mini-bash.  Hyde did not even pretend there was
          any economic reason for tax cuts right now.  But without doing
          something like this, the budgetary austerity is politically
          impossible.
    
       Hyde knows all the minority members, and is no creature of Newt (for
     example, he's an outright opponent of term limits).  He thinks that
     President Clinton is going to be just fine to deal with.  He's more
     worried about the Senate.
    
       Interesting interview of an interesting guy.  It's Milt Rosenberg's
     show.  Rosenberg is actually reasonable, for a radio talkshow host.
     (faint praise).
    
       bb

    Dick Armey, majority leader of the House, will not be majority leader
    of the house when the budget is balanced.
    
    Tom DeLay, majority whip of the house, will not be majority whip of the
    house when the budget is balanced.
    
    Henry Hyde, chairman of the House Appropriations Committee, will not be
    chair when the budget is balanced.
    
    Bill Archer, chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee, will not
    be chair when the budget is balanced.
    
    
    Nope.
    
    								-mr. bill

    A child
    
    	who was born when Ronald Reagan first promised a balanced budget,
    
    	who was in pre-school when Ronald Reagan promised a balanced budget
    	a second time,
    
    	who was in elementary school when George Bush first promised a balanced
    	budget,
    
    	who was in middle school when George Bush promised a balanced
    	budget a second time,
    
    	who is in high school when Mr. Newt promised a balanced budget,
    
    	will be eligible to vote in the presidential election in 2002.
    
    								-mr. bill

Now that the Socialists are no longer in power, it may happen!

Bruce

    ...when monkies fly outa newt's butt

    RE: .51 and .50?
    
    Just like the child who was born when LBJ promised his "Great Society"
    programs.
    
    ME

    
    	Re .50,
    
    	Mr Bill,
    
    	These statements may not be true. 
    
    	Also, what is your point? - That those people pushing the amendment
    	will not be in a position of power when the budget must be
    	balanced? If so, so what?
    
    	Are you for or against a balanced budget?
    
    	Are you for or against the amendment?
    
    							Ed
    
    

    	Re .50,        
    
|    	Mr Bill,
|      	These statements may not be true.
    
    There are only three ways for those Committee members to be chairs of
    those committees in 2002.
    
    	- One - they step down as chair of their committee for either
    	1998-2000 or 2000-2002, then they could be chair in 2002.  Not
    	bloody likely.
    
    	- Two - the Democrats retake the House in 1998 or 2000, but lose
    	the house again for 2002.  Not bloody likely.
    
    	- Three - The republican speaker of the House, (rules say it could
    	be Mr. Newt, but it probably won't be) undoes the rules just voted
    	on limiting the tenure of House Committe Chairs.  Could be likely.
    
|    	Also, what is your point? - That those people pushing the amendment
|    	will not be in a position of power when the budget must be
|    	balanced? If so, so what?
    
    If you do *NOT* want to be held accountable today or in the forseeable
    future, set one milestone way far out in the future.  Armey has already
    correctly said that you can't predict the budget all the way out to
    2002.  Just two short years ago Armey said the budget could be
    balanced by 1996.  But since it's now 1995, he says it will be balanced
    by 2002.  Such progress, before the Republicans were slipping a month
    every month.  Now they are slipping two months every month.
    
|    	Are you for or against a balanced budget?
    
    Duh.  For.
    
|    	Are you for or against the amendment?
    
    Duh.  Against.
    
    
    Bottom Line - Let's say Enrico said that the Alpha Buisness Unit would
    be turning a $10B profit a year in 2002, but he insisted that he could
    not be held accountable before then, and he further insisted that he could
    not give detailed plans on just how he was going to make that goal
    because there is no way to accurately predict the computer market
    that far out.
    
    								-mr. bill

	Re .55
    
>|    	Are you for or against a balanced budget?
>    
>    Duh.  For.
>    
>|    	Are you for or against the amendment?
>    
>    Duh.  Against.
>    
    
    Are the Duh's necessary? I'm sorry - I did figure you were against the
    amendment, but I was unsure of your opinion on a balanced budget.

    I understand the rest of your reply, but there are other reasons
    for the Republicans to say what they are saying. 

    Can we agree on the following: Balancing the budget will require
    either raising taxes on the middle class, or cutting middle class
    entitlements - Social Security, Medicare, or Medicaid.

    I believe the supporters of the amendment want it passed so they
    can then use it for "cover" in making the really difficult decisions
    that they'll have to make. Cutting middle class entitlements is
    gonna cost those who vote for it at the polls. I think
    those that want to balance the budget hope that they can use the
    amendment as the reason for their vote, and can reduce the damage at 
    the polls.

    Clearly both sides are being dishonest. The Republicans refuse to
    outline how they will balance the budget - They know if they
    do, they'll be in big trouble politically. Most Democrats claim
    that no amendment is necessary - yet they also refuse to say how they
    will balance the budget.

    I would also prefer to do all this without an amendment. I just don't
    think either side has the courage to do it. Right now I think the
    Republicans are more likely to provide a balanced budget than the
    Democrats. If they want to pass an amendment as a first step, then
    I say fine.

					Ed
    

    RE: .56
    
    Ok Mr. bill,
    
    	I'll agree that we should be wary of promises made by politicians
    who may not be accountable when the time comes to deliver.  However,
    this has been done on both sides.  Remember LBJ and the "Great
    Society"?  Where are the people who were in charge then?  Can we walk
    up to them and ask why they started us on the way to the large deficit? 
    
    ME

    
    LBJ balanced the budget.
    
    But don't let facts get in the way of your rhetoric.
    
    								-mr. bill

    Vietnam War helped!!

    Re .59

    mr. bill,

    I believe the point to .58 was that LBJ (and company) started many
    programs which are today one of the causes of the deficit. 

    You have argued that Republicans should not be passing legislation
    which may cause future congresses (which they are not part of)
    to make difficult decisions. I understand this. I think .58 was saying 
    that you should therefore also be critical of many of the Great 
    Society programs which at the time were paid for, but which now are 
    causing great difficulty for today's government.

    I think the analogy between the Great Society programs and the Balanced
    Budget Amendment are good ones. Both are easy to manage now, but very
    difficult to manage down the road. 

    						Ed

    
    Um, Nixon had a small surplus one year, and that was since LBJ.
    
      bb

    
    re: Nixon had a small surplus one year, and that was since LBJ
    
    No.  Nixon did not have a small surplus one year.  The last surplus was
    during FY69, which ran from July 1968 to July 1969.  Nixon became
    president in January 1969.
    
    								-mr. bill

	I remember somewhere hearing that Nixon was the last Prez to have a
balanced budget.....

    
    Yes, it was 1969, and it was Nixon's year.  All of the other years
    in the 60's and 70's were deficits, some of them large, some of them
    LBJ's, some Nixon's.  It must be remembered how small the government
    was only 25 years ago.  In one of Johnson's years, he has a $6B deficit
    on a TOTAL budget of $100B or so.  It's not just inflation, either.
    As a percentage of GDP, government has greatly increased since then,
    under all presidents of either party.  And it is still doing so.
    Meanwhile, for all the tax bills, taxes remain about the same, a fifth
    of the economy.
    
      bb

    > Yes, it was 1969, and it was Nixon's year.
    
    As mr bill so patiently explained, it was Fiscal Year '69, for which
    the budget had been passed and signed before the fiscal year began, in
    June 1968.  It was the last budget Johnson signed.  The year closed
    during Nixon's first year in office, but it was NOT his budget.
    
    DougO

    
    Well, OK, it hardly matters.  Both LBJ and RMN were record deficit
    spenders for their time with massive red ink in total.  I seem to
    recall this wasn't even planned - it was an unexpectedly high net
    revenue, or lower war expenses than predicted.  Has happened a
    bunch lately, too - I'm told the 1994 predicted deficit may be off
    by tens of billions in either direction, because the feds aren't able
    to predict tax collections well enough.
    
      bb

> government has greatly increased since then,

Another candidate for "Understatement of the Century".

I'd be willing to bet that if you took the budget and headcount of
governmental agencies today that didn't even exist prior to LBJ,
they'd probably outweigh the extant bureaucracies of 1970 by several
fold.

|> government has greatly increased since then,
|     Another candidate for "Understatement of the Century".
    
    Another candidate for trite wrong answers....
    
    The facts, since then....
    
    Individual Income taxes as a percentage of GDP has gone down.
    Corporate Income taxes as a percentage of GDP has gone down.
    Excise taxes as a percentage of GDP has gone down.
    
    *********************************************
    FICA taxes as a percentage of GDP has gone up.
    *********************************************
    
    All other taxes as a percentage of GDP has stayed the same.
    
    -----
    
    The rise in spending as a percentage of GDP has come from FICA.
    BUT FICA revenues has risen faster than FICA spending.
    
    Of course, some people continue to claim that FICA spending is "off
    the table."
    
    								-mr. bill

.69>|> government has greatly increased since then,
.69>|     Another candidate for "Understatement of the Century".
.69>    
.69>    Another candidate for trite wrong answers....


Bill, are you claiming that government (including federal agancies
and bureaucracies) is _NOT_ larger than it was in the late 60's/early 70's?
You may be correct with respect to various tax revenues as percentages
of the GDP, but in terms of size and budget, government has quite
clearly grown extensively. That it may not have grown proportionately
with the GDP is most certainly attributable to inflation alone.

    
    
    I'm sure Mr. Bill can come up with the percentage of people vs.
    population working for the goverment in the 70's vs. today...
    
    
     

    How about absolute numbers?
    
    Total Federal Personnel
    
    1969:  6,513,000
    1994:  4,677,000
    
    Total Executive Branch Civilians
    
    1969:  2,980,000
    1994:  2,950,000
    
    								-mr. bill

    okay Bill, what's your source, the STAR?

    
    Budget of the United States Government, FY 1994.
    								-mr. bill

    
    Could we get back to the amendment? As a start, I'd ask mr bill to
    reply to my .57.
    
    				Thanks,
    
    				Ed
    

                        <<< Note 50.75 by DECC::VOGEL >>>
                             -< Back to the point >-

    Well, I, for one, think that you pretty well summed up what is happening.

    The Republicans know that there are a lot of tough choices coming.
    They know that entitlements are the real problem.  In the past, every
    time they have offerred changes to entitlements, they got burned.  For
    example, during eighties, the GOP reduced the rate of increase in Social
    Security cost-of-living adjustments and toughened the rules for getting 
    Social Security disability payments.  These changes got labeled as "cuts 
    in social security", and the GOP has paid a high price for it.  In every 
    election since that time, the Democrats have trotted out TV and newspaper 
    ads featuring pictures of newspaper headlines that mention social security
    "cuts" (example: Dick Swett (D-NH) ads this fall).

    Before they get down to the really tough choices, they want consensus that
    this is the right thing to do.  Furthermore, I think that the GOP wants
    to hold up a Constitutional Amendment as a "guarantee" that once we go 
    through the considerable pain to solve this problem, the Federal government
    won't go on another spending binge and put us in the red all over again.

    The Democrats are pursuing a line that they will solve the problem, but 
    it will take longer than seven years.  Well, OK, move the deadline out 
    to 2004 or 2006 instead.  I don't like the Constitutional amendment very 
    much, but I don't see how a "little more time" is going to help.  If you
    have to borrow money to pay the interest, how do you ever get ahead 
    enough to start paying off the principal?

    Also, as you mentioned, the Democrats aren't doing well, either.  The 
    1992 budget deal doesn't show progress in the long run.  The Clinton 
    Administration budget projections show that the deficit goes down a little 
    in the short term and then start rising again.  We are told that this is 
    due to increased medical expenses and that the cure is the Clinton Health 
    Care plan.  This requires that we ignore the ever increasing pressure of
    the other entitlements, but even if you accept this idea, the Clinton
    Health Care bill doesn't make me feel good about the deficit situation.

    1.  There is the basic contradiction that entitlement spending will kill 
        us, and the cure is a new entitlement program.
    2.  The GAO and the CBO looked at the Clinton Health Care financing, and
        stated simply that it is tens of billions of dollars a year over 
        budget.  My back-of-the-napkin calculations say the same thing.
    3.  The Health Care Plan, as presented in the little brown and blue book,
        has no data on the financing.  The plan, as presented to Congress, 
        has Appendix F, the financial data to show that the bill is revenue
        neutral, is missing.  (I believe that it was marked "To be supplied
        later".)
    4.  I have yet to say a reputable magazine present data to show that the
        plan would have paid for itself.  (I believe that Newsweek referred 
        to the funding as a "fairy tale".)

    We are faced with some difficult choices.  I don't like the Constitutional
    Amendment, but I'll go along with it if it will provide a framework for
    starting on "the road to recovery".  Our deficit problem is a bit like an
    alcoholic who has decided to quit drinking.  The first step is for that
    person to admit that they have a problem and "take the pledge".  There
    are various ways to proceed from that point, and they are all tough.

    RE .76. Well put.

    You mention the progress that Clinton has made in cutting the
    deficit. What few people understand is that this reduction is
    due largely to:

    .The end of the savings & loan bailout. 

    .An improving economy 

    .A change in treasury policy to greatly shorten the maturity of government 
     debt. This, combined with low interest rates the last few years has
     reduced the amount of money the government has to pay in interest.
     This policy change is a nice trick to reduce interest cost in the 
     short run, but it's coming back to haunt us now. I read in the paper the 
     other day (a nicely hidden piece) that the GAO (or maybe the 
     CBO...I forget) says the projected deficit for next year increased 
     by (about) 50 billion because of the recent rise in short term debt.
    
    While I give Clinton credit for talking about the deficit, and for
    reducing some parts of government, most of the deficit reduction
    he claims credit for was due to things beyond his control or
    due to a policy change with I feel is very unwise.

                        <<< Note 50.77 by DECC::VOGEL >>>
                     -< More on Clinton Deficit Reduction >-

    Yes, you're quite about the events.

    1.  The S&L bailout is having a critical impact on the deficit numbers.
        The final payment was made during the lame-duck session of the Bush
        Administration.  It is no longer an expenditure but part of the public
        debt that is being rolled over.  That certainly makes your budget 
        numbers look good.  I've seen it in the budget, and I think that in 
        1993 it was $300-350 billion.

    2.  The improving economy is a major facot as well.  In the fall of 1994
	the President stated that the deficit has been reduced three years in a 
        row.  His economic advisors submitted a report to the American people
	that the recovery started in 1991.

    3.  Financing the debt using short-term paper will reduce the debt, but
        only if interest rates stay down.  I agree with you that this seems
        to be a very bad idea.

    Many of the particularly painful cuts were started by the Bush 
    Administration, but the impact on the deficit was not felt until the 
    Clinton Adminisitration.  For example, the military base closings, killing
    of some defense programs, and the phasing-out of the intermediate-range
    missle programs in Europe have taken time to complete.

    To put a bit of a positive spin on it, I won't say that many of the things 
    were "beyond his [Clinton's] control".  He has inherited a good situation,
    but it was well within his power to screw it up.  He has continued many 
    of the policies that were working.

    --------

    I have one correction to .76:

    I dug out an old Newsweek (October 4, 1993) last night.  Sen. Moynihan 
    (D-NY) refers to the financing as a "fantasy", not a "fairy tale".

|   Can we agree on the following: Balancing the budget will require
|   either raising taxes on the middle class, or cutting middle class
|   entitlements - Social Security, Medicare, or Medicaid.
    
    No, we don't agree.
    
    Balancing the budget will require raising taxes *AND* cutting spending.
    Taxes can not be raised enough to balance the budget.
    Spending can not be cut enough to balance the budget.
    
    (As an aside, zeroing out PBS has nothing whatever to do with the
    budget and everything in the world to do with punitive ideology.)
    
    
    Second, your list of entitlements is amazingly distorted.
    Social Security is a *NOT* a middle class entitlement.  It is
    an entitlement - if you reach a certain age, you qualify.
    If you are lower class, if you are middle class, if you are upper
    class.  About 3/5ths of the Social Security entitlement goes
    to the middle class, because, by golly, about 3/5ths of the
    people who get Social Security are middle class.
    
    Medicaid is not an entitlement at all.  (You might stretch and talk
    about the spend down provisions as being an entitlement, but....)
    
    And you leave off some of the largest entitlements of all, such
    as Home Mortage Interest Deduction and the slew of brand new
    entitlements that the Republicans are promissing.
    
    
|   I believe the supporters of the amendment want it passed so they
|   can then use it for "cover" in making the really difficult decisions
|   that they'll have to make.
    
    I believe supporters of the amendment do not wish to make any difficult
    decisions.  I believe supporters of the amendment are looking for a way
    of *SAYING* "see, I'm for a balanced budget" - nothing more.
    
|   Cutting middle class entitlements is gonna cost those who vote for it
|   at the polls.
    
    Then we the people deserve the deficits we get.
    
|   Most Democrats claim that no amendment is necessary - yet they also
|   refuse to say how they will balance the budget.
    
    They had said how they would get the deficit to half what it was by
    1996.  And for a while, it actually looked like they would achieve
    that goal.  But now we the people have said "oh, no, we don't want that,
    we want tax cuts and spending increases and balanced budget amendments,
    not cuts in the deficit!"
    
    *AND*
    
    The Democrats (*AND* *REPUBLICANS*) from DAY ONE said that it would
    REQUIRE health care reform to even have a chance of fixing the
    structural problems in the Federal budget.  But then we the people
    bought the fear uncertainty and doubt shouted by the opponents of
    health care reform and we were spooked by health care reform and
    said, "No!  Don't do that.  Don't do this.  Don't do anything!"
    Those who opposed health care reform do not want to face the fact
    that the private sector WILL NOT hold health care costs to
    inflation + 2%.
    
    
    Bottom line:
    
    No, I don't believe that the BBA will make it easier to balance the
    budget.  I believe it will make it HARDER to balance the budget.
    
    								-mr. bill

  >  And you leave off some of the largest entitlements of all, such
  >  as Home Mortage Interest Deduction and the slew of brand new
  >  entitlements that the Republicans are promissing.
  
  Since taxes on mortgage interest is paid by the folks receiving the
  interest (the bank) I always thought the deduction was to prevent
  double dipping the tax payer.

  To refer to this as an 'entitlement' seems somehow deceptive.

  Doug.

Thanks,

Bob

    
    re, 1972 - this is a joke, of course.  Take the post office out,
    like you just did by nimbly choosing dates.  Pick a war year and
    count the troops.  Mr. Bill, you deserve an award, let's call it,
    
      the "How to Prove the Moon is Blue, using any Statistics" award.
    
    Now pick a real function - say, the Department of Agriculture, and
    look at its budget and staff then and now.  Surprise - they ALL
    got bigger relative to the US GDP and census.
    
    By the standard Mr. Bill used, the US Government was biggest as a
    percentage during the Civil War.  But since, as usual, he fools
    no one into believing his carefully plucked numbers, he's off to
    trash another topic.
    
      bb

    <<< Note 50.79 by PERFOM::LICEA_KANE "when it's comin' from the left" >>>
                              -< BBA = fraud.... >-

>    Balancing the budget will require raising taxes *AND* cutting spending.
>    Taxes can not be raised enough to balance the budget.
>    Spending can not be cut enough to balance the budget.
This is an overstatement.

As long as total spending is less than the deficit for a given year, it will 
always be possible to balance the budget through spending cuts.  If you reach 
a point where you are no longer spending more than you take in, you will --
eventually -- pay off the debt.
    

>    And you leave off some of the largest entitlements of all, such
>    as Home Mortage Interest Deduction and the slew of brand new
>    entitlements that the Republicans are promissing.
What "entitlements" are Republicans promising?  Tax cuts?
Tax cuts are not entitlements.  In the first place, the word "entitlement" 
here refers to programs in the Federal Budget.  I have never seen the Home 
Mortage Interest Deduction in the Statistical Abstracts or in any Federal 
Budget as an "entitlement".

A liberal and a conservative were on ABC's Good Morning America the other 
day, and the interviewer started to ask the conservative a question: "Well,
aren't you taking money out of the Treasury?"  The conservative answered,
"No, that's wrong.  The money belongs to the American people.  We are just
going to let them keep more of it."

    
>    Then we the people deserve the deficits we get.
Absolutely!


>    They had said how they would get the deficit to half what it was by
>    1996.  And for a while, it actually looked like they would achieve
>    that goal.  But now we the people have said "oh, no, we don't want that,
>    we want tax cuts and spending increases and balanced budget amendments,
>    not cuts in the deficit!"
And what happens after 1996?
The deficits start to grow (see the 1992 Budget).

   
>    The Democrats (*AND* *REPUBLICANS*) from DAY ONE said that it would
>    REQUIRE health care reform to even have a chance of fixing the
>    structural problems in the Federal budget.  But then we the people
>    bought the fear uncertainty and doubt shouted by the opponents of
>    health care reform and we were spooked by health care reform and
>    said, "No!  Don't do that.  Don't do this.  Don't do anything!"
>    Those who opposed health care reform do not want to face the fact
>    that the private sector WILL NOT hold health care costs to
>    inflation + 2%.
"Health care reform" does not equal the Clinton's Health Care Bill.
By the Summer of 1994 there were several health care reform proposals, but
none of them that provided health insurance to the uninsured paid for
themselves, according to the Congressional Budget Office.   


>    No, I don't believe that the BBA will make it easier to balance the
>    budget.  I believe it will make it HARDER to balance the budget.
How?  What part of the BBA or the implementation of the BBA will make it harder?

    CNN last night showed part of a press conference with Rep. Gephardt (D-MO).
    He has apparently softened his opposition to the balanced budget amendment.
    He indicated that he would support the amendment if it would allow the 
    Congress to continue to operate without a balanced budget by a simple 
    majority.  Such an amendment would, in his words, illustrate the
    "presumption of a balanced budget".  The Constitutional amendment would 
    show that a balanced budget is the expected norm.

    That's great.  Why don't we amend the Constitution to allow the Federal 
    Government to impose an income tax but forbid the Federal Government from
    taking any punitive action if such taxes are not paid?

    It will be "presumed" that all of us will pay -- eh, "contribute" -- 
    the prescribed amount, sort of an honor system for income taxes.

    --------

    In his testimony before the House Ways and Means Committee, Rep. Gephardt
    also indicated that the current tax code is too complex.  

    There's a startling revelation!

    re .79
    
>    Balancing the budget will require raising taxes *AND* cutting spending.
>    Taxes can not be raised enough to balance the budget.
>    Spending can not be cut enough to balance the budget.

    Certainly it is possible to balance the budget using only tax increases
    or only spending cuts, however I agree with you that a combination of
    both is probably the best approach.
    
>    (As an aside, zeroing out PBS has nothing whatever to do with the
>    budget and everything in the world to do with punitive ideology.)
    
    I agree that it has nothing to do with the budget. The same is
    true of Welfare reform.

>    Second, your list of entitlements is amazingly distorted.

    No, my list of entitlements is exactly correct. It's too bad
    you chose words such as "amazingly distorted". I try to open
    an honest debate, and it appears that you want to insult the
    opinions of others.

>    Social Security is a *NOT* a middle class entitlement...

    Sorry, maybe I have the wrong definition of middle class entitlements.
    As I understand it, "middle class entitlements" is government money given
    largely to the middle class, for which they need to do nothing at
    the present time. Some entitlements are considered "earned" such
    as Social Security, others such as Medicaid are not.
    
>    Medicaid is not an entitlement at all.  (You might stretch and talk
>    about the spend down provisions as being an entitlement, but....)
    
    I'm not surprised that you don't see Medicaid as a middle class entitlement.
    Most people don't. The fact is most Medicaid money is spent on nursing
    home care for the elderly. Without Medicaid most of these people would
    have to be taken care of by other family members who are most often
    middle class. Further family members, no matter what their wealth,
    are not asked to contribute anything to the care of their relative.
    So...sure...all the expense of Medicaid goes to the poor, but the much
    of the *benefit* goes to the middle class.

>    And you leave off some of the largest entitlements of all, such
>    as Home Mortgage Interest Deduction and the slew of brand new
>    entitlements that the Republicans are promising.

    No, I have listed all the largest entitlements. As I understand it 
    removing the home mortgage interest deduction would gain about 
    $50 billion a year. This is about 1/10 the size of the Social Security 
    budget, and about 1/3 the size of Medicare and Medicaid. Just the same 
    I'm willing to eliminate the home mortgage deduction, 
    (though the local tax deduction should be the first to go).
    
>|   Cutting middle class entitlements is gonna cost those who vote for it
>|   at the polls.
>    
>    Then we the people deserve the deficits we get.

    No Bill, the problem is our children will get it!! This is the whole
    point!! 
    

>|   Most Democrats claim that no amendment is necessary - yet they also
>|   refuse to say how they will balance the budget.
>    
>    They had said how they would get the deficit to half what it was by
>    1996.  And for a while, it actually looked like they would achieve
>    that goal.  But now we the people have said "oh, no, we don't want that,
>    we want tax cuts and spending increases and balanced budget amendments,
>    not cuts in the deficit!"
    
    Actually polls show more people want the deficit cut than want
    tax cuts. It's just that the politicians don't get it!! As for
    how the budget has been reduced, please see my previous replies.

>    *AND*
>    
>    The Democrats (*AND* *REPUBLICANS*) from DAY ONE said that it would
>    REQUIRE health care reform to even have a chance of fixing the
>    structural problems in the Federal budget...  
>
    I agree. However as .76 pointed out, the Clinton plan did nothing
    to reduce spending. To do that would require more unpopular things
    such as forcing Medicare recipients into HMOs (like the rest of us!!),
    but no one was willing to do that.
    
>    Bottom line:
>    
>    No, I don't believe that the BBA will make it easier to balance the
>    budget.  I believe it will make it HARDER to balance the budget.
>    
>    								-mr. bill

    That's too bad. What do you think is the best approach to a balanced
    budget? As I said before, I'd love another way, I'm just afraid the
    BBA is the only shot we have.

    Thanks for taking the time to reply. Your raise some good points.

    					Ed

    
    No tax deduction is an "entitlement", nor for that matter is most
    spending, which is "appropriation".  An entitlement is defined as
    a government outlay upon which Congress need not vote for it to occur.
    
    That's all it means.  If the Congress votes it, it's an appropriation.
    
      bb

>    So...sure...all the expense of Medicaid goes to the poor, but the much
>    of the *benefit* goes to the middle class.

 I fail to see how the middle class benefiting from Medicaid is an issue
 since it is the Middle class who pays for the benefit.

  Doug.

re: .86

Thanks for the definition.  Basically you are saying that if Congress passes
a bill that requires the treasury to cut a check to someone on a recurring
basis without requiring a periodic re-approval from Congress, this is an
entitlement.  Any spending that must be re-approved by Congress on some basis
(annual/biannual/etc) is an appropriation.

The title of your reply has me curious.  How does the CBO/GAO define
'entitlement' and do they define it the same way?

Thanks,

Bob

    
    re .87
    
    oops...bad wording on my part. I should have said that all the
    money paid by Medicaid goes to the poor, but much of the benefit
    goes to the middle class. Because of Medicaid, many middle class
    (and upper class) can place their relatives in nursing homes and
    let the government pay for them there.
    
    It's an issue because I believe mr bill claimed that the middle
    class to not benifit from Medicaid. I claim they do.
    
    					Hope this helps,
    
    					Ed
    
    

    
    
    
    It's a pill that is going to have to be swallowed at some point.  The
    sooner the better, I say.
    
    
    Mike

|   re: 72 - this is a joke, of course.
    
    Not it is not.
    
|   Take the post office out, like you just did by nimbly choosing dates.
    
    Sorry, but learn to read.  Post office was counted in every year
    in the table.
    
|   Pick a war year and count the troops.
    
    I didn't pick the year.  1969 was given.  But since it was a war
    year, I also gave you CIVILIAN employees.  Hello?  Anyone thinking
    up stairs there?
    
|   Now pick a real function - say, the Department of Agriculture, and
|   look at its budget and staff then and now.  Surprise - they ALL
|   got bigger relative to the US GDP and census.
    
    Prove it.  Quote it.  Find me a historical table that covers 1969
    to 1990-something.
    
    								-mr. bill

Well, I'm not about to argue with you, Bill, since I don't have
access to any figures to dispute the matter, but it seems odd
that where we now have entire agncies that didn't even exist
25 to 30 years ago, government can't have grown.

There was virtually no EPA in the 60's, HEW was a fraction
of it's current size I'd think, and much of the Ag. Dept.
as we know it today wasn't in place then.

Is it possible that other figures hide elsewhere?

    	The IRS is much smaller than it was in the 60's.
    
    	Yeah.  That must be it...

    
    Federal poultry inspectors have gone from a peak of over 200 inspectors
    in the 60's to 20 today.
    
    								-mr. bill

    
    Well, the only thing in my office is the 1990 World Almanac.  It
    does not carry employment statistics.  It carries outlays.
    
      1955  $64B
      1960  $76B
      1965  $172B
      1970  $194B
      1975  $324B
      1980  $579B
      1985  $945B
      1988 (the last they had counted by then)  1,064B
    
      Of course, most of this (or any other comparative statistics), is
     inflation.  But that comes to roughly 10% on an annual basis over
     my adult span.  It is true the deficit has reduced some years, but
     outlays never did, although the rate has varied.  And, yes, spending
     has also risen every single one of the Bush/Clinton years, no matter
     what party held any offices, no matter what agreements legislative
     leaders made, no matter what promises or gimmicks were fed the public,
     no matter whether there was peace or war, armament or disarmament,
     or anything else - like a constant of the universe.
    
      In all that time, except once (and only just, or not enough to matter),
     we have every single year run a deficit.  And not once was it the
     right thing to do.
    
      Here's a period I like (1920-25 yearly average) :
    
         receipts : $4.3B  outlays : $3.5B
    
      Bring back Calvin Coolidge !  bb
    

    > In all that time, except once (and only just, or not enough to
    > matter), we have every single year run a deficit.  And not once 
    > was it the right thing to do.
    
    This blanket statement is just a little too far reaching for me, and
    incidentally for most economists.  Government spending can in theory be
    used to buffer the effects on the economy of business and unemployment
    cycles.  When the economy is expanding, government should run a
    surplus, thus stifling some of the expansionary (inflationary)
    stimulus.  Conversely, when the economy is in recession, government
    deficit spending can provide some fiscal stimulus to ease the pain and
    to buttress the beginnings of recovery.  So deficit spending clearly
    has a place if you're willing to acknowledge that government spending
    has effects on the economy and you want to figure out how to use those 
    effects to do as little damage to the economy as possible.
    
    This is the theoretical argument against a balanced budget amendment,
    by the way.  Funny how nobody has even mentioned it yet.
    
    Trouble, of course, is that even during boom times congress and
    administrations have not had the fortitude to run surpluses as this
    theory requires them to do, and the debt is therefore never relieved.
    Now we're in a posture where interest payments on accumulated debt are
    a substantial portion of government spending, and government
    competition for funds is recognizably distorting the economy.
    
    DougO

    I support a balanced budget amendment in theory. Many states including
 Mass. are required by law to have a balanced budget.

    There is one nagging problem.....would the American people really be
 willing to absorb the tax increases and service cuts that would be necessary?
 In the short term, I don't think so because nobody wants their ox gored.

    - Bob

    
    Yes, I was too strong with saying we should never have run a deficit
    in these 40 years.  All we had to do was balance out on average, and
    in times of war or recession, there will be unforeseen expenses.  A
    well-written amendment will allow for an override, just like Prop 2.5
    here in Mass.  (By the way, I haven't seen a text, or a date for the
    House debate.  I did see Sen. Exon, D-Neb, introduced such an
    amendment in the Senate.)
    
    I'm not sure it will work either.  Maybe we're doomed.  But all I know
    is whatever we HAVE been doing (and not just this administration) is
    never going to work.  We need to try everything.  Line Item Veto,
    Zero-Based Budgeting, Balanced Budget Amendment, rollover in our
    legislative personnel, and so forth.  This needs resolve !
    
      bb

 Balanced Snarf amendment

    	re .95
    
    	That's mere chicken feed.

    
    mr bill (or anyone who supports a balanced budget, but not an
    amendment). Could you reply to the question I ask in .85 - What
    do you think is the best way to bet to a balanced budget? I have
    not heard anyone who is against the amendment propose how they
    will get to a balanced budget.
    
    					Thank you,
    
    					Ed
    
    

The Dallas Morning News published a list the other day of how the the Reps and
Senators from Texas told them how they would vote on a BBA and a bill to require
a 3/5 majority to raise taxes.  All the people who would vote against either
of these items were all Democrats.

Bob

    
    Yesterday Sen Robert Byrd (D West Virginia) invoked an obscure Senate
    rule and forced the Judiciary Committee to suspend its work on
    the BBA.
    
    Quoting from an AP piece in the globe "But Byrd, 77, un unsurpassed
    master at using the Senate's arcane rules to advantage, vowed to keep
    up the fight" [against the amendment]
    
    It's interesting that many consider Byrd the "Master of pork". 
    I'm waiting for the press to start calling him an "obstructionist"...
    nah....I better not...

  The chaos part of me would love to see a balanced budget amendment pass.

  Sooner or later (probably sooner) Congress would pass an unbalanced budget,
someone would take them to court, and the Supreme Court would have to step step
in and balance it the only way they possibly could which would be by raising
taxes. 

  Whoooo would the conservative talk shows heat up over that one,
  George 

    >    ....balance it the only way they possibly could which would be by
    > raising taxes. 
    
    Good form! Spoken like a true Democrat! The _only_ way to balance
    the budget is by raising taxes! Reducing the cost of federal govt.
    and taking a whack at entitlements cannot _possibly_  enter it!
    
    -b

RE          <<< Note 50.106 by MPGS::MARKEY "Hoist the Jolly Roger!" >>>

>    Good form! Spoken like a true Democrat! The _only_ way to balance
>    the budget is by raising taxes! Reducing the cost of federal govt.
>    and taking a whack at entitlements cannot _possibly_  enter it!
    
  If you are talking about the choices that the Supreme Court would have
that's exactly right.

  The budget of the United States government is complex and consists of many,
not one, budget resolutions. Each of those in turn is based on many complex
factors which is far beyond the scope of what the Supreme Court could look at 
while deciding one case.

  Also it's not clear they could touch those resolutions if they wanted to.
Remember, their job is to interpret the law, not to change the law. If they
decided to cut spending about the only choice they would have would be to
declare all the spending resolutions unconstitutional which would result in
chaos. That would effectively disban the entire military.

  Legally their only choice would be to raise taxes to balance the budget.
Any modification of spending on their part would violate their constitutional
authority.

  George

    I believe George that what you are suggesting is law enforcement, not
    law interpretation. The SCoTUS does not have the authority to take
    such action. The only action they could take is to declare the
    budget unconstitutional.
    
    -b

     Taxes are set according to law. If the SCOTUS were to find a budget
    unconstitutional, they could not make a new law to raise taxes any more
    (or less) than they could prevent spending. I wonder why you choose to
    use your logic asymmetrically, George. Coun't possibly be related to
    your personal political motives.... Hmmm.

  If there were a Constitutional Amendment saying that the budget must be
balanced, then the Supreme Court would have the power to interpret that new
amendment. In itself it would change the balance of power and it would be
up to the Court to decide what, if any, new power it had received along with
that amendment.

  Consider their choices:

    - Cutting spending would be impossible. The job of trying understand the
      budget is far beyond what they have manpower to accomplish and it would
      set a precedent which would put them in the budget process for good.

    - Declaring the entire budget as unconstitutional would create chaos and
      put them, the military, and everyone else in government out of work.

    - Raising taxes would be easy. They could balance the budget with simple
      arithmetic by calculating the deficit and ordering everyone who paid any
      tax to pay a sur charge to the IRS making up the difference.

  I don't see where they'd have a choice, they'd have to raise taxes.

  George

    
    
    Wouldn't the budget be balanced in a few years if they just froze
    spending at current levels?
    
    
    Mike

    You forget the fourth (and most likely choice George):
    
    The SCoTUS would declare the budget unconstitutional and send it back
    to Congress for rework! Since the budget is done prior to the end
    of the fiscal year for which it applies, Congress should be able
    to rework the budget accordingly and get it to the President for
    signature before the country ground to a halt.
    
    -b

    
    But the two versions being considered both have over-rides, one by
    simple majority, the other by super-majority a la cloture, veto
    override, and constitutional amendments.
    
    There has been a lot of blather in this topic (some of it mine), but
    nobody on any side has actually posted a text.  Without which, this
    debate is meaningless.  For example, does everybody think it's easy
    to TELL whether a budget is really balanced ?  I don't.  I think I
    read that the texts under consideration DO address this point, but
    I don't know how.
    
      bb

    /  I don't see where they'd have a choice, they'd have to raise taxes.
    
     This has consistenly been your position regarding balancing the budget
    since day 1.

    Don't you see, if they raise taxes, more money will go to DC and will
    be spent of crap while instead I could be making a stronger America by
    supporting the local economy.
    
    -Jack
    
    

re: .114

At least he's consistent:-)

Bob

                     <<< Note 50.110 by HELIX::MAIEWSKI >>>


>    - Cutting spending would be impossible. The job of trying understand the
>      budget is far beyond what they have manpower to accomplish and it would
>      set a precedent which would put them in the budget process for good.

	Not at all impossible. Example: Current Budget 1.4 trillion dollars,
	Current Income 1 trillion dollars, Deficit 400 billion dollars.

	Solution: All line items in the Budget are reduced by 28.57%, Budget
	is balanced.

>  I don't see where they'd have a choice, they'd have to raise taxes.

	Only because the liberal view is never ever to cut spending.

Jim

|   There has been a lot of blather in this topic (some of it mine), but
|   nobody on any side has actually posted a text. 
    
    Which of the sixteen hoaxes would you like posted?
    
    								-mr. bill

RE          <<< Note 50.112 by MPGS::MARKEY "Hoist the Jolly Roger!" >>>

>    The SCoTUS would declare the budget unconstitutional and send it back
>    to Congress for rework! Since the budget is done prior to the end
>    of the fiscal year for which it applies, Congress should be able
>    to rework the budget accordingly and get it to the President for
>    signature before the country ground to a halt.
    
  Think again. First, they wouldn't know the budget was not balanced until well
into the year. The amount collected by the IRS depends on the tax base which
is not known in advance.

  When it was known it wouldn't go to the Supreme Court, it would go 1st to
the Federal District Court, most likely in the District of Columbia. It could
take a year or two before it got to the Supreme Court.

  By then the money would be spent. The only way that the Court could balance
the budget would be to issue a judgment against the people of the United
States for the difference and order them to pay it in the form of taxes.

  George

RE    <<< Note 50.117 by SEAPIG::PERCIVAL "I'm the NRA,USPSA/IPSC,NROI-RO" >>>

>	Solution: All line items in the Budget are reduced by 28.57%, Budget
>	is balanced.

  It's not that simple. For example,

    - Slashing payments on the debt would have questionable repercussions.
      Would the court want to risk turning U.S. Savings bonds into junk bonds?

    - Would they want to randomly cut defense spending with such consequences
      as reducing the Navy by a carrier task force? Which carrier would they
      order decommissioned? Which support ships? Which army divisions?

    - Would they want to arbitrarily shut down a certain number of Air Traffic
      Control towers?

    - Which states would suddenly be without a District Court?

    - The immigration service is already complaining they can't control the
      boarders, what happens if they get a 28.57% reduction in their budget?

    - How about Social Security which has it's own method of funding, would
      that get slashed?

and that's not even the tip of the proverbial iceberg.

  George

    
    
    I don't know George, the people I know who work for the federal
    government say they could cut expenses by 20% without blinking an eye. 
    There is that much waste.
    
    
    Mike

RE          <<< Note 50.122 by GRANPA::MWANNEMACHER "Space for rent" >>>

>    I don't know George, the people I know who work for the federal
>    government say they could cut expenses by 20% without blinking an eye. 
>    There is that much waste.
    
  Easily, maybe more. Problem is the Balanced Budget amendment will do nothing
to touch that problem.

  This amendment will not make government more efficient, it will only change
the balance of power from Congress to the Courts by dragging them into the
budget process. 

  Under the current system, Congress has complete authority to establish the
budget and raise taxes to pay for that budget. The only thing that happens
with the BBA is that Congress will have limits as to what they can spend and
it will be up to the Courts to determine what those limits are.

  Who's to say over the next 200 years what various judges will do to balance
the budget?

  All and all it's about the stupidest idea I've ever seen considered for a
Constitutional amendment but what it lacks in intelligence it will more than
make up for in entertainment.

  George

    Well George brings up an interesting problem, namely: federal judges
    who are not accountable to anyone. We have seen many Federal judges
    in the past, like the infamous Garrity in Boston, who have ordered
    all manner of costly fixes to comply with their interpretation of
    the law. I'm sure at least one of the meddling bastards (or bitches)
    is likely to go the route George suggests...
    
    It's about time these people were brought under Constitutional
    control anyway, and George's point could be used as a very nice
    lever to push for court reform. I love it George. You should
    be smug more often.
    
    -b

    YES!!  Court reform!!

                     <<< Note 50.121 by HELIX::MAIEWSKI >>>

>  It's not that simple. For example,

	You are confusing "not simple" with "not painful". It's VERY
	simple AND VERY painful.

Jim

HJ 7 IH

104th CONGRESS

1st Session

H. J. Res. 7

<Proposing a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution of the United
States.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

January 4, 1995

Mr. Archer introduced the following joint resolution; which was
referred to the Committee on the Judiciary



JOINT RESOLUTION

Proposing a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution of the United
States.

   Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United
   States of America in Congress assembled (two-thirds of each House
   concurring therein), That the following article is proposed as an
   amendment to the Constitution of the United States, which shall be
   valid to all intents and purposes as part of the Constitution when
   ratified by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several States
   within seven years after the date of its submission for
   ratification:

`Article --

   `Section 1. Prior to each fiscal year, Congress shall, by law, adopt
   a statement of receipts and outlays for such fiscal year in which
   total outlays are not greater than total receipts. Congress may, by
   law, amend that statement provided revised outlays are not greater
   than revised receipts. Congress may provide in that statement for a
   specific excess of outlays over receipts by a vote directed solely
   to that subject in which two-thirds of each House agree to such
   excess.  Congress and the President shall ensure that actual outlays
   do not exceed the outlays set forth in such statement.

   `Section 2. Total receipts shall include all receipts of the United
   States except those derived from borrowing and total outlays shall
   include all outlays of the United States except those for the
   repayment of debt principal.

   `Section 3. The amount of Federal public debt as of the first day of
   the second fiscal year beginning after the ratification of this
   Article shall become a permanent limit on such debt and there shall
   be no increase in such amount unless two-thirds of each House shall
   have passed a bill approving such increase and such bill shall
   become law.

   `Section 4. Congress may waive the provisions of this Article for
   any fiscal year in which a declaration of war is in effect. The
   provisions of this Article may be waived for any fiscal year in
   which the United States faces an imminent and serious military
   threat to national security and is so declared by a joint
   resolution, adopted by a majority of the whole number of each House,
   which becomes law.

   `Section 5. This Article shall take effect for the fiscal year 2002
   or for the second fiscal year beginning after its ratification,
   whichever is later.'.
    

HJ 45 IH

104th CONGRESS

1st Session

H. J. RES. 45

Proposing a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution of the United
States.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

January 4, 1995

Mr. Stump introduced the following joint resolution; which was referred
to the Committee on the Judiciary



JOINT RESOLUTION

Proposing a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution of the United
States.

   Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United
   States of America in Congress assembled (two-thirds of each House
   concurring therein), That the following article is proposed as an
   amendment to the Constitution of the United States, which shall be
   valid to all intents and purposes as part of the Constitution when
   ratified by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several States
   within seven years after the date of its submission for
   ratification:

   `Section 1. Prior to each fiscal year, Congress shall adopt a
   statement of receipts and outlays for such fiscal year in which
   total outlays are not greater than total receipts. Congress may
   amend such statement provided revised outlays are not greater than
   revised receipts. Congress may provide in such statement for a
   specific excess of outlays over receipts by a vote directed solely
   to that subject in which three-fifths of the whole number of each
   House agree to such excess. Congress and the President shall ensure
   that actual outlays do not exceed the outlays set forth in such
   statement.

   `Section 2. No bill to increase receipts shall become law unless
   approved by a three-fifths majority of the whole number of each
   House of Congress.

   `Section 3. Prior to each fiscal year, the President shall transmit
   to Congress a proposed statement of receipts and outlays for such
   fiscal year consistent with the provisions of this Article.

   `Section 4. Congress may waive the provisions of this Article for
   any fiscal year in which a declaration of war is in effect. The
   provisions of this Article may be waived for any fiscal year in
   which the United States faces an imminent and serious military
   threat to national security and is so declared by a joint
   resolution, adopted by a majority of the whole number of each House,
   which becomes law.

   `Section 5. Total receipts shall include all receipts of the United
   States except those derived from borrowing and total outlays shall
   include all outlays of the United States except those for the
   repayment of debt principal.

   `Section 6. The amount of Federal public debt as of the first day of
   the second fiscal year beginning after the ratification of this
   Article shall become a permanent limit on such debt and there shall
   be no increase in such amount unless three-fifths of the whole
   number of each House of Congress shall have passed a bill approving
   such increase and such bill has become law.

   `Section 7. Congress shall enforce and implement this Article by
   appropriate legislation.

   `Section 8. This Article shall take effect for the fiscal year 2002,
   or for the second fiscal year beginning after its ratification,
   whichever is later.'.
    

SJ 12 IS

104th CONGRESS

1st Session

S. J. RES. 12

Proposing a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution of the United
States.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

January 4, 1995

Mr. Gramm introduced the following joint resolution; which was read
twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary



JOINT RESOLUTION

Proposing a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution of the United
States.

   Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United
   States of America in Congress assembled (two-thirds of each House
   concurring therein), That the following article is proposed as an
   amendment to the Constitution of the United States, which shall be
   valid to all intents and purposes as part of the Constitution when
   ratified by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several States
   within 7 years after the date of its submission for ratification:

   `Section 1. Prior to each fiscal year, Congress shall, by law, adopt
   a statement of receipts and outlays for such fiscal year in which
   total outlays are not greater than total receipts. Congress may, by
   law, amend that statement provided revised outlays are not greater
   than revised receipts. Congress may provide in that statement for a
   specific excess of outlays over receipts by a vote directed solely
   to that subject in which three-fifths of the whole number of each
   House agree to such excess. Congress and the President shall ensure
   that actual outlays do not exceed the outlays set forth in such
   statement.

   `Section 2. No bill to increase receipts shall become law unless
   approved by a three-fifths majority of the whole number in each
   House of Congress.

   `Section 3. Prior to each fiscal year, the President shall transmit
   to Congress a proposed statement of receipts and outlays for such
   fiscal year consistent with the provisions of this Article.

   `Section 4. Congress may waive the provisions of this Article for
   any fiscal year in which a declaration of war is in effect. The
   provisions of this Article may be waived for any fiscal year in
   which the United States faces an imminent and serious military
   threat to national security and is so declared by a joint
   resolution, adopted by a majority of the whole number of each House,
   which becomes law.

   `Section 5. Total receipts shall include all receipts of the United
   States except those derived from borrowing and total outlays shall
   include all outlays of the United States except those for the
   repayment of debt principal.

   `Section 6. The amount of Federal public debt as of the first day of
   the second fiscal year beginning after the ratification of this
   Article shall become a permanent limit on such debt and there shall
   be no increase in such amount unless three-fifths of the whole
   number of each House of Congress shall have passed a bill approving
   such increase and such bill has become law.

   `Section 7. All votes taken by the House of Representatives or the
   Senate under this Article shall be roll-call votes.

   `Section 8. Congress shall enforce and implement this Article by
   appropriate legislation.

   `Section 9. This Article shall take effect for the fiscal year 2002
   or for the second fiscal year beginning after its ratification,
   whichever is later.'.
    

Right to Know Act (Introduced in the Senate)

S 208 RIS

104th CONGRESS

1st Session

S. 208

To require that any proposed amendment to the Constitution of the
United States to require a balanced budget establish procedures to
ensure enforcement before the amendment is submitted to the States.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

January 11 (legislative day, January 10), 1995

Mr. Daschle (for himself and Mr. Exon) introduced the following bill;
which was read twice and referred jointly pursuant to the order of
August 4, 1977, to the Committees on the Budget and Governmental
Affairs, with instructions that if one committee reports, the other
committee have thirty days to report or be discharged



A BILL

To require that any proposed amendment to the Constitution of the
United States to require a balanced budget establish procedures to
ensure enforcement before the amendment is submitted to the States.

   Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the
   United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

   This Act may be cited as the `Right to Know Act'.

SEC. 2. PROPOSAL OF AMENDMENT .

   No article proposing a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution
   shall be submitted to the States for ratification in the 104th
   Congress until the adoption of a concurrent resolution containing
   the matter described in section 2 of this Act.

SEC. 3. CONTENT OF REQUIRED CONCURRENT RESOLUTION.

   (a) Contents: The concurrent resolution referred to in section 1
   shall set forth a budget plan to achieve a balanced budget (that
   complies with the article of amendment proposed by that section) not
   later than the first fiscal year required by the article of
   amendment as follows:

      (1) a budget for each fiscal year beginning with fiscal year 1996
      and ending with that first fiscal year (required by the article
      of amendment ) containing--

	 (A) aggregate levels of new budget authority, outlays,
	 revenues, and the deficit or surplus;

	 (B) totals of new budget authority and outlays for each major
	 functional category;

	 (C) new budget authority and outlays, on an account-by-account
	 basis, for each account with actual outlays or offsetting
	 receipts of at least $100,000,000 in fiscal year 1994; and

	 (D) an allocation of Federal revenues among the major sources
	 of such revenues;

      (2) a detailed list and description of changes in Federal law
      (including laws authorizing appropriations or direct spending and
      tax laws) required to carry out the plan and the effective date
      of each such change; and

      (3) reconciliation directives to the appropriate committees of
      the House of Representatives and Senate instructing them to
      submit legislative changes to the Committee on the Budget of the
      House or Senate, as the case may be, to implement the plan set
      forth in the concurrent resolution.

   (b) Reconciliation: The directives required by subsection (a)(3)
   shall be deemed to be directives within the meaning of section
   310(a) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974. Upon receiving all
   legislative submissions from committees under subsection (a)(3),
   each Committee on the Budget shall combine all such submissions
   (without substantive revision) into an omnibus reconciliation bill
   and report that bill to its House. The procedures set forth in
   section 310 shall govern the consideration of that reconciliation
   bill in the House of Representatives and the Senate.

   (c) CBO Scoring: The budget plan described in subsection (a) shall
   be based upon Congressional Budget Office economic and technical
   assumptions and estimates of the spending and revenue effects of the
   legislative changes described in subsection (a)(2).

    

HJ 31 IH

104th CONGRESS

1st Session

H. J. RES. 31

To amend the Constitution of the United States to provide for balanced
budgets and elimination of the Federal indebtedness.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

January 4, 1995

Mr. Jacobs introduced the following joint resolution; which was
referred to the Committee on the Judiciary



JOINT RESOLUTION

To amend the Constitution of the United States to provide for balanced
budgets and elimination of the Federal indebtedness.

   Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United
   States of America in Congress assembled (two-thirds of each House
   concurring therein), That the following article is hereby proposed
   as an amendment to the Constitution of the United States, which
   shall be valid to all intents and purposes as part of the
   Constitution when ratified by the legislatures of three-fourths of
   the several States within two years after its submission to the
   States for ratification:

   `Section 1. Beginning in fiscal year 1999, the United States
   government shall not borrow money or any other thing of value except
   for the purpose of rolling over its existing debt balance , and
   shall not issue additional currency except as it reflects additional
   United States productivity.

   `Section 2. Beginning in fiscal year 2000, and for the next 39
   succeeding fiscal years thereafter, the national debt shall be
   retired by an amount equal to 2\1/2\ per centum of the national debt
   at the beginning of fiscal year 2000.

   `Section 3. The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by
   appropriate legislation.'.
    

S 9 RIS

104th CONGRESS

1st Session

S. 9

To direct the Senate and the House of Representatives to enact
legislation on the budget for fiscal years 1996 through 2003 that would
balance the budget by fiscal year 2003.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

January 4, 1995

Mr. Daschle (for himself, Mr. Exon, Ms. Mikulski, Mr. Breaux, Mr. Robb,
Mr. Kerry, Mr. Pell, Ms. Moseley-Braun, and Mr. Harkin) introduced the
following bill; which was read twice and referred jointly pursuant to
the order of August 4, 1977, to the Committees on the Budget and
Governmental Affairs, with instructions that if one committee reports,
the other committee have thirty days to report or be discharged



A BILL

To direct the Senate and the House of Representatives to enact
legislation on the budget for fiscal years 1996 through 2003 that would
balance the budget by fiscal year 2003.

   Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the
   United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. BUDGET RESOLUTION FOR FISCAL YEARS 1996 THROUGH 2003.

   Not later than the end of the 1st session of the 104th Congress, the
   Senate and House of Representatives shall--

      (1) adopt a concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal years
      1996 through 2003; and

      (2) enact all the necessary authorizing and appropriations
      legislation,

   that would balance the Federal budget by the beginning of fiscal
   year 2003.

    

HJ 21 IH

104th CONGRESS

1st Session

H. J. RES. 21

Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States to
provide for budgetary reform by requiring the reduction of the deficit,
a balanced Federal budget , and the repayment of the national debt.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

January 4, 1995

Mr. Allard introduced the following joint resolution; which was
referred to the Committee on the Judiciary



JOINT RESOLUTION

Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States to
provide for budgetary reform by requiring the reduction of the deficit,
a balanced Federal budget , and the repayment of the national debt.

   Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United
   States of America in Congress assembled (two-thirds of each House
   concurring therein), That the following article is proposed as an
   amendment to the Constitution of the United States, which shall be
   valid to all intents and purposes as part of the Constitution when
   ratified by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several States
   within seven years after the date of its submission for
   ratification:

`Article --

   `Section 1. Except as provided by this Article, beginning with the
   fiscal year 1997 or for the first fiscal year beginning after
   ratification, whichever is later, the President shall submit a
   budget of revenues and outlays to Congress, and Congress shall adopt
   a budget that reduces the deficit existing the year prior to
   ratification of this Article by not less than 16.7 percent per year
   in order to balance the budget within 6 fiscal years.

   `Section 2. Except as provided by this Article, beginning with the
   7th year beginning after ratification and for every year thereafter,
   budgeted outlays shall not exceed budgeted revenues.

   `Section 3. Beginning with the 7th year after ratification, the
   actual revenues shall exceed actual outlays in order to provide for
   the reduction of the gross Federal debt which is outstanding at the
   end of the 6th year after ratification.

   `The amount of such reduction will be equal to the amount required
   to amortize the debt over the next 24 years, in order to repay the
   entire debt by the end of the 30th year after ratification.

   `Section 4. Congress may waive the provisions of this Article
   (except for section 5) for any fiscal year in which a declaration of
   war is in effect.

   `Section 5. No bill to increase revenues shall become law unless
   approved by a majority of the total membership of each House of
   Congress by a roll call vote.

   `Section 6. Congress shall review actual revenues on a quarterly
   basis and adjust appropriations to assure compliance with this
   Article.

   `Section 7. For purposes of this Article, revenues shall include all
   revenues of the United States excluding borrowing and outlays shall
   include all outlays of the United States excluding repayment of debt
   principal.'.

    

HJ 53 IH

104th CONGRESS

1st Session

H. J. RES. 53

Proposing an amendment to the Constitution to provide for a balanced
budget for the United States Government.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

January 11, 1995

Mr. Thornton (for himself, Mr. Fields of Louisiana, Mr. Olver, and Mr.
Wise) introduced the following joint resolution; which was referred to
the Committee on the Judiciary



JOINT RESOLUTION

Proposing an amendment to the Constitution to provide for a balanced
budget for the United States Government.

   Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United
   States of America in Congress assembled (two-thirds of each House
   concurring therein), That the following article is proposed as an
   amendment to the Constitution of the United States, which shall be
   valid to all intents and purposes as part of the Constitution when
   ratified by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several States
   within 7 years after the date of its submission for ratification:

`Article --

   `Section 1. Total outlays of the operating fund of the United States
   for any fiscal year shall not exceed total receipts to those funds
   for that fiscal year plus any operating fund balances carried over
   from previous fiscal years.

   `Section 2. The Congress may waive the provisions of this article
   for any fiscal year by a declaration of national urgency by the
   President that is approved by a majority vote of both Houses of the
   Congress.

   `Section 3. Not later than the first Monday in February in each
   calendar year, the President shall transmit to the Congress a
   proposed budget for the United States Government for the fiscal year
   beginning in that calendar year in which the total outlays of the
   operating funds of the United States for that fiscal year shall not
   exceed total receipts to those funds for that fiscal year.

   `Section 4. Total receipts of the operating funds shall exclude
   those derived from net borrowing. Total outlays of the operating
   funds of the United States shall exclude those for repayment of debt
   principal and for capital and developmental investments that provide
   demonstrable long-term economic returns but shall include an annual
   debt servicing charge. The receipts (including attributable
   interest) and outlays of the Federal Old-Age and Survivors Insurance
   Trust Fund and the Federal Disability Insurance Trust Fund together
   with outlays for benefits earned by veterans of military service
   shall not be counted as receipts or outlays for purposes of this
   article.

   `Section 5. This article shall be implemented and enforced only in
   accordance with appropriate legislation enacted by Congress, which
   may rely on estimates of outlays and receipts.

   `Section 6. This section and section 5 of this article shall take
   effect upon ratification. All other sections of this article shall
   take effect beginning with fiscal year 2001 or the second fiscal
   year beginning after its ratification, whichever is later.'.
    

HJ 49 IH

104th CONGRESS

1st Session

H. J. RES. 49

Proposing an amendment to the Constitution to provide for a balanced
budget for the United States Government.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

January 9, 1995

Mr. Wise (for himself, Mr. Pomeroy, Mr. Sawyer, Mr. Foglietta, Ms.
Furse, and Ms. Eshoo) introduced the following joint resolution; which
was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary



JOINT RESOLUTION

Proposing an amendment to the Constitution to provide for a balanced
budget for the United States Government.

   Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United
   States of America in Congress assembled (two-thirds of each House
   concurring therein), That the following article is proposed as an
   amendment to the Constitution of the United States, which shall be
   valid to all intents and purposes as part of the Constitution when
   ratified by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several States
   within seven years after the date of its submission for
   ratification:

   `Section 1. Total outlays of the operating funds of the United
   States for any fiscal year shall not exceed total receipts to those
   funds for that fiscal year plus any operating fund balances carried
   over from previous fiscal years.

   `Section 2. The Congress may waive the provisions of this article
   for any fiscal year in which a declaration of war is in effect. The
   provisions of this article may be waived for any fiscal year in
   which the United States is engaged in military conflict which causes
   an imminent and serious military threat to national security and is
   so declared by a joint resolution, adopted by a majority of the
   whole number of each House of the Congress, that becomes law. If
   real economic growth has been or will be negative for two
   consecutive quarters, Congress may by law waive the article for the
   current and the next fiscal year.

   `Section 3. Not later than the first Monday in February in each
   calendar year, the President shall transmit to the Congress a
   proposed budget for the United States Government for the fiscal year
   beginning in that calendar year in which total outlays of the
   operating funds of the United States for that fiscal year shall not
   exceed total receipts to those funds for that fiscal year.

   `Section 4. Total receipts of the operating funds shall exclude
   those derived from net borrowing. Total outlays of the operating
   funds of the United States shall exclude those for repayment of debt
   principal and for capital investments in physical infrastructure
   that provide long-term economic returns but shall include an annual
   debt servicing charge.  The receipts (including attributable
   interest) and outlays of the Federal Old-Age and Survivors Insurance
   Trust Fund and the Federal Disability Insurance Trust Fund shall not
   be counted as receipts or outlays for purposes of this article.

   `Section 5. This article shall be implemented and enforced only in
   accordance with appropriate legislation enacted by Congress, which
   may rely on estimates of outlays and receipts.

   `Section 6. This section and section 5 of this article shall take
   effect upon ratification. All other sections of this article shall
   take effect beginning with fiscal year 2002 or the second fiscal
   year beginning after its ratification, whichever is later.'.

    

HJ 37 IH

104th CONGRESS

1st Session

H. J. RES. 37

Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States to
provide for a balanced budget for the United States Government.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

January 4, 1995

Mr. Orton introduced the following joint resolution; which was referred
to the Committee on the Judiciary



JOINT RESOLUTION

Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States to
provide for a balanced budget for the United States Government.

   Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United
   States of America in Congress assembled (two-thirds of each House
   concurring therein), That the following article is proposed as an
   amendment to the Constitution of the United States, which shall be
   valid to all intents and purposes as part of the Constitution if
   ratified by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several States
   within seven years after its submission to the States for
   ratification:

   `Section 1. Total outlays of the United States for any fiscal year
   shall not exceed total receipts to the United States for that fiscal
   year.

   `Section 2. Prior to each fiscal year, the President shall transmit
   to the Congress a proposed budget for the United States Government
   for that fiscal year in which total outlays do not exceed total
   receipts.

   `Section 3. For any fiscal year in which actual outlays exceed
   actual receipts, the Congress shall provide by law for the repayment
   in the ensuing fiscal year of such excess outlays. If Congress fails
   to provide by law for repayment, within fifteen days after Congress
   adjourns to end a session, there shall be a sequestration of all
   outlays to eliminate a budget deficit.

   `Section 4. The provisions of this article may be waived for any
   fiscal year only if Congress so provides by law by a majority of the
   whole number of each House. Such waiver shall be subject to veto by
   the President.

   `Section 5. Total receipts shall include all receipts of the United
   States Government except those derived from borrowing. Total outlays
   shall include all outlays of the United States Government, except
   for those for repayment of debt principal.

   `Section 6. This article shall take effect beginning with fiscal
   year 2002 or with the second fiscal year beginning after its
   ratification, whichever is later.'.
    

HJ 15 IH

104th CONGRESS

1st Session

H. J. RES. 15

Proposing an amendment to the Constitution to provide for a balanced
budget for the United States Government and for greater accountability
in the enactment of tax legislation.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

January 4, 1995

Mr. Emerson introduced the following joint resolution; which was
referred to the Committee on the Judiciary



JOINT RESOLUTION

Proposing an amendment to the Constitution to provide for a balanced
budget for the United States Government and for greater accountability
in the enactment of tax legislation.

   Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United
   States of America in Congress assembled (two-thirds of each House
   concurring therein), That the following article is proposed as an
   amendment to the Constitution of the United States, which shall be
   valid to all intents and purposes as part of the Constitution if
   ratified by the legislatures of three-forths of the several States
   within seven years after its submission to the States for
   ratification:

`Article--

   `Section 1. Prior to each fiscal year, the Congress and the
   President shall agree on an estimate of total receipts for that
   fiscal year by enactment into law of a joint resolution devoted
   solely to that subject. Total outlays for that year shall not exceed
   the level of estimated receipts set forth in such joint resolution,
   unless three-fifths of the total membership of each House of
   Congress shall provide, by a rollcall vote, for a specific excess of
   outlays over estimated receipts.

   `Section 2. Whenever actual outlays exceed actual receipts for any
   fiscal year, the Congress shall, in the ensuing fiscal year, provide
   by law for the repayment of such excess. The public debt of the
   United States shall not be increased unless three-fifths of the
   total membership of each House shall provide by law for such an
   increase by a rollcall vote.

   `Section 3. Prior to each fiscal year, the President shall transmit
   to the Congress a proposed budget for the United States Government
   for that fiscal year in which total outlays do not exceed total
   receipts.

   `Section 4. No bill to increase revenue shall become law unless
   approved by a majority of the total membership of each House by a
   rollcall vote.

   `Section 5. The provisions of this article are waived for any fiscal
   year in which a declaration of war is in effect.

   `Section 6. Total receipts shall include all receipts of the United
   States except those derived from borrowing. Total outlays shall
   include all outlays of the United States except for those for
   repayment of debt principal.

   `Section 7. This article shall take effect beginning with fiscal
   year 1995 or with the second fiscal year beginning after its
   ratification, whichever is later.'.
    

SJ 13 IS

104th CONGRESS

1st Session

S. J. RES. 13

Proposing an amendment to the Constitution to provide for a balanced
budget for the United States Government.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

January 5, 1995

Mr. Heflin introduced the following joint resolution; which was read
twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary



JOINT RESOLUTION

Proposing an amendment to the Constitution to provide for a balanced
budget for the United States Government.

   Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United
   States of America in Congress assembled, (two-thirds of each House
   concurring therein), That the following article is proposed as an
   amendment to the Constitution of the United States, which shall be
   valid to all intents and purposes as part of the Constitution if
   ratified by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several States
   within seven years after its submission to the States for
   ratification:

   `Section 1. Total outlays for any fiscal year shall not exceed total
   receipts for that fiscal year, unless three-fifths of the whole
   number of each House of Congress shall provide by law for a specific
   excess of outlays over receipts by a rollcall vote.

   `Section 2. The limit on the debt of the United States held by the
   public shall not be increased, unless three-fifths of the whole
   number of each House shall provide by law for such an increase by a
   rollcall vote.

   `Section 3. Prior to each fiscal year, the President shall transmit
   to the Congress a proposed budget for the United States Government
   for that fiscal year, in which total outlays do not exceed total
   receipts.

   `Section 4. No bill to increase revenue shall become law unless
   approved by a majority of the whole number of each House by a
   rollcall vote.

   `Section 5. The Congress may waive the provisions of this article
   for any fiscal year in which a declaration of war is in effect. The
   provisions of this article may be waived for any fiscal year in
   which the United States is engaged in military conflict which causes
   an imminent and serious military threat to national security and is
   so declared by a joint resolution, adopted by a majority of the
   whole number of each House, which becomes law.

   `Section 6. The Congress shall enforce and implement this article by
   appropriate legislation, which may rely on estimates of outlays and
   receipts.

   `Section 7. Total receipts shall include all receipts of the United
   States Government except those derived from borrowing. Total outlays
   shall include all outlays of the United States Government except for
   those for repayment of debt principal.

   `Section 8. This article shall take effect beginning with fiscal
   year 2002 or with the second fiscal year beginning after its
   ratification, whichever is later.'.
    

HJ 46 IH

104th CONGRESS

1st Session

H. J. RES. 46

Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States to
provide for a balanced budget for the United States Government and for
greater accountability in the enactment of tax legislation and to allow
an item veto of appropriation bills.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

January 4, 1995

Mr. Zimmer introduced the following joint resolution; which was
referred to the Committee on the Judiciary



JOINT RESOLUTION

Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States to
provide for a balanced budget for the United States Government and for
greater accountability in the enactment of tax legislation and to allow
an item veto of appropriation bills.

   Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United
   States of America in Congress assembled (two-thirds of each House
   concurring therein), That the following article is proposed as an
   amendment to the Constitution of the United States, which shall be
   valid in all intents and purposes as part of the Constitution if
   ratified by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several States
   within seven years after its submission to the States for
   ratification:

   `Section 1. Prior to each fiscal year, the Congress and the
   President shall agree on an estimate of total receipts for that
   fiscal year by enactment into law of a joint resolution devoted
   soley to that subject. Total outlays for that year shall not exceed
   the level of estimated receipts set forth in such joint resolution,
   unless two-thirds of the total membership of each House of Congress
   shall provide, by a rollcall vote, for a specific excess of outlays
   over estimated receipts.

   `Section 2. The public debt of the United States shall not be
   increased unless two-thirds of the total membership of each House
   shall provide by law for such an increase by a rollcall vote.

   `Section 3. Prior to each fiscal year, the President shall transmit
   to the Congress a proposed budget for the United States Government
   for that fiscal year in which total outlays do not exceed total
   receipts.

   `Section 4. No bill to increase revenue shall become law unless
   approved by two-thirds of the total membership of each House by a
   rollcall vote.

   `Section 5. The provisions of this article are waived for any fiscal
   year in which a declaration of war is in effect.

   `Section 6. Total receipts shall include all receipts of the United
   States except those derived from borrowing. Total outlays shall
   include all outlays of the United States except for those for
   repayment of the debt principal.

   `Section 7. The President shall have the power to disapprove any
   appropriation or provision and approve any other appropriation or
   provision in the same appropriation bill. In such case he shall, in
   signing the bill, designate the appropriations and provisions
   disapproved, and shall return a copy of such appropriations and
   provisions, with his objections, to the House in which the bill
   shall have orginated; and the same proceedings shall then be had as
   in the case of other bills disapproved by the President.

   `Section 8. Sections 1 through 6 of this article shall take effect
   beginning with the second fiscal year beginning after its
   ratification and section 7 of this article shall take effect upon
   ratification.'.
    

HJ 22 IH

104th CONGRESS

1st Session

H. J. RES. 22

Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States to
require a balanced budget .

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

January 4, 1995

Mr. Volkmer introduced the following joint resolution; which was
referred to the Committee on the Judiciary



JOINT RESOLUTION

Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States to
require a balanced budget .

   Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United
   States of America in Congress assembled (two-thirds of each House
   concurring therein), That the following article is proposed as an
   amendment to the Constitution, which shall be valid to all intents
   and purposes as part of the Constitution when ratified by the
   legislatures of three-fourths of the several States within seven
   years after the date of its submission to the States for
   ratification:

   `Section 1. Total outlays for any fiscal year shall not exceed total
   receipts for that fiscal year, unless three-fifths of the whole
   number of each House of Congress shall provide by law for a specific
   excess of outlays over receipts by a rollcall vote.

   `Section 2. The limits on the debt of the United States held by the
   public shall not be increased, unless three-fifths of the whole
   number of each House shall provide by law for such an increase by a
   rollcall vote.

   `Section 3. Prior to each fiscal year, the President shall transmit
   to the Congress a proposed budget for the United States Government
   for that fiscal year, in which total outlays do not exceed total
   receipts.

   `Section 4. No bill to increase revenue shall become law unless
   approved by a majority of the whole number of each House by a
   rollcall vote.

   `Section 5. The Congress may waive the provisions of this article
   for any fiscal year in which a declaration of war is in effect. The
   provisions of this article may be waived for any fiscal year in
   which the United States is engaged in military conflict which causes
   an imminent and serious military threat to national security and is
   so declared by a joint resolution, adopted by a majority of the
   whole number of each House, which becomes law.

   `Section 6. The Congress shall enforce and implement this article by
   appropriate legislation, which may rely on estimates of outlays and
   receipts.

   `Section 7. Total receipts shall include all receipts of the United
   States Government except for those for repayment of debt principal.

   `Section 8. This article shall take effect beginning with fiscal
   year 2001 or with the second fiscal year beginning after its
   ratification, whichever is later.'.

    

SJ 4 IS

104th CONGRESS

1st Session

S. J. RES. 4

Proposing an amendment to the Constitution relating to a Federal
balanced budget .

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

January 4, 1995

Mr. Thurmond introduced the following joint resolution; which was read
twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary



JOINT RESOLUTION

Proposing an amendment to the Constitution relating to a Federal
balanced budget .

   Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United
   States of America in Congress assembled (two-thirds of each House
   concurring therein), That the following article is proposed as an
   amendment to the Constitution of the United States, which shall be
   valid to all intents and purposes as part of the Constitution if
   ratified by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several States
   within seven years after its submission to the States for
   ratification:

   `Section 1. Total outlays of the United States for any fiscal year
   shall not exceed total receipts to the United States for that year,
   unless three-fifths of the whole number of both Houses of Congress
   shall provide for a specific excess of outlays over receipts.

   `Section 2. Any bill for raising taxes shall become law only if
   approved by a majority of the whole number of both Houses of
   Congress by rollcall vote.

   `Section 3. The Congress may waive the provisions of this article
   for any fiscal year in which a declaration of war is in effect.

   `Section 4. Total receipts shall include all receipts of the United
   States except those derived from borrowing. Total outlays shall
   include all outlays of the United States except for those for
   repayment of debt principal.

   `Section 5. This article shall take effect beginning with fiscal
   year 2002 or with the second fiscal year beginning after the
   ratification, whichever is later.'.
    

    Yeah, everybody has a hoax.  
    
    It seems to me your only other options are:
    
    1. Declare bankruptcy as a nation.
    
    2. Invade all countries to whom we owe debt.
    
    What would you propose?

    
    
    Well, all I can say is it's a start.  I'm sure you liberals would be
    content to have government take your whole check and take care of you,
    but thankfully there are more people out there who would rather not
    have that happen.  It's about time we strove for accountable and
    effective government.  What we have now is a monster that is out of
    control.  
    
    
    George, 
    
    It may or may not happen (the cutting of waste).  I imagine that it
    will help with some (responsible) folks and not happen with other
    (irresponsible) folks.  And hopefully, somewhere in the chain of
    command, there is someone who is responsible and will force the
    irresponsible to take responsibility.
    
    
    Mike

RE: 50.117 by SEAPIG::PERCIVAL "I'm the NRA,USPSA/IPSC,NROI-RO"

> Not at all impossible. Example: Current Budget 1.4 trillion dollars,
> Current Income 1 trillion dollars, Deficit 400 billion dollars.
> Solution: All line items in the Budget are reduced by 28.57%,
>           Budget is balanced.

Defaulting on interest on the debt?  Chaos.


Phil

RE          <<< Note 50.143 by GRANPA::MWANNEMACHER "Space for rent" >>>

>    Well, all I can say is it's a start.  I'm sure you liberals would be
>    content to have government take your whole check and take care of you,
>    but thankfully there are more people out there who would rather not
>    have that happen.  It's about time we strove for accountable and
>    effective government.  What we have now is a monster that is out of
>    control.  

  The problem is, this amendment won't make anything like this happen. Where
in this amendment do you see anything that will make Government more
responsible?

  All this amendment tries to do is to make taxes equal Government spending,
and that can be done by either cutting spending or raising taxes. Most likely
it would be a little of each which means your taxes would go up with a BBA
not down.

  George

RE          <<< Note 50.124 by MPGS::MARKEY "Hoist the Jolly Roger!" >>>

>    It's about time these people were brought under Constitutional
>    control anyway, and George's point could be used as a very nice
>    lever to push for court reform. I love it George. You should
>    be smug more often.
    
  To have court reform you need a consensus as to what the problems and
solutions are with the current court system. All this amendment does is to add
work to the courts by dragging them into the budget process. And currently
there is no consensus what ever on how the courts should participate in the
budget process because it's never been a problem which the American people have
faced. 

  Most likely any court reform should retain the current standard of keeping
judges out of the political process so that they can remain fair and impartial.
That means that the budget will be influenced by people even less likely to be
swayed by Rush Limbaugh and the other right wing talk show hackers. 

  Is that really what the Conservatives want?

  George

    
    If the taxes go up enough, the people will vote the idjits out of
    office (theoretically).  That will be an incentive for the
    politiskunks.
    
    
    Mike 

  This assumes that the BBA works in the 1st place which of course it will not.
Think about it, how do you enforce this amendment?

  Say that Congress passes an unbalance budget and their spending is greater
than their estimate of the taxes they will collect. Then say that under threat
of court action they simply revise their estimate up so that the estimate now
equals the amount spent. How do you stop them from spending the money?

  Simple, you can't. Consider the choices.

  To get them to stop, someone has to file a suit in Federal district court.
Courts don't take action until someone files a complaint. And in this case, I
don't believe the plaintiff, who ever that is, has much of a chance of winning. 

  Say that there is a suit, Rush Limbaugh et. al. v. The United States of
America in which the plaintiff asks the court to require the United States to
balance their budget claiming that their tax estimate is too high. What is
likely to happen?

  Well first off, the United States has sovereign immunity. No one can sue the
United States without it's permission. Most likely the case would die right
there and that would be the end of anything coming from the BBA.

  But say that through some miracle they did get past that hurtle, then what?
Well in civil cases the plaintiff does not have the requirement of proof beyond
a reasonable doubt but they still have to show that the preponderance of
evidence is on their side. So what is the evidence here? The evidence consists
of conflicting opinions by various economists as to the amount of taxes likely
to be collected. 

  Since that is almost impossible to estimate, the chances are that the case
would fail and that the court would instruct the plaintiff to come back when
they had more solid evidence.

  Regardless of they use the appeal process or just wait, Rush Limbaugh et.
al. are not likely to be back until the fiscal year has ended and they have
solid evidence. Then what? The money is already spent. Say that they win and
the court issues a judgment against the United States of America to make up
the difference. Now what? How do you collect that money? 

  Do you go to every GI and ask for 25% of their pay to be returned? Do you
go to every Social Security recipient and ask them to return a portion of
their benefits? What about materials purchased by the defense department or
food stamps issued? How do you get those back?

  You don't, it would be impossible. The only choices left to the court would
be to order the IRS to go look up all the tax returns from that year and order
citizens to pay to make up the difference or they would have to declare the
judgment to be moot since it would be impossible to enforce.

  This amendment will accomplish nothing. It's a knee jerk response to the
political feelings of the moment and would be impossible to enforce. The
amendment should be rejected.

  George

    
    
    Much like a business forcasts revenues for the next year and plans
    accordingly.  

    
    Thank you, Mr. Bill, for posting those.  I note that all of them
    have some sort of override, which is only common sense.
    
    Of course, it is correct that passing a BBA won't by itself balance
    the budget.  We are going to hear more of this argument. "Cutting PBS
    won't balance the budget".  "Cutting defense won't balance the budget."
    "Cutting welfare won't balance the budget."  "Laying off 500,000
    federal employees won't balance the budget."  Etc, etc, etc.
    
    How would this work at home?  Wife : "we overspent our combined
    earnings last month."  "Let's cut a few subscriptions."  "Not
    enough."  "We can go out to eat every OTHER Friday."  "Not enough
    either."  "No software for two months on either computer ?"  "Not
    enough."  "Well, no one expense is enough, we have to cut several.
    You pick one, I'll pick one, we continue till we're under."  "OK,
    but I insist some things not be allowed."  "Do I also get to have
    untouchables ?"  Etc, etc, etc.  We get there.  So can the U.S.A.
    
      bb

    It seems that all this worry about the courts getting involved
    is silly. Most states have a BBA, and I don't recall ever hearing
    news stories of state courts intervening with a budget because
    they were unbalanced.

    There will, no doubt, be some mechanism for determining if a budget
    is balanced. CBO estimates for example. If the estimate for a budget
    says that it is unbalanced, then it is unlawful, and will not become
    law. The government will then be operating without a budget. In
    these cases, entitlement sending will continue, all other spending
    will stop. Although an unlikely scenario, this is not the worst thing
    that can happen. 

    More than likely, what will happen is just what happens at the state
    level. Compromises will be made to make the budget balanced.

    On the other hand all this talk could be an attempt by those who
    are against a BBA to worry everyone....nah....


    					Ed

    It's also interesting that it seems like those people who are
    claiming the government can not make a BBA work are the same
    people who think government can solve such problems crime, poverty,
    education....
    

    
    re .148
    
    George, Are you for a balanced budget?
    
    			Ed
    

RE                       <<< Note 50.152 by DECC::VOGEL >>>

>    George, Are you for a balanced budget?
    
  Well more or less. I think we can live with a deficit somewhere around 5% but
the big Ronald Reagan / Tip O'Neil type deficits of the 80's are bad for the
country. 

  An Amendment, however, makes no sense since it would be impossible to
enforce and would overload a Federal court system already on the verge of
breakdown due to it's work load.

  George

    
    
    Well, what do you suggest, George?  Legislating it doesn work (as was
    proven with the Grahmm Rudman Hollings).
    
    
    Mike

          <<< Note 50.154 by GRANPA::MWANNEMACHER "Space for rent" >>>

>    Well, what do you suggest, George?  Legislating it doesn work (as was
>    proven with the Grahmm Rudman Hollings).

  In our entire history the only time that deficits really got out of hand was
during the 80's when Democrats gave Ronald Reagan everything he asked for in
his budget proposals. It was never that bad a problem before and both Bush and
Clinton along with their democratic Congresses have done a fair job addressing
the problem in the past 6 years. 

  The problem exists because of a strong message sent to Congress by voters
namely "cut my taxes but don't touch spending from which I benefit". What needs
to happen is that Americans have to take responsibility and stop blaming
politicians for their problem and send a message to Congress "balance the
budget even if it means my taxes remain the same and the spending from which I
benefit gets cut". 

  As long as the American people keep demanding lower taxes but no cuts in
programs from which they personally benefit, the deficit will continue to be a
problem regardless of what politically popular Parliamentary or Constitutional
gimmicks are employed. 

  George 

                     <<< Note 50.153 by HELIX::MAIEWSKI >>>

>  Well more or less. I think we can live with a deficit somewhere around 5% but

	$50 BILLION added to the debt each and every year?

	Is living within one's means a concept that is so foreign to Liberals	
	that it doesn't even occur to them?

	Is this a genetic pre-disposition? Or should we blame the environment?

Jim

RE    <<< Note 50.156 by SEAPIG::PERCIVAL "I'm the NRA,USPSA/IPSC,NROI-RO" >>>

>	$50 BILLION added to the debt each and every year?
>
  A small amount of deficit spending is part of Kensyan economics. The idea
is that small deficits stimulate the economy while not adding all that much
to the public debt.

  Does that work? I don't know, we've had small debts for the past 200 years
and during that time we went from being a small agricultural nation of 13
colonies to the most powerful super power in the world.

>	Is living within one's means a concept that is so foreign to Liberals	
>	that it doesn't even occur to them?

  Running large deficits is not a liberal idea. That was a conservative idea
proposed by Ronald Reagan (and labeled Voo Doo Economics by George Bush during
the 1980 presidential primary) in his budget proposals to Congress during the
80's which they foolishly swallowed along with the rest of Reagonomics. It
created the usual quick high followed by the all too predictable economic
slump. 

  George

    
    I agree with a lot of what you said, George.  Although I think that if
    RR had the line item veto, things would have been much better.  I think
    Clinton should get it as well (LIV), but not until the Repubs get an
    opportunity to do some cutting.  I thin we should cut the budget
    (across the board) 1% a year for the next 7 years, then freeze spending
    for the next 5-10.  I think that we would see an increase in revenues 
    (due to the economy being made much healthier) and the cuts, while not 
    monumental, would give us a balanced budget by the year 2005 and a
    surplus after that.  
    
    
    Mike

    
    
    Oops, that was to your reply prior to .157

>  In our entire history the only time that deficits really got out of hand was
>during the 80's when Democrats gave Ronald Reagan everything he asked for in
>his budget proposals. 

YA RIGHT!  Keep saying it an maybe someone will believe it. RR didn't get
everything, but the important stuff he wanted, he got, such as increased
military spending (which was necessary thanks to JC).

The Dems got what they wanted more than RR and that was the problem. They
gave RR some of the important stuff but made him swallow the garbage along
with it. What he'd veto they'd tack onto larger appropriations and on it went.

Sometimes I wish he had kept the government shut down for more than a few 
days ...

Blaming RR for the debt is like crediting Clinton for the economy ...
Neither is accurate.  

Doug.

RE    <<< Note 50.160 by BRITE::FYFE "Never tell a dragon your real name." >>>

>YA RIGHT!  Keep saying it an maybe someone will believe it. RR didn't get
>everything, but the important stuff he wanted, he got, such as increased
>military spending (which was necessary thanks to JC).

  Necessary for what? By 1980 the Soviet Union had rusted out from the inside.
He didn't get his 15 carrier force until after it had collapsed. He went and
commissioned 4 battle ship groups that were obsolete back in 1941 and generally
built up an armed force that by the time he left office was all dressed up with
no where to fight. 

  Jimmah's military could easily have handled Sadam.

>The Dems got what they wanted more than RR and that was the problem. They
>gave RR some of the important stuff but made him swallow the garbage along
>with it. What he'd veto they'd tack onto larger appropriations and on it went.

>Blaming RR for the debt is like crediting Clinton for the economy ...
>Neither is accurate.  

  Take a look at Reagan's budget proposals then take a look at Clinton's.
Reagan's proposals always ran a massive deficit.

  George

    .By 1980 the Soviet Union had rusted out from the inside.
    
     The world of revisionist history, according to George.
    
    .Jimmah's military could easily have handled Sadam.
    
     Yeah, considering the bang up job they did against Iran...

RE           <<< Note 50.162 by WAHOO::LEVESQUE "luxure et supplice" >>>

>    .By 1980 the Soviet Union had rusted out from the inside.
>     The world of revisionist history, according to George.

  Revisionists nothing. The United States didn't get it's 15th carrier
battle group until the Abramham Lincoln was commissioned just before the Gulf
war. 
    
>    .Jimmah's military could easily have handled Sadam.
>     Yeah, considering the bang up job they did against Iran...

  We never fought a war against Iran.

  The military action against Iraq employed 6 carrier battle groups and the
equivalent amount from the other services. Carter's navy had 12 carrier battle
groups which would have been more than enough to handle that and every other
problem we've encountered since the Lincoln was commissioned.

  George

    
    RE .155
    
>  As long as the American people keep demanding lower taxes but no cuts in
>programs from which they personally benefit, the deficit will continue to be a
>problem regardless of what politically popular Parliamentary or Constitutional
>gimmicks are employed. 

    You are correct. The American people are demanding things that can not
    be done. Someone must have the courage to tell them this. The
    Republicans have said they will make the tough choices after the BBA
    is passed. The Democrats have said nothing.
    
    You may not agree with the Republicans, but (as I have said before)
    I do not see a Democratic alternative. Do you?
    
    
    

RE                       <<< Note 50.164 by DECC::VOGEL >>>

>    You are correct. The American people are demanding things that can not
>    be done. Someone must have the courage to tell them this. The
>    Republicans have said they will make the tough choices after the BBA
>    is passed. The Democrats have said nothing.

  Yes, but just as their mentor Ronnie Reagan before them, every time someone
asks for specifics as to what will be cut they duck the question. Why don't
they give us a detailed list while we are discussing the BBA rather than
waiting until after so that we know what's on the table?
    
>    You may not agree with the Republicans, but (as I have said before)
>    I do not see a Democratic alternative. Do you?
    
 Well it depends on which Democrat you are talking about. Some Democrats feel
we should just raise taxes until the deficit is covered. Others feel that there
should be a combination of taxes and cuts in spending until the deficit is
about 5%.

  George

                     <<< Note 50.157 by HELIX::MAIEWSKI >>>

>>	$50 BILLION added to the debt each and every year?

>  A small amount of deficit spending 

	You must have a REALLY good job if you can call 50 BILLION
	bucks "small".

>  Running large deficits is not a liberal idea.

	We're not discussing "large" vs. "small". We're discussing "some"
	vs. "none".

Jim

    > You must have a REALLY good job if you can call 50 BILLION
    > bucks "small".
    
    that was halflife that had all the money, remember, he's gone now.

Re: Note 50.165
by: HELIX::MAIEWSKI

	Hi George,

>>    You are correct. The American people are demanding things that can not
>>    be done. Someone must have the courage to tell them this. The
>>    Republicans have said they will make the tough choices after the BBA
>>    is passed. The Democrats have said nothing.

>  Yes, but just as their mentor Ronnie Reagan before them, every time someone
>asks for specifics as to what will be cut they duck the question. Why don't
>they give us a detailed list while we are discussing the BBA rather than
>waiting until after so that we know what's on the table?
   

	The only reason the stupid question is being asked is
	so that the democrats can then mobilize those affected by  
	the cuts to protest and prevent the cuts from taking place.

	If the democrats had any ideas about controlling spending,
	they'd offer them. They don't! They show their abject ignorance
	by asking this incredibly stupid question.
	
	Ironically, when it comes to spending money, they never need
	to ask how to do so, do they?

	The repubs should continue to ignore this question until
	the issue of the BBA is decided. If it passes, then start
	working on the details. If not, why waste the time?

							Hank

RE    <<< Note 50.166 by SEAPIG::PERCIVAL "I'm the NRA,USPSA/IPSC,NROI-RO" >>>

>	You must have a REALLY good job if you can call 50 BILLION
>	bucks "small".

  Hey, it was the Republican Minority leader of the Senate Everet Dirkson
who said "A billion dollars here, a billion dollars there, pretty soon you are
talking about real money".

>	We're not discussing "large" vs. "small". We're discussing "some"
>	vs. "none".

  Well you are talking some v. none. The United States has run small deficits
at many points during it's history and it was never a problem until the double
digit Regan deficits of the 80's.

  George

RE            <<< Note 50.168 by HANNAH::MODICA "Journeyman Noter" >>>

>	The repubs should continue to ignore this question until
>	the issue of the BBA is decided. If it passes, then start
>	working on the details. If not, why waste the time?

  Sure why not. Reaganomics all over again.

  That's exactly what happened back in 1980 when Ronald Reagan suggested his
plan of dividing the pie into three halves by cutting back taxes, holding the
line on entitlements and raising defense spending. The result was the biggest
deficit in the history of our nation. 

  No, this time let's find out in advance exactly what we are getting ourselves
into before we modify the Constitution, and while we're at it, let's discuss
how we would ever enforce this amendment. I'm still waiting to hear the answer
to that one.

  George

    
    George, the biggest deficits in US history in percentage terms
    were during war years, not under Reagan.  1941-45, for example,
    average receipts were 25B, average expenses 66B.  By 1950, expenses
    had declined drastically before the long buildup.  Civil War was
    even worse - took in 160M, paid out 683M, but in the period 1865-1905,
    our biggest boom period, the US always ran a surplus, sometimes a very
    large surplus.  Same-same, WWI and the 20's (deficit during, surplus
    after).  The current long run of deficits since the late 50's is
    unprecedented and unsustainable by any known economics except pure
    inflation.  If we didn't have all the guns, the foreign bankers would
    have taken us over already, like in the Third World.  They don't
    because we'd shoot them.
    
      bb

    
    
    George,
    
     Do you see Republicans under your bed at night??
    
    Do you open your "anxiety closet" and find RR staring at you???
    
    
    Seek help....
    

            <<< Note 50.168 by HANNAH::MODICA "Journeyman Noter" >>>

>	The only reason the stupid question is being asked is
>	so that the democrats can then mobilize those affected by  
>	the cuts to protest and prevent the cuts from taking place.

Stupid question!? Hmmmm. Suppose Hillary had not devised her HC plan 
in closed-door meetings (for which she has received considerable criticism), 
but had instead announced a $200 billion HC appropriation, but no definition 
of what that money would be spent on. You think that would've flown through 
congress better than her original attempt? 

What's stupid is buying into a BBA without any knowledge of how it will be 
achieved.

                     <<< Note 50.169 by HELIX::MAIEWSKI >>>

>  Well you are talking some v. none. The United States has run small deficits
>at many points during it's history and it was never a problem until the double
>digit Regan deficits of the 80's.

	So the Liberal answer to the problem is ignore it, as long as the
	problem can be rationalized as being a Republican's fault.

	That's NOT problem resolution in my book.

	We now owe something over 4 TRILLION dollars. If ALL of the 
	productivity in the US was dedicated to paying off the debt
	(not a dime spent on ANYTHING else) it would take close to 
	a year to pay the bill.

	Your answer is to ADD to the debt. Sorry, that won't cut it
	at this point no matter WHO'S fault it is.

Jim

    Nonsense. You figure the debt will be paid off by then?

RE    <<< Note 50.174 by SEAPIG::PERCIVAL "I'm the NRA,USPSA/IPSC,NROI-RO" >>>

>	We now owe something over 4 TRILLION dollars. If ALL of the 
>	productivity in the US was dedicated to paying off the debt
>	(not a dime spent on ANYTHING else) it would take close to 
>	a year to pay the bill.

  Yes we owe $4 trillion dollars because of the 80's when we ran mega double
digit deficits. Running modest deficits under Kensyian economics never created
that type of problem.

>	Your answer is to ADD to the debt. Sorry, that won't cut it
>	at this point no matter WHO'S fault it is.

  No, what I am saying is that a small deficit is not an enormous problem.
Getting the deficit down from 14% to 2%-5% makes a big difference. Getting
it from 2% to 0% won't do all that much.

  In any case, that's not what's being discussed in this note. This note is
about writing something into the Constitution that could never be enforced
and thus will never have any impact on the economy.

  Perhaps we should start another note on Kensyian economics and the benefits
and problems of running a small deficit to stimulate the economy. It's an
entirely different issue.

  George

The BBA is a tool to apply pressure to get congress to perform. I'm not convinced
it is necessary or desirable.

I am sure that reducing the debt is desirable. Whether or not a BBA is passed,
the candidates that don't take strong action against the debt will dwindle
in number until a majority large enough to force the hard choices though
is in place.

The BBA is not the best answer. Public awareness and voter responsibility is.

Line Item Veto A-to-Z should be the first steps and should not be held up
because of the BBA.

A small deficit is not a problem unless you have already accumulated a large
debt. The BBA seems like a long term remedy for what should be a short term
problem.

And George, Reagan was no fan of the pork that was in the budgets he had to 
eventually sign. Neither side was being realistic and both were being 
opportunistic. Reagan inheritted a foreign, demostic, and military mess left 
behind by four short years of the Carter admin and democratic congress.
Reagan tried to repair the damage and he knew we had to spend more than we 
had to do it. But what's good for the goose was also sauce for the gander.

The dems spent the money, much of it in the wrong places.

Doug.

                     <<< Note 50.177 by HELIX::MAIEWSKI >>>

>  Yes we owe $4 trillion dollars because of the 80's when we ran mega double
>digit deficits.

George,	It doesn't matter HOW we ended up owing this kind of money. Blame 
	Reagan, blame Tip, blame your fairy Godmother. It doesn't matter
	WHO'S to blame. You have to deal with the CURRENT mess, not just
	figure out who you want to point the finger at.

>  No, what I am saying is that a small deficit is not an enormous problem.

	Unless you ALREADY owe $4 trillion. Once you get to that point
	ANY increase in the debt is irresponsible madness.

>  In any case, that's not what's being discussed in this note. This note is
>about writing something into the Constitution that could never be enforced
>and thus will never have any impact on the economy.

	A number of Congresses AND a number of Presidents have shown that
	they can not balance the budget. They can't even get it to your
	magical 5%. Something has to be changed in the process. The BBA
	is the best hope short of simply having Janet Reno stand up in
	the 1st Federal District Court to plea for a Chapter 7 filing
	on behalf of the US of A Inc.

	It was pointed out (and summarily ignored by the tax and spend crowd)
	that numerous States have BBAs that are working just fine. Why do
	you think this works at the State level but won't at the Federal
	level?

Jim

RE .165 George:
    
> Well it depends on which Democrat you are talking about. Some Democrats feel
>we should just raise taxes until the deficit is covered. Others feel that there
>should be a combination of taxes and cuts in spending until the deficit is
>about 5%.

    Please provide me the name of one prominent Democrat who has
    proposed either of these? 

RE .168  Hank:

>	The only reason the stupid question is being asked is
>	so that the democrats can then mobilize those affected by  
>	the cuts to protest and prevent the cuts from taking place.
>
>	If the democrats had any ideas about controlling spending,
>	they'd offer them. They don't! They show their abject ignorance
>	by asking this incredibly stupid question.
>	
>	Ironically, when it comes to spending money, they never need
>	to ask how to do so, do they?

    Exactly!!


    Re .170 George (again):
>
>  No, this time let's find out in advance exactly what we are getting ourselves
>into before we modify the Constitution, and while we're at it, let's discuss
>how we would ever enforce this amendment. I'm still waiting to hear the answer
>to that one.
>
	I have answered this. Please read my .151
    
    
RE .177 George (once more)

>  No, what I am saying is that a small deficit is not an enormous problem.
>Getting the deficit down from 14% to 2%-5% makes a big difference. Getting
>it from 2% to 0% won't do all that much.
>

    You are correct. There are many who consider small deficits a good
    thing. 

RE                       <<< Note 50.151 by DECC::VOGEL >>>

>    There will, no doubt, be some mechanism for determining if a budget
>    is balanced. CBO estimates for example. If the estimate for a budget
>    says that it is unbalanced, then it is unlawful, and will not become
>    law. 

  Well not exactly. Remember, courts don't act on their own, they act as a
response to having someone file a law suit. 

  Say that Congress does spend more than the CBO estimated that they'd take in.
Then what? Well most likely someone would file a law suit in Federal District
Court. It would get scheduled on the court docket and both sides would start
the "discovery process" taking depositions, collecting information, etc. 

  If they were lucky, after about 6 months to a year they'd get to court. That
would be quick, look it took O.J. 7 months to get to opening statements and he
demanded a quick and speedy trial. 

  Allowing for about a 4 month trial you'd be about a year out by the time the
case was appealed by whom ever lost to the Circuit Court of Appeals. Figure
about another year before the Supreme Court decided if they wanted to take the
case and another year for them to hear it and render a verdict. 

  Now if Congress did lose, they'd simply adjust their CBO estimate and the
whole process would start all over. Figure another 3-4 years and finally about
7 years after every dime was spent, if Congress lost, the order would come to
balance the budget from 8 years ago. 

  So how do you do that? I don't know, ask every GI, ATC employee, welfare
recipient, SS recipient to return their money from 8 years ago? Ask every state
to disassemble what ever highways were built? Ask defense contractors to take
back a certain percentage of items sold to the DOD? 

  Even a retroactive raise in taxes would be difficult. The law would be
impossible to enforce. 

  As for states, it's hardly the same thing. States do not have the same
responsibility as the federal government for controlling the money supply.
State spending is more micro economics where as federal spending is more macro
economics. 

  George 

    Re: .179
    
    >It doesn't matter HOW we ended up owing this kind of money.
    
    Yes and no.  When it comes to cleaning up the mess, it doesn't matter. 
    When it comes to learning from history, it matters.

    .182
    
    > learning from history
    
    BWAHAHAHAHAHA!  we over spend and go into debt.  to compensate we shut
    down program after program so we'll end up with the majority of the
    population starving and unable to find food.  so we set up fat programs
    to feed them.  it's a cycle, chels.  we're too stupid to apply the
    obvious remedy, i.e., careful moderation the way you do to steer a very
    large ship back onto course.

                     <<< Note 50.181 by HELIX::MAIEWSKI >>>


>  As for states, it's hardly the same thing. States do not have the same
>responsibility as the federal government for controlling the money supply.
>State spending is more micro economics where as federal spending is more macro
>economics. 

	How convenient. When shown a counter example to your preposterous
	prediction of doom, you dismiss it.

	Fairly typical liberal response to facts.

Jim

RE    <<< Note 50.184 by SEAPIG::PERCIVAL "I'm the NRA,USPSA/IPSC,NROI-RO" >>>

>	How convenient. When shown a counter example to your preposterous
>	prediction of doom, you dismiss it.
>
>	Fairly typical liberal response to facts.

  Yes, liberals are always using logic to dismiss ridiculous arguments. So
what else is new?

  The States of the United States do not have their own monetary system they
rely on the United States Federal Government to print money and control the
money supply through taxes, spending, and interest rates. States are more like
large corporations in that they are more governed by principles of micro
economics where as the Federal Government is is more governed by the principles
of macro economics. 

  If States spend more than then take in they risk bankruptcy. That's not
a problem for the Feds. If the Federal Government spends more than it takes in
it risks causing inflation.

  Also, with regard to money, states have to follow federal laws and are
subject to bank policies and procedures such as bond ratings and banking
regulations. The Federal government makes the banking regulations and controls
banks through the Fed.

  When talking about economics, there are major differences between the United
States Federal Government and it's states. 

  George

    .185 but it does become a problem for the feds, e.g. NY a few
         years back. it then becomes our problem because the gov't
         has to step in with bail-out $$$$'s.
    
         guess where that money comes from? <- he queried editorially...
    
         Chip

  Sure, but what does that have to do with the topic at hand?

  George

    
    It is preposterous to claim that the debt-carrying capacity of
    nations is infinite, since this has been tried, and invariably
    leads to economic ruin.  Mexico today.  Germany in the twenties.
    There are no very good counterexamples.
    
    Nor is there any doubt about the burden that large debt (relative
    to GDP) does to future generations.  This is particularly acute
    when the demographic trends are to longer life and fewer births.
    Don't count on immigration pulling you out either.
    
    There is very little disagreement in the country about the eventual
    disasters befalling America if the debt goes on as it has and is.
    The Kerry (D-Neb)-Danforth (R-Mo) commission of busines/labor/
    government/academia recently completed its work.  This included a
    computer game which allowed anybody to plug in numbers and see what
    happens.  What happens is, retirement disappears as a lifestyle, and
    healtchcare gets rationed, and living standards fall drastically.
    
    This is not mysterious.  Yes, small debt, small problems.  Big debt,
    big, well-known repeatable problems.
    
      bb

    I beleive the money to bail New York City out came as a loan simular to
    the type of loan that was given Chyrsler when it applied for its small
    business loan. If I remeber Lee I. took the AMyor up on a bet the N.Y
    would pay off the loan befor Chrysler did...I think N.Y. lost the bet.

RE                      <<< Note 50.188 by GAAS::BRAUCHER >>>

>    It is preposterous to claim that the debt-carrying capacity of
>    nations is infinite, since this has been tried, and invariably
>    leads to economic ruin.  Mexico today.  Germany in the twenties.
>    There are no very good counterexamples.

  I don't think that anyone is arguing against this. The only debate I see in
this note is to whether an amendment to the Constitution of the United States
would be effective as a way to balance the budget. 

  I say it wouldn't work, Congress is too powerful relative to the courts and
by the time the court acted it would be years too late to retroactively balance
the budget. 

  The only way to balance the budget or to get the deficit down under 5% which
is probably about as good, is to elect responsible people to Congress and make
it clear that balancing the budget should be their priority even if it means
cutting programs that benefit each of us or raising taxes. 

  Right now the message is "cut my taxes but don't touch programs that benefit
me, cut programs that benefit someone else" which when taken collectively
eliminates all possible alternatives. 

  George

                     <<< Note 50.185 by HELIX::MAIEWSKI >>>

>  Yes, liberals are always using logic to dismiss ridiculous arguments. So
>what else is new?

	There is no logic in your dismissal of the fact that more than 30
	states operate within the confines of a Constitutional BBA.

>  The States of the United States do not have their own monetary system they
>rely on the United States Federal Government to print money and control the
>money supply

	Not germane to the issue. Whether the States can print their own money
	has no effect on the difference between how much the government takes
	in and how much it spends.

	In the same vein, the money supply has no effect on this difference.

> through taxes, spending, and interest rates. States are more like
>large corporations in that they are more governed by principles of micro
>economics where as the Federal Government is is more governed by the principles
>of macro economics. 

	We are talking about the effects of balancing a budget, the difference
	between income and spending. We are NOT talking about the various
	forms of government, or the effect that the various forms of 
	government can have on the overall economy.

>  If States spend more than then take in they risk bankruptcy. That's not
>a problem for the Feds. If the Federal Government spends more than it takes in
>it risks causing inflation.

	This is where you have a blind spot. THe Feds are risking bankruptcy
	NOW. The Feds have built a precarious hous of cards that will
	eventually fall if steps are not taken to correct the problem.

>  Also, with regard to money, states have to follow federal laws and are
>subject to bank policies and procedures such as bond ratings and banking
>regulations. The Federal government makes the banking regulations and controls
>banks through the Fed.

	Again, not germane to the issue at hand.

>  When talking about economics, there are major differences between the United
>States Federal Government and it's states. 

	If you want to talk about economics, start a note. THIS note is
	about balancing the budget.

Jim

                     <<< Note 50.190 by HELIX::MAIEWSKI >>>


>  I say it wouldn't work, Congress is too powerful relative to the courts and
>by the time the court acted it would be years too late to retroactively balance
>the budget. 

	And you have been given counter-examples of the all of the States that
	DO balance their budgets under a State Constitutional mandate. The
	State legislatures are every bit as "powerful" in relationship to
	State courts as the Congress is to the Federal courts. The example
	is not so easy to dismiss. 

>  Right now the message is "cut my taxes but don't touch programs that benefit
>me, cut programs that benefit someone else" which when taken collectively
>eliminates all possible alternatives. 

	Actually something we can agree on. And actually a pretty good argument
	for the BBA. Representatives who anger their constituents can always
	fall back on the BBA as an excuse for their voting down unaffordable
	programs.

	Robert Heinlein said it best. "When a society realizes that it can
	vote itself bread and circuses, that society is doomed."

Jim

RE    <<< Note 50.191 by SEAPIG::PERCIVAL "I'm the NRA,USPSA/IPSC,NROI-RO" >>>

>	If you want to talk about economics, start a note. THIS note is
>	about balancing the budget.

  No, this note is about using a constitutional amendment to balance the U.S.
Federal budget.

  Just about everyone agrees that the budget should either be balanced or that
the deficit should be held to within 5%, the question is how to do it.

  My argument is that the BBA is not the way to go and that similar measures
in states only work because banking regulations, bond ratings, and other
external forces which would not effect Congress help those measures to work.

  The only way to balance the budget of the United States Federal Government is
if that initiative comes from Congress and the only way that will happen is if
the people demand that Congress take that action.

  As long as people continue to send the message "cut my taxes and leave alone
spending that benefits me", no legislative or constitutional gimmick will
balance the federal budget.

  George

                     <<< Note 50.193 by HELIX::MAIEWSKI >>>

>  My argument is that the BBA is not the way to go and that similar measures
>in states only work because banking regulations, bond ratings, and other
>external forces which would not effect Congress help those measures to work.

	You will need to back this up with more than mere assertion. I know
	of no banking regulations, bond rating services or other external
	forces that require a state to operate under a balanced budget. The
	very fact that not all of the states have such requirements puts lie
	to your "theory".

>  The only way to balance the budget of the United States Federal Government is
>if that initiative comes from Congress and the only way that will happen is if
>the people demand that Congress take that action.

	THe people ARE demanding that Congress take action. And that
	action is a BBA.

>  As long as people continue to send the message "cut my taxes and leave alone
>spending that benefits me", no legislative or constitutional gimmick will
>balance the federal budget.

	Quite true. But by making a balanced budget a constitutional mandate
	the Congress will have a great deal to explain when they do not
	fufill the obligations contained in the BBA.

Jim

    George, (Re .181)

    It does not have to be that complicated. The budget is determined
    before it takes effect. The measurement of whether the budget is
    balanced or not is a very simple one. Today every budget has a projected
    deficit. 

    Yes some court actions take time, but getting an injunction to prevent
    the budget from taking effect would be very simple. It would be
    clearly in violation of the constitution. Look how quickly Prop 187
    was stopped, and it's not even clear that it violates the constitution.

    The budget would simply not become law. All discretionary spending
    would stop.


    From .193

>  As long as people continue to send the message "cut my taxes and leave alone
>spending that benefits me", no legislative or constitutional gimmick will
>balance the federal budget.

    People will continue to send this message. The politicians need the
    courage enough to tell people that what they as for is impossible. 
    The Republicans are claiming that once the BBA is passed, they will 
    be able to tell the people they can't "cut my taxes and leave 
    alone spending that benefits me". 

    Also, I'm still waiting for you to tell me the name of the prominent
    Democrat (President, Senator, or Representative) who has called for 
    a tax increase to balance the budget. In fact I'll settle for the
    name of any Democrat who has *any* plan of action for balancing the
    budget.

RE    <<< Note 50.194 by SEAPIG::PERCIVAL "I'm the NRA,USPSA/IPSC,NROI-RO" >>>

>	You will need to back this up with more than mere assertion. I know
>	of no banking regulations, bond rating services or other external
>	forces that require a state to operate under a balanced budget.

  If a state does not balance it's budget, it goes into red ink the state gets
a lower bond rating. That makes it harder to borrow money which makes it less
desirable to run a deficit. The same is not true of the Federal Government.
Where the state is subject to the banks rates, the Federal Government uses
the Fed to control bank rates.

>	THe people ARE demanding that Congress take action. And that
>	action is a BBA.

  Well people are at best sending a mixed message. First, it's not clear that
the majority of Americans are for a balanced budget amendment but Americans
are very clear that they want lower taxes while they don't want to give up any
government services. That's a strong message for a deficit.

>	Quite true. But by making a balanced budget a constitutional mandate
>	the Congress will have a great deal to explain when they do not
>	fufill the obligations contained in the BBA.

  To whom? No one will notice.

  Well someone will notice, file a suit, and there will be yet another trial on
TV. Do you really think that people will demand that their local TV station
carry the balanced budget trial instead of the ongoing O.J. Murder trial? 

  In fact, Federal court doesn't even allow cameras in the court room so they
won't even have the choice of seeing the trial on CSPAN.

  George

RE                       <<< Note 50.195 by DECC::VOGEL >>>

>                   -< What's that Democratic answer again? >-

  Raise taxes and lower spending until the deficit is within reason (i.e.
deficit < 5%).

>    It does not have to be that complicated. The budget is determined
>    before it takes effect. The measurement of whether the budget is
>    balanced or not is a very simple one. Today every budget has a projected
>    deficit. 

  Yes, but if the Congressional Budget Office decides to project taxes based
on numbers which are too high then the plaintiff in the suit has the obligation
of proving that the numbers they used were wrong. Remember, in a civil case
they don't have to prove the strict standard of "reasonable doubt" but the
plaintiff does have to have the "preponderance of evidence" on their side. And
when it comes to projecting revenue that you expect from taxes, that's very
difficult to prove in advance.

>    The budget would simply not become law. All discretionary spending
>    would stop.

  Most likely the plaintiff would fail to prove that the tax estimate was high
and they would have to wait until the end of the year to use the real IRS
numbers. By then it would be too late since the money would be spent.

>    People will continue to send this message. The politicians need the
>    courage enough to tell people that what they as for is impossible. 
>    The Republicans are claiming that once the BBA is passed, they will 
>    be able to tell the people they can't "cut my taxes and leave 
>    alone spending that benefits me". 

  The democrats were voted out of office because they didn't listen to the
message of "cut my taxes and leave spending alone". What makes you believe that
the Republicans will have any better luck selling that just because there is a
BBA that can't be enforced? 

  To most people, the only difference is that there will be all these confusing
news stories about someone trying to sue the government, the Feds claiming
sovereign immunity, arguments over the validity of CBO tax estimates and other
eye glazing stuff. Do you really think the average voter is going to want to
hear that instead of Melrose place or NYPD Blue?

>    Also, I'm still waiting for you to tell me the name of the prominent
>    Democrat (President, Senator, or Representative) who has called for 
>    a tax increase to balance the budget. 

  Bruce Babbit for one. It cost him an election back in '84 when he literally
stood up for higher taxes in a debate. 

  George

                     <<< Note 50.196 by HELIX::MAIEWSKI >>>

>  If a state does not balance it's budget, it goes into red ink the state gets
>a lower bond rating. That makes it harder to borrow money which makes it less
>desirable to run a deficit.

	And yet a dozen or more states operate in just this manner. It
	doesn't appear to as onerous as you would have us believe.

> The same is not true of the Federal Government.
>Where the state is subject to the banks rates, the Federal Government uses
>the Fed to control bank rates.

	So you argument rests on the fact that the Federal government
	has managed to create a system where they don't feel the pain
	of their actions?

	Not very powerful, if you ask me.

	But again, this has nothing to do with your objection to the BBA
	regarding the involvement of the Courts. I, and others, have rightly
	pointed out the the states with BBAs have little, if any, court
	involvement in the process. You have offered nothing but your
	own speculative fiction concerning the involvement of the Federal
	courts. That and you rather transparent obfuscation concerning
	what a good idea a balanced budget is for the states, and your
	wild theories as to why it is not a good thing for the Feds.


>  Well people are at best sending a mixed message. First, it's not clear that
>the majority of Americans are for a balanced budget amendment but Americans
>are very clear that they want lower taxes while they don't want to give up any
>government services. That's a strong message for a deficit.

	Well quite a few of them voted for those candidates that expressed
	support for a BBA. Now you have a point. Many of the people who
	support a BBA do not understand all of the ramifications that it
	will have on spending for specific programs. But they WILL learn.

	Come on George. Even the most hard core, big government, tax and
	spend liberal MUST know that this can't go on.

Jim

RE    <<< Note 50.198 by SEAPIG::PERCIVAL "I'm the NRA,USPSA/IPSC,NROI-RO" >>>

>	And yet a dozen or more states operate in just this manner. It
>	doesn't appear to as onerous as you would have us believe.

  Not for long. Eventually their bond ratings drops and they are forced to
get their financial act in order or face junk bonds and bankruptcy.

>	So you argument rests on the fact that the Federal government
>	has managed to create a system where they don't feel the pain
>	of their actions?

  The Federal government lives in a system where when they run too much red
ink, economic problems happen but rather then them facing bankruptcy, the
entire nation faces recession or inflation depending on what the Fed does
with the interest rates.

  From that point on the politicians start pointing fingers at each other
until the standard of living for the average person decreases, the slump runs
it's course, and things start to improve.

  It's an entirely different situation since the the States have to live
within the financial system where as the Federal Government defines the
financial system.

>I, and others, have rightly
>	pointed out the the states with BBAs have little, if any, court
>	involvement in the process. You have offered nothing but your
>	own speculative fiction concerning the involvement of the Federal
>	courts. 

  That's because you choose to ignore the fact that before court action would
be needed at the state level other economic factors force the state to get
their financial house in order. In other words, even if there were no BBA
the states would still have to control their budgets eventually or face
bankruptcy.

  Take those states that do not have a BBA? Why don't they continually run
deficits? They can't because they would face the same bad bond ratings and
threat of bankruptcy that the states with a BBA face.

>	Come on George. Even the most hard core, big government, tax and
>	spend liberal MUST know that this can't go on.

  Once again, this has nothing to do with the debate. This note is NOT about
balancing budgets, it's about using a Constitutional gimmick to control budgets
instead of having Congress act responsibly in the 1st place. 

  George

                     <<< Note 50.199 by HELIX::MAIEWSKI >>>

>  It's an entirely different situation since the the States have to live
>within the financial system where as the Federal Government defines the
>financial system.

	It exactly the same situtation. The states have had to learn 
	to live within their means and they have found a way to do it
	that works. THere is no reason to believe that the same answer
	will not work for the Federal government.

>  That's because you choose to ignore the fact that before court action would
>be needed at the state level other economic factors force the state to get
>their financial house in order. In other words, even if there were no BBA
>the states would still have to control their budgets eventually or face
>bankruptcy.

	I don't "ignore" it. You can not "ignore" something that does
	not exist. ANy of the states with a BBA could attempt to run
	a deficit budget. A single deficit budget would surely not bring 
	down the dire consequences that you predict. Just as it does not
	for those states who, lacking a BBA, occasionally DO run deficits.
	THe courts do not become involved because the legislators have 
	an OBLIGATION to produce a balanced budget and they do so with
	regularity. THe same effect could be expected from Congress,
	most of whom have served at the State legislative level.

>  Once again, this has nothing to do with the debate. This note is NOT about
>balancing budgets, it's about using a Constitutional gimmick to control budgets
>instead of having Congress act responsibly in the 1st place. 

	Congress has proved themselves incapable of responsibility. At this
	point the Constitution must be brought into play. After all, the	
	primary purpose for the Constitution is to limit the Federal
	goverment. An amendment to proscribe continual additions to
	the debt is well within this charter.

Jim

    George,

    Bruce Babbit!! Is that the best you can do? He's not even
    an elected Democrat. The Congressional Democrats and President
    Clinton have no plan to reduce the budget deficit. 

    At least the Republicans have a plan. As soon as I see
    a plan from the Democrats, I'll consider supporting any
    steps they propose.

    You can speculate all you want about what the courts will do.
    I understand your arguments. I doubt it will happen. 

    To back up a little - Is it your belief that the Republicans
    are simply using the BBA to claim that they care about the
    deficit, but will do nothing to cut programs once the BBA is passed?


    One other thing. Are you familiar with an organization called
    the Concord Coalition? If you are really concerned about the
    deficit, I tell you more about them. 

    					Ed

    Babbitt was Governor of Arizona at the time.  He may not be an elected
    official now, as Secretary of the Interior, but you can't dismiss him
    that easily.
    
    DougO

    
    I see it now!!!
    
    This has nothing to do with the BBA!! It's all to further Meowski's
    debating skills!! (however dubious)

RE  <<< Note 50.203 by SOLVIT::KRAWIECKI "Zebras should be seen and not herd" >>>

>    This has nothing to do with the BBA!! It's all to further Meowski's
>    debating skills!! (however dubious)

  No alternate Polasky, you've got that exactly backwards. I am the only one
discussing the balanced budget amendment. 

  My competition is debating balancing the budget which is a whole different
topic. The topic here is not whether the budget should be balanced, democrats
are actually stronger on that than republicans.

  Rather the topic here has to do with using a constitutional gimmick that is
suppose to force a congress 10 years from now into a balanced budget. It will
do nothing to address the problem today and has little chance of success then
for reasons I've stated many times.

  George

    
    
    Sorry Meowski....
    
     There ain't nothing you can do TODAY to stop/alter/change/fix a
    juggernaut as big as our government....
    
      Something like that has to be planned for the future.. a little at a
    time. 
    
      You don't cut down a 100 ft. oak tree by using a butter knife or by
    planting a stick of dynamite...
    
      You use a sharp axe and start with one swing at a time....
    

RE  <<< Note 50.205 by SOLVIT::KRAWIECKI "Zebras should be seen and not herd" >>>

  Problem is Crazy-ech, the BBA is not an axe, it's next to useless. 

  No constitutional or legislative program will work as long as it goes
directly against what people are demanding and people are demanding lower taxes
but won't accept cuts in programs from which they benefit. 

  You'll notice that the GOP is not even attempting to get specific in their
Contract by including clauses as to what gets cut. They know that if they did
the BBA wouldn't stand a chance because right now that is not what people want.

  Pass the BBA and if it works, you can kiss tax breaks good by. The only way
to balance the budget is a combination of raising taxes and cutting spending
which goes directly against the Contract on America.

  George

    
    RE: .205
    
    >No constitutional or legislative program will work as long as it goes
    >directly against what people are demanding and people are demanding
    >lower taxes but won't accept cuts in programs from which they benefit.
    
    
    Don't know which news program I was watching over the weekend, but
    there was a survey taken and the results stated that people would
    rather see a cut in spending rather than a personal tax cut...
    
     Imagine that!!!
    
    
     So you're saying the American people are too lazy and spoiled to
    accept the fact that they (we) have to bite the bullet?

    
    RE: .206
    
    BTW.... You being Polish, should know the correct pronunciation of my
    name and should be able to come up with much better ones than
    "Crazy-ech"...
    

RE  <<< Note 50.207 by SOLVIT::KRAWIECKI "Zebras should be seen and not herd" >>>

>    Don't know which news program I was watching over the weekend, but
>    there was a survey taken and the results stated that people would
>    rather see a cut in spending rather than a personal tax cut...
    
  Right, as long as it's spending that benefits someone else.

  Have you ever heard someone say that they wished the government wouldn't
spend so much money on the highway that they use every day or that they wished
the airport they were flying into had fewer people in the control tower? 

  Answer me this. Say that your Congressman said he had an agreement with Bob
Palmer to to cut the amount of spending Digital was going to receive on several
government contracts as long as the employees would accept a cut in pay to
make up the difference.

  How much of a cut in pay would you take to help balance the budget?

  George

    
    
    If the only thing keeping us afloat is the government (which I do not
    believe).  We deserve to sink.  
    
    
    Mike

RE          <<< Note 50.210 by GRANPA::MWANNEMACHER "Space for rent" >>>

>    If the only thing keeping us afloat is the government (which I do not
>    believe).  We deserve to sink.  
    
  Have you ever argued against Digital getting a government contract because
you feel the money would be wasted?

  How much of a cut in pay would you be willing to take to help balance the
budget.

  George

    RE: .209
    
    > Right, as long as it's spending that benefits someone else.
    
    
    Meowski.... You forget to keep adding "IMHO" in all your un-supported
    comments...
    
     Man! You're gonna hang on to that teat until you tear it off!!!
    

Although I more often disagree with George than not, on this particular issue
he has his feet firmly planted in reality.

I don't believe I can say the same for 'BBA or bust' attitude.

Doug.

    
    
    SO why is it feasible for the states and not the feds?

  <<< Note 50.205 by SOLVIT::KRAWIECKI "Zebras should be seen and not herd" >>>

>      You don't cut down a 100 ft. oak tree by using a butter knife or by
    planting a stick of dynamite...
    
>      You use a sharp axe and start with one swing at a time....
    
I like your analogy! And the problem with the BBA, as presented, is that it 
starts hacking away at the base without paying any attention to where the 
tree's gonna fall. 

You have to plan, prun, and be careful. Or you might get crushed.

    George,

    I did forget one Democrat whom I very much admire, and who is
    committed to a reducing the deficit through entitlement reform.
    That is Bob Kerrey (sp?). Many people believe the only way that
    the deficit can be significantly reduced is by changing the
    big entitlement programs - Social Security and Medicare. I am
    one of these.

    Senator Kerrey is more open and honest about these programs than
    any member of congress that I can think of. 

    You are correct when you say that while polls show that most people
    want spending cutS, most polls also show that most people are
    against cuts when programs like SS and Medicare are mentioned.

    I believe that more people would be for cutting these programs if
    they knew more about them. However, neither the media, nor most
    politicians want to talk about this because if they do they'll
    feel the rath of the AARP.

    On the other hand, I have heard several Republicans claim that they
    will go after Medicare once the BBA is passed. They say, just as
    I have, that they need the BBA as an excuse to justify cuts to
    groups like the AARP.

    re .213 - Hi Doug.

    What's your solution? A to Z and a line item veto are drops in the
    bucket compared to what needs to be done. 

    At this point, unless Bob Kerrey runs for president, I believe the 
    Republicans are our only hope for significant deficit reduction. 
    I will support their plan. If they want a BBA, I'll go along with it.

    					Ed    

    
    RE .215
    
    I suspect the Republicans have a plan. They simply don't dare
    present it 'till after the BBA as passed. As Armey (sp?) has
    said, they'd never get the votes for it if they do.
    
    					Ed
    
    

RE  <<< Note 50.212 by SOLVIT::KRAWIECKI "Zebras should be seen and not herd" >>>

>    Meowski.... You forget to keep adding "IMHO" in all your un-supported
>    comments...
>    
>     Man! You're gonna hang on to that teat until you tear it off!!!
    
  Look who's talk'en. At least the majority of my notes stick to the topic.

  George

    
    <--------
    
    You talkin' about opinions or teats?
    

RE          <<< Note 50.214 by GRANPA::MWANNEMACHER "Space for rent" >>>

>    SO why is it feasible for the states and not the feds?

  I've already answered this a number of times in this note. Feel free to
argue against those points as you wish but I'm not going to just type them
over again.

  George

                     <<< Note 50.220 by HELIX::MAIEWSKI >>>

>  I've already answered this a number of times in this note. Feel free to
>argue against those points as you wish but I'm not going to just type them
>over again.

	You have not. You have given us a treatise on economics, but you
	have not presented any cogent proof that the BBA would fail at
	the Federal level.

Jim

RE                       <<< Note 50.216 by DECC::VOGEL >>>

>    On the other hand, I have heard several Republicans claim that they
>    will go after Medicare once the BBA is passed. They say, just as
>    I have, that they need the BBA as an excuse to justify cuts to
>    groups like the AARP.

  Most BBA proposals I've heard about don't go into effect for 10 years. Since
term limits are part of the contract, if they get what they want these
politicians won't be around when the BBA goes into effect. 

  So how much credibility should we assign to someone who is saying that they
will vote for the BBA now then use it to fight for a balanced budget that
doesn't go into effect until after they are no longer eligible to serve in
Congress? 

  George 

RE    <<< Note 50.221 by SEAPIG::PERCIVAL "I'm the NRA,USPSA/IPSC,NROI-RO" >>>

>	You have not. You have given us a treatise on economics, but you
>	have not presented any cogent proof that the BBA would fail at
>	the Federal level.

  So fine, go refer to my "treatise" (which is at least as good as your
one line claim) and feel free to argue any point with which you don't agree.

  George

 >  re .213 - Hi Doug.
 >
 >   What's your solution? A to Z and a line item veto are drops in the
 >   bucket compared to what needs to be done. 

 That's the kick. The BBA is not a solution. The people have to want to solve
 this problem else it will never be solved.

 The public awareness of the problems in government is increasing at great 
 strides. The last two elections are proof of that. I stated earlier (perhaps
 in another note) that I beleive the democrats are commiting political suicide
 when they obstruct the efforts to reduce the debt/deficit. 

 Votes on the line-item veto and A-Z will expose even more of the old 'spend
 it' folks who will be summarily voted out of office. There is great power in
 the line-item veto and A-Z.

 Personally, I think the BBA was a long term solution for a short term problem
 which allows the courts juristiction in an area I would just assume they have 
 none. Amendments should be for the ages, not driven by current events. 
 
 I would rather afford the government the opportunity to overspend when 
 necessary. But due to fiscal opportunism and lack of decipline (because the
 sheople have been sleeping), todays environment is not one where that can 
 be done.

 If the politicians can't make the cuts without a BBA then they are the wrong
 politicians to have in our government.

 I like the pressure of a 3/5'th majority on raising taxes.
 I will be happy if the BBA passes, but I can't be a strong proponent of it.

 Doug.

    
    OK, I disagree that politicians of either party are insincere when
    they say they intend to cut spending.  On the contrary, both parties
    sincerely have this intention.  But our government has operated in a
    way that frustrates this majority sentiment.
    
      bb

                     <<< Note 50.223 by HELIX::MAIEWSKI >>>

>  So fine, go refer to my "treatise" (which is at least as good as your
>one line claim) and feel free to argue any point with which you don't agree.

	Your intial objection related to all the dire consequences of having
	the Courts involved in the budget process. You've were given 30+
	examples of States that have BBAs where the Courts do not become
	involved. Then you went into your treatise on economics, completely
	ignoring the evidence placed before you.

	Your objection to Court involvement in the Federal budget process
	can be dismissed. You have offered no logical rationale, or any
	counter examples, for your unsubstantiated, chicken little, 
	assertion.

Jim

RE    <<< Note 50.226 by SEAPIG::PERCIVAL "I'm the NRA,USPSA/IPSC,NROI-RO" >>>

>	Your objection to Court involvement in the Federal budget process
>	can be dismissed. You have offered no logical rationale, or any
>	counter examples, for your unsubstantiated, chicken little, 
>	assertion.

  I love these kinds of notes:

    "You know that debate we had? Well I've decided that everything I said was
     right, everything you said was wrong, I win, and you lose. Now what do you
     have to say for yourself". 

  Nice try,

  George

    re .222

>  Most BBA proposals I've heard about don't go into effect for 10 years. Since
>term limits are part of the contract, if they get what they want these
>politicians won't be around when the BBA goes into effect.

    The Republicans claim they will start making cuts right away. The first
    announcements will be made with the budget they announce in March.
    They want the BBA to make it easier to pass both these and future cuts.

>
>  So how much credibility should we assign to someone who is saying that they
>will vote for the BBA now then use it to fight for a balanced budget that
>doesn't go into effect until after they are no longer eligible to serve in
>Congress?

    How much credibility do we give to the Democrats who fight real
    cuts at every chance?

    Re .227

>  I love these kinds of notes:
>
>    "You know that debate we had? Well I've decided that everything I said was
>     right, everything you said was wrong, I win, and you lose. Now what do you
>     have to say for yourself".
>
>  Nice try,

    Kinda like your arguments....
    	.I'm for a reducing the deficit
    	.I don't like the Republican Plan
    	.I can not name a Democratic Plan 'though
    	.But I still don't like the Republican Plan
    	.So I win

    Re .224

    Good points Doug. While these actions will do little to reduce
    the actual deficit, they will call attention to it, and to those
    who are against reducing it. That is if the press will report it!!

    I'm also with you, I'm not a strong proponent of the BBA, but
    it's the only game in town, and it also calls attention to those
    good old 'spend it' folks. It seems that those are the ones most
    opposed to the BBA.

    					Ed

RE                 <<< Note 50.228 by decc.zko.dec.com::VOGEL >>>

>    The Republicans claim they will start making cuts right away. The first
>    announcements will be made with the budget they announce in March.
>    They want the BBA to make it easier to pass both these and future cuts.

  How does an amendment that doesn't go into effect for seven to ten years make
it easier to make cuts today? 

>    I'm also with you, I'm not a strong proponent of the BBA, but
>    it's the only game in town, and it also calls attention to those
>    good old 'spend it' folks. It seems that those are the ones most
>    opposed to the BBA.

  You keep making the same mistake. When ever you talk about balancing the
budget you just assume that it will force congress to make cuts.

  Remember, it is just as possible to balance the budget by raising taxes as
it is by making cuts and when people find out what is actually getting cut
they will be putting pressure on Congress to leave those programs alone. At
that point their only choice will be to raise taxes.

  George

re: .229

>  Remember, it is just as possible to balance the budget by raising taxes as
>it is by making cuts and when people find out what is actually getting cut
>they will be putting pressure on Congress to leave those programs alone. At
>that point their only choice will be to raise taxes.


Remember, it is just as possible to balance the budget by making cuts as
it is by raising taxes and when people find out how much taxes have to be
raised they will be putting pressure on Congress to not raise taxes.  At
that point their only choice will be to cut spending.

Bob

RE    <<< Note 50.230 by ROWLET::AINSLEY "Less than 150 kts. is TOO slow!" >>>

>Remember, it is just as possible to balance the budget by making cuts as
>it is by raising taxes and when people find out how much taxes have to be
>raised they will be putting pressure on Congress to not raise taxes.  At
>that point their only choice will be to cut spending.

  This is the right wing dream but here again it assumes that people who
support the tax revolt understand the consequences of cutting taxes which of
course they don't. If they did, they'd be leaning on their Congressmen as hard
to make cuts as they are to cut taxes and we wouldn't need the BBA. 

  Remember once again, the message being sent to Congress is "cut my taxes but
leave alone any programs that benefit me". 

  As I said before, would you really be willing to give up 10% of your salary
if your Congressman made a deal with Bob Palmer to cut Digital contracts and
pass that cut along to the employees? 

  I don't think so and I don't think there are more than a handful of
Americans who feel that they would be better off with less taxes if it meant
that they would lose government funding and end up in about the same place they
started before the tax cut.

  George

re: .-1


>   I don't think so

You'd guess wrong.

For what it's worth, Joe Kennedy is in favor of a balanced budget amendment.

RE         <<< Note 50.232 by MOLAR::DELBALSO "I (spade) my (dogface)" >>>

>>   I don't think so
>
>You'd guess wrong.

  This is funny, everyone is really tip-toeing around on this one. I've gotten
mail in response to this point from at least 3 people but no one seems to
want to make their point in this file.

  I'm still waiting for someone to say:

    "I think Government spending on DEC contracts should be cut and I'd be
     willing to take a cut in pay to make that work".

  What about it, are you really for cuts in government spending even if it
effects you or am I right when I say the message is "cut my taxes but don't
touch any programs that benefit me".

  George

     I think Government spending on DEC contracts should be cut and I'd be
     willing to take a cut in pay to make that work.

There. Are you happy now?

    	re .229
    
>  How does an amendment that doesn't go into effect for seven to ten years make
>it easier to make cuts today? 

    How many times do I have to say this George?? It make it easier because
    those that propose cuts (or tax increases) now can justify them to
    the voters. This is what some Republicans are saying today.
    To get to a balanced budget in 8 years require cuts to start right
    away. The Republicans claim that they will start cutting right away.

>  You keep making the same mistake. When ever you talk about balancing the
>budget you just assume that it will force congress to make cuts.

>  Remember, it is just as possible to balance the budget by raising taxes as
>it is by making cuts and when people find out what is actually getting cut
>they will be putting pressure on Congress to leave those programs alone. At
>that point their only choice will be to raise taxes.

    	I agree George. In fact I would accept tax increases to balance
    	the budget. I simply suspect that it will be easier to cut
    	certain programs than it will be to raise taxes.

    
    RE: .234
    
    If your job was affected I might think about it...
    
    
    :)
    

RE                 <<< Note 50.236 by cxxc.zko.dec.com::VOGEL >>>

>    To get to a balanced budget in 8 years require cuts to start right
>    away. The Republicans claim that they will start cutting right away.

  No, this is just plane wrong. When Congress passes a budget it only covers
one fiscal year. The budget for 8 years from now will not be voted on or even
considered until the 9 months or so leading up to the start of that fiscal
year. 

  This is a big complaint you often here from those who support space programs.
Some program will be funded, contracts are awarded, the program starts being
built, then all of a sudden a Congress comes along that doesn't want the
program and simply refuses to continue funding.

>    	I agree George. In fact I would accept tax increases to balance
>    	the budget. I simply suspect that it will be easier to cut
>    	certain programs than it will be to raise taxes.

  I would think them about the same and if a BBA does get passed and work (two
very big ifs), I'm sure the result will be a combination of higher taxes and
lower spending regardless of what the GOP is promising.

  George

    re: .231
    
    >As I said before, would you really be willing to give up 10% of your
    >salary if your Congressman made a deal with Bob Palmer to cut Digital
    >contracts and pass that cut along to the employees? 
    
    Why should I have to take a cut in pay?  The govt. seems to be cutting
    Digital contracts just fine without it.
    
    Bob
    

RE         <<< Note 50.235 by MOLAR::DELBALSO "I (spade) my (dogface)" >>>

>     I think Government spending on DEC contracts should be cut and I'd be
>     willing to take a cut in pay to make that work.
>
>There. Are you happy now?

  Just pleased as punch. Of course if there were any chance that it would
really happen 99% of the people effected, even those who voted Republican,
would go ballistic but I admire the fact that you stand (so far alone) by
your convictions.

  George

"I think Government spending on DEC contracts should be cut and I'd be
     willing to take a cut in pay to make that work".

If the government is wasting money on DEC contracts then those contracts should 
cancelled. As for pay cuts, the DEC populace has been taking pay cuts for
years, mostly in the form of a wage freeze and extended salary planning
cycles.

>  What about it, are you really for cuts in government spending even if it
>effects you or am I right when I say the message is "cut my taxes but don't
>touch any programs that benefit me".

We've already done this. In the eighties, many deductions were elliminated
that affected everyone in the country who has ever paid interest. Sure, tax
rates went down for a while but they got bumped right back up without
reinstating the deductions ...

Doug.

    
    
    BS George, I've said it and Jack has said it.  Just cuz you assert that
    it ain't so doesn't make it not so.
    

RE          <<< Note 50.242 by GRANPA::MWANNEMACHER "Space for rent" >>>

>    BS George, I've said it and Jack has said it.  Just cuz you assert that
>    it ain't so doesn't make it not so.
    
  What are you talking about?

  George

    George:
    
    Losing our jobs to cut costs in defense.
    
    Nobody likes to lose a job but jobs will always come and go.  Why waste
    money on me if they don't need me?  It would be like being on welfare!
    
    -Jack

    re .238

>>    To get to a balanced budget in 8 years require cuts to start right
>>    away. The Republicans claim that they will start cutting right away.
>
>  No, this is just plane wrong. When Congress passes a budget it only covers
>one fiscal year. The budget for 8 years from now will not be voted on or even
>considered until the 9 months or so leading up to the start of that fiscal
>year.

    George, it is you who are wrong.  Or maybe you just misunderstood
    what I said. Let me try again.

    The Republicans have said that the 96 budget will contain many cuts 
    that will start us on our way to a balanced budget by the year 2002. 
    Some of these cuts will be very difficult to make. I know they plan 
    to "cut" Medicare.
    
    You heard Clinton last night. He'll fight cuts in Medicare because
    he does not have the guts to stand up to the AARP. The Republicans
    will make these cuts, and they will make then in the next budget....
    if they get the BBA passed to allow them some cover. If the BBA
    does not pass, no one will have the courage to go after programs
    such as Medicare.

    					Ed

    	What's so bad about putting a plan into place that doesn't take
    	full effect for a number of years?
    
    	Without a plan, when that number of years passes we'll still be
    	in the same mess, if not worse.

    Perhaps:  With a plan, folks get a chance to vote in favor of it, to
    take a stand for the record and for cheap, because the price doesn't
    have to be paid yet.  And there's time to undo or fuzz it or wait for
    history to obsolete it before the pinch becomes perceptible.  And loong
    before that time comes, those who garnered the credit for having voted
    for it are outta there.  "For cheap" is the operative phrase imho...?
    

    
    
    Well Dr. Dano.  I look at it this way.  Campaign promises and plans
    never seem to amount to much.  Remember the middle class tax cut that
    Clinton promised?  Then he proceeded to give us the biggest tax
    increase in US history?  Plans, plans, plans.  We need the BBA, it has
    been proven that our government WON'T do it on their own.
    
    
    Mike

RE    <<< Note 50.244 by MKOTS3::JMARTIN "I lied; I hate the fat dinosaur" >>>

>    Nobody likes to lose a job but jobs will always come and go.  Why waste
>    money on me if they don't need me?  It would be like being on welfare!
    
  That's a noble thought but realistically how many people who work around you
would be really pleased to hear that they just lost their job at Digital
because Digital lost a Government contract? How many of your colleagues would be
really happy about that because now the Feds were getting spending under
control? 

  Remember, we are not talking about whether or not those who are the most
conservative would support such a thing, my point is that the average American
is sending a message to Congress saying "cut my taxes but don't touch spending
that benefits me". 

  So if that cut came, your group was laid off, and you threw a party to
celebrate the fact that your lost jobs would help balance the deficit, how many
people in your group would come and be happy to celebrate the loss of that
contract? 

  George 

    
    No,
    
    the message that the american people are sending to congress
    is for them to live within their means.
    
    This involves controlling spending, eliminating waste, etc.
    
    They also would like congress to reexamine many programs and to determine
    which are no longer feasible, usefull, or have outlived their
    purpose. 
    

RE      <<< Note 50.246 by CSC32::J_OPPELT "Whatever happened to ADDATA?" >>>

>    	What's so bad about putting a plan into place that doesn't take
>    	full effect for a number of years?
>    
>    	Without a plan, when that number of years passes we'll still be
>    	in the same mess, if not worse.

  My problem with this Amendment is that the Constitution of the United States
should only be changed where the American people have formed a consensus
on a fundamental change that should be made to our form of government.

  The problem here is highlighted by the strategy of the GOP not telling people
what will be cut until after it's passed and that is that there is no
consensus on what should be done.

  Saying "Cut my taxes and cut someone else's benefits" is not a consensus,
it's a fundamental disagreement as to who should lose their government
spending.

  Now an amendment for term limits, sure. Regardless of which side of the
argument you are on it appears that everyone understands the issue. But the
BBA, no because there is no agreement on what should be cut to balance the
budget and clearly the majority is against higher taxes. 

  George

                     <<< Note 50.249 by HELIX::MAIEWSKI >>>

>  That's a noble thought but realistically how many people who work around you
>would be really pleased to hear that they just lost their job at Digital
>because Digital lost a Government contract? How many of your colleagues would be
>really happy about that because now the Feds were getting spending under
>control? 

	No one is happy to lose their job. But look around you. From a 
	high point just a few years ago there are 60,000 fewer of us
	today. The company has made the same decisions that the government
	now must make.

	Your argument for short-sighted personal gain at the expense
	of the country is what got us into this mess in the first place.

	I live in a "military" town. The largest employer in Colorado
	Springs is the US Government. It is fairly likely that we will
	lose Ft. Carson in the next round of base closings. With support
	personnel that's some 50,000 jobs. In a county with a population
	of 350,000 that's a significant impact. But SOMEONE has to feel
	the crunch. And it's either Carson or Ft. Riley, Kansas. I'd
	rather it was Riley, but if it should be Carson I'll learn to
	live with it.

Jim

| <<< Note 50.246 by CSC32::J_OPPELT "Whatever happened to ADDATA?" >>>



| What's so bad about putting a plan into place that doesn't take full effect 
| for a number of years?

	Joe, I seriously think that will be the ONLY way we could do it. I
think too many hardships would happen if we woke up tomorrow with a balanced
budget. A few years would give us time to prepare for it. 

	But the plan that goes into effect has to be a responsible one, and we
need to know what's going to be cut, slimmed down, BEFORE the plan can be voted
on.


Glen

RE    <<< Note 50.252 by SEAPIG::PERCIVAL "I'm the NRA,USPSA/IPSC,NROI-RO" >>>

>	No one is happy to lose their job. But look around you. From a 
>	high point just a few years ago there are 60,000 fewer of us
>	today. The company has made the same decisions that the government
>	now must make.

  But that's not the issue that's being discussed here. Everyone knows there
is a problem with the deficit and that the problem should be addressed but
the question is, should we address it with a Constitutional Amendment. The
answer is no because you only create an amendment when we all agree on the
solution and that hasn't happened yet.

>	Your argument for short-sighted personal gain at the expense
>	of the country is what got us into this mess in the first place.

  Show me one place where I ever argued for "short-sighted personal gain"?

  I'm not saying people should be for personal gain, I'm saying they are for
personal gain and they are not agreed on sharing sacrifice to balance the
budget. And until they are, the BBA is not the way to go.

  George

                     <<< Note 50.251 by HELIX::MAIEWSKI >>>

>  Saying "Cut my taxes and cut someone else's benefits" is not a consensus,
>it's a fundamental disagreement as to who should lose their government
>spending.

	This is the strongest argument FOR the BBA. As long as there is
	no requirement to balnace the budget, the kind of situation you
	describe will continue and we will slip deeper and deeper into
	the mire.

	With the Amendment, the budget will be balanced and if all the
	representatives that voted for the budget are replaced becuase
	of voter ire it'll STILL be balanced.

Jim

                     <<< Note 50.254 by HELIX::MAIEWSKI >>>

>  But that's not the issue that's being discussed here.

	But it IS the issue YOU raised.

>  Show me one place where I ever argued for "short-sighted personal gain"?

>  I'm not saying people should be for personal gain, I'm saying they are for
>personal gain and they are not agreed on sharing sacrifice to balance the
>budget. And until they are, the BBA is not the way to go.
         ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

	How about right here. You are using the argument against the BBA.

Jim

    Re: .255
    
    >With the Amendment, the budget will be balanced
    
    Really?  And how will the Constitution balance the budget?  It won't,
    because it can't.  Congress has to balance the budget.  And they can't
    be sure, really, if they've got it balanced because they have to
    project revenues.  All they can do is produce a budget that is balanced
    in theory.  What happens if they're off?  What's to keep them from
    fudging the projected revenues by a few hundreths of a percent to make
    things a little easier?  How can we be sure it's really balanced? 
    Who's in charge of deciding whether it's balanced?
    
    What happens if we have to go to war?  That's pretty expensive.  Do we
    shut off a whole bunch of civilian departments during the war?  Ratchet
    up taxes for the duration?
    
    I think a constitutional amendment is the wrong tool for the job.

    RE .251 - George

>  My problem with this Amendment is that the Constitution of the United States
>should only be changed where the American people have formed a consensus
>on a fundamental change that should be made to our form of government.

    The people have formed a consensus on a fundamental change
    to the way our government works: Stop spending money that we
    don't have and which our children will be forced to repay.


    Re .253 - Glen

>        But the plan that goes into effect has to be a responsible one, and we
>need to know what's going to be cut, slimmed down, BEFORE the plan can be voted
>on.

    It is very difficult to outline a plan 8 years in advance. The one
    factor that most impacts the budget deficit is the economy. The stronger
    the economy the smaller the deficit. It's very difficult to project
    what the economy will be like in 8 years.

    It is also the case that such a plan would require politically unpopular
    items such as middle class tax increases and/or cuts in Medicare
    and Social Security. The Republicans are unwilling to state these
    facts because they know it will hurt the chances for the BBA.

    *Everyone* knows that balancing the budget will require either tax
    increases on the middle class and/or cuts in Medicare/SS. The
    Republicans want to hide this from the public. The Democrats are
    doing everything they can to force the Republicans to admit this.
    Of course the Democrats have no plan of their own.

RE .254 - George (again)

>  I'm not saying people should be for personal gain, I'm saying they are for
>personal gain and they are not agreed on sharing sacrifice to balance the
>budget. And until they are, the BBA is not the way to go.

    One more time - WHAT IS THE ALTERNATIVE DEMOCRATIC PLAN???



    					Ed

    The good news:

    I have identified another Democrat with real courage on the deficit.
    In today's Boston Globe there was an article that said Joe Kennedy
    is not only for the BBA (which I knew), but that in addition to
    cutting defense and highway money, Joe has called for means testing
    of Social Security and Medicare. 

    The bad news:

    Joe Kennedy is one of only two New England Democrats who are in
    favor of the BBA - Marty Meahan(sp?) is the other.

    					Ed

RE    <<< Note 50.255 by SEAPIG::PERCIVAL "I'm the NRA,USPSA/IPSC,NROI-RO" >>>

>	This is the strongest argument FOR the BBA. As long as there is
>	no requirement to balnace the budget, the kind of situation you
>	describe will continue and we will slip deeper and deeper into
>	the mire.

  One problem we are having and which causes you to keep misunderstanding what
I'm trying to say is that you keep thinking this is a debate about balancing
the budget and you don't realize it's really a debate about amending the
Constitution. 

  I completely disagree with the point you are making ON WHEN TO AMEND THE
CONSTITUTION, NOT ON BALANCING THE BUDGET. 

  When prohibition was passed the nation learned the lesson that you can't
control the behavior and the wishes of the American people by passing a
constitutional amendment. The only time such an amendment works is when it
represents the wishes of the people. 

  Currently there is no consensus on how to balance the budget so passing a
balanced budget amendment is premature. Once we as a nation agree on how to
go about it, then it will be time for such an amendment.

  George

| <<< Note 50.258 by DECC::VOGEL >>>


| It is very difficult to outline a plan 8 years in advance. 

	To outline shouldn't be. To make it hardened steel, would be. You can
outline a bill for the expectations people have with the economy. You can say
how much and where cuts will be made. You then have your outline for that
situation. IF the economy is better than what they expected, you end up with
not having to make all of the cuts that were called for. If it's worse, then
you need to either make more, or raise the taxes. Of course you have to also
hope that a repub doesn't get into office for the next 8 years! :-)

| It is also the case that such a plan would require politically unpopular items
| such as middle class tax increases and/or cuts in Medicare and Social Security

	I would hope that if taxes are raised, it's done on more than the
middle class. Them rich peoples could use a hit or two. :-) If you're realistic
about it, there really is no way a tax hike won't happen to balance the budget.
There is a lot of pork still left to cut, but not enough to get rid of the
deficit.

| The Republicans are unwilling to state these facts because they know it will 
| hurt the chances for the BBA.

	Hurt? More like destroy..... the look on Newts face when Clinton
mentioned the people need to know said it all. In fact, watching the reactions
to Clinton was like watching Siskel and Ebert. Gore and Newt were bobbing up
and down in their seats, but hardly stood together. Kind of makes one thing
that it's gonna be real difficult to get them to work together.

re .260:

>  One problem we are having and which causes you to keep misunderstanding what
>I'm trying to say is that you keep thinking this is a debate about balancing
>the budget and you don't realize it's really a debate about amending the
>Constitution. 

Err, George, at this time this is the only note that has anything to do with
balancing the budget so by default discussion of balancing the budget goes
here.  If it bugs you so much that discussion of balancing the budget is
taking place in the balanced budget amendment note, start a new note on
balancing the budget (and hope the moderators don't consider it a duplicate
of this note)

    
    	Heard on the news at lunchtime:
    
    	The House held a test vote on the version of the BBA that
    	would require a 3/5 vote to raise taxes. It was easily defeated.
    	Of the 173 votes against it, there were 165 Democrats, 8
    	Republicans.
    
    

    
    
    
    They are some 30 votes short.

            <<< Note 50.257 by OOTOOL::CHELSEA "Mostly harmless." >>>

>    Really?  And how will the Constitution balance the budget? 

	In the same manner that more than 30 States already do it.

>    What happens if we have to go to war?  That's pretty expensive.  Do we
>    shut off a whole bunch of civilian departments during the war?  Ratchet
>    up taxes for the duration?
 
	Each of the examples provided by the illustrious Mr. Bill have
	an exception for wartime status. This is the ONE area the States
	do not have to deal with.

>    I think a constitutional amendment is the wrong tool for the job.

	You then must have a better idea. We are most certainly willing
	to listen to it.

Jim

                     <<< Note 50.260 by HELIX::MAIEWSKI >>>

>  Currently there is no consensus on how to balance the budget so passing a
>balanced budget amendment is premature. Once we as a nation agree on how to
>go about it, then it will be time for such an amendment.

	This IS our point of disagreement. There is no consensus on HOW
	to balance the budget. This is a STRONG consensus that the budget
	should be balanced. The Amendment would require the latter without
	specifying the former.

	Precisely the RIGHT solution to the problem you describe.

Jim

    Re: .265
    
    This really reminds me of the baseball strike and the salary cap.  The
    owners don't want to pay the players more than N% of revenues.  So why
    don't they just do it?  They don't need to mandate a salary cap.
    
    Same thing for Congress.  They don't need to mandate a balanced budget
    (or even a close approximation).  They just need to do it.  If you have
    sufficient public opinion to pass a balanced budget amendment, you have
    sufficient public opinion to keep tossing out incumbents until they
    actually get the thing done.  _There's_ your accountability, that's
    your method of enforcement.  No mucking around with the Constitution
    required.  Just make government work the way the Constitution provides.

            <<< Note 50.267 by DTRACY::CHELSEA "Mostly harmless." >>>

>    Same thing for Congress.  They don't need to mandate a balanced budget
>    (or even a close approximation).  They just need to do it.  If you have
>    sufficient public opinion to pass a balanced budget amendment, you have
>    sufficient public opinion to keep tossing out incumbents until they
>    actually get the thing done. 

	And the debt continues to grow. A plan that only allows bi-annual
	feedback will see the US filing for bankruptcy before we can 
	arrive at a solution.

Jim

>	And the debt continues to grow. A plan that only allows bi-annual
>	feedback will see the US filing for bankruptcy before we can 
>	arrive at a solution.

 Not before we go back to the gold standard which in turn could help reduce
 the debt by 1 trillion dollars due to lower interest rates.

 This is one of the things Reagan wanted, and if he had gotten it, the debt
 problem we have today would be a non-issue. In it's absense the interest on
 the debt has taken on a life of it's own. Seems the Dems didn't want to 
 reliquish government influence over the value of the currency at the time.
 
 I can't lay claim to knowing how all this stuff works ... just reporting 
 what I read.

 Doug.

    Re: .268
    
    >A plan that only allows bi-annual feedback
    
    It's a threat they'll feel all through their term.
    
    My feeling is, make the system work.  If it _can't_ work, then fix it. 
    But if you haven't tried to make it work, then you don't get to meddle
    with it.  We have a general problem, bigger than the budget, which is
    that people are not trying to make the system work.  If you toss in a
    patch like the BBA, you're giving people an excuse not to bother with
    making things work as they're supposed to, and you wind up with more
    crises of dissatisfaction, and more patches.
    
    If the public believes strongly enough that we should have a balanced
    budget, then they will make it happen.  If they don't feel strongly
    enough to get involved, they have no business changing the
    Constitution.  Amendment is not a fallback measure for the
    insufficiently motivated.

What am I missing here?

If I understand it properly, the BBA would not allow Congress to pass any
annual budget which exceeds the annual revenues for the same time period.
Operative phrase is "not allow".

Without a BBA, the best laid plans etc. When it comes to budget passing
time, as has been the case for years, it won't make a damn bit of difference
what the discrepency is between the expenditures and the revenues. (Read,
"how we got here.")

So how is it that the method for arriving at a balanced budget has anything
to do with the process of putting the Amendment into law?

            <<< Note 50.270 by OOTOOL::CHELSEA "Mostly harmless." >>>

>    But if you haven't tried to make it work, then you don't get to meddle
>    with it.

	Can you say Gramm-Rudman? I knew you could.

>If you toss in a
>    patch like the BBA, you're giving people an excuse not to bother with
>    making things work as they're supposed to,

	Not a patch. It is a fundemental restriction on the Federal government.
	Precisely the charter of the Constitution.

> and you wind up with more
>    crises of dissatisfaction, 

	"Crises of dissatisfaction"? Yes, it's quite likely that a lot of
	people will be dissapointed. Of course most of them will be the
	big government, tax and spend crowd. But I'd hardly call that a
	crisis.

Jim

    Jim,
    
    the BBA might be a good idea, but like GR I am willing to bet there
    will be loopholes large enough to fly several B1 bombers through
    wingtip to wingtip.  
    
    IMO the BBA is about as effective in this case as restraining orders
    are against murderous ex-spouses.
    
    meg

RE    <<< Note 50.266 by SEAPIG::PERCIVAL "I'm the NRA,USPSA/IPSC,NROI-RO" >>>

>	This IS our point of disagreement. There is no consensus on HOW
>	to balance the budget. This is a STRONG consensus that the budget
>	should be balanced. The Amendment would require the latter without
>	specifying the former.

  Well as you say we disagree. I just don't see that strong consensus. Most
people never even mention the deficit. 

  George

RE         <<< Note 50.271 by MOLAR::DELBALSO "I (spade) my (dogface)" >>>

>If I understand it properly, the BBA would not allow Congress to pass any
>annual budget which exceeds the annual revenues for the same time period.
>Operative phrase is "not allow".

  We talked about this quite a bit earlier in the week. You must have been out.

  The question is, what happens if Congress does pass an unbalanced budget
once the amendment passes? Remember, prohibition didn't stop people from
drinking, it just got the Federal Government into the business of trying to
stop people from drinking. Who's going to police Congress? Do we bring back
Elliot Ness? 

  If you take Congress to court to try to block them from passing an unbalanced
budget what happens when they ask submit a summary judgment asking the case to
be dismissed because of sovereign immunity? 

  And even if you get to trial, how do you prove that the budget is unbalanced
when all you've got for the revenue side is an estimate of the taxes that will
be collected? 

>So how is it that the method for arriving at a balanced budget has anything
>to do with the process of putting the Amendment into law?

  It is my opinion that the lesson learned from prohibition was that we should
never modify the Constitution of the United States until we have a consensus on
not only a fundamental problem with our system of government but a consensus on
the solution. 

  And while many agree that the deficit is a problem, we are a light year away
from agreeing on a solution. 

  George

    Re: .267
    
>    Same thing for Congress.  They don't need to mandate a balanced budget
>    (or even a close approximation).  They just need to do it.  If you have
>    sufficient public opinion to pass a balanced budget amendment, you have
>    sufficient public opinion to keep tossing out incumbents until they
>    actually get the thing done.  _There's_ your accountability, that's
>    your method of enforcement.  No mucking around with the Constitution
>    required.  Just make government work the way the Constitution provides.

    This is the whole problem. Congress has admitted they do not have
    the courage to balance the budget without the BBA. Further, public
    opinion will not allow them to balance the budget. As soon as congress
    tries to do something that might make a real dent in the deficit, they
    enrage some group and are voted out of office.

    Many people have no interest in a balanced budget. And why not? They
    can continue to spend their children's money, and never have to worry
    about paying it back. The majority can vote themselves money which
    they will never have to repay!! This is exactly what is happening
    today.

    This is exactly why an amendment is the perfect solution. The
    constitution and the courts were put in place to (among other things)
    protect the minority from the will of the majority. 

    Gee....'till I read .267 I had thought of the amendment as only a tool
    to be used by the Republicans. I felt it did not belong in the
    constitution. Now I do. Thanks.

    						Ed

    <<< Note 50.273 by CSC32::M_EVANS "proud counter-culture McGovernik" >>>

>    the BBA might be a good idea, but like GR I am willing to bet there
>    will be loopholes large enough to fly several B1 bombers through
>    wingtip to wingtip.  
 
	Each of the proposals we've seen has a "bail-out" provision.
	
	Personally I like the one that requires a super-majority for
	an override. I think that will be the only effective control.

Jim

                     <<< Note 50.275 by HELIX::MAIEWSKI >>>

>  We talked about this quite a bit earlier in the week. You must have been out.

	WE dismissed your concerns earlier in the week. You must have been
	out (to lunch).

	You have no credible indication that the courts will become
	involved. All of the evidence points to the opposite conclusion.

Jim

	.273
    
>    IMO the BBA is about as effective in this case as restraining orders
>    are against murderous ex-spouses.
    
    	But I'd bet that you wouldn't want us to entirely do away with 
    	such restraining orders!

    	The BBA easily passed the House yesterday.
    
    	Getting it throught the Senate, however, will be a toughter chore.
    
    	Still, it proves that the Republicans in the House are serious
    about this item in the Contract.  We'll see what tricks Sen. Byrd comes
    up with to stop a vote on the BBA in the Senate.
    
    ME

    
    Gee... and to think that all these folks are wrong and Meowski's
    right...
    
     When will they ever learn!!

RE                       <<< Note 50.276 by DECC::VOGEL >>>

>    This is the whole problem. Congress has admitted they do not have
>    the courage to balance the budget without the BBA. Further, public
>    opinion will not allow them to balance the budget. As soon as congress
>    tries to do something that might make a real dent in the deficit, they
>    enrage some group and are voted out of office.

  And this is why the Balanced Budget is a bad idea. The lesson of prohibition
is that you can not legislate morality by using the Constitution to go against
the public will. As long as people don't want to make the sacrifices necessary
to balance the budget, it won't happen, Amendment or none. 

  But as I said at the beginning of this debate, where the BBA lacks
sensibility it will more than make up for it in entertainment value. I can
hardly wait until the 1st time the Courts order the IRS to balance an 8 year
old budget (allowing for typical court delays) by issuing a judgment against
everyone who paid taxes that year to make up the difference. 

  The conservatives will be howling bloody murder and we will start the process
of repealing yet another amendment from our Constitution just as we did with
prohibition. 

  Let the circus begin,
  George

                     <<< Note 50.282 by HELIX::MAIEWSKI >>>

>  And this is why the Balanced Budget is a bad idea. The lesson of prohibition
>is that you can not legislate morality by using the Constitution to go against
>the public will. As long as people don't want to make the sacrifices necessary
>to balance the budget, it won't happen, Amendment or none. 

	I find the analogy between the BBA and the 18th Amendment extremely
	interesting. I suppose it makes perfect sense to the tax and spend
	Liberals who have been intoxicated on government programs for lo
	these many years, but I think the connection is very a very weak
	one at best.

Jim

RE    <<< Note 50.283 by SEAPIG::PERCIVAL "I'm the NRA,USPSA/IPSC,NROI-RO" >>>

>	I find the analogy between the BBA and the 18th Amendment extremely
>	interesting. I suppose it makes perfect sense to the tax and spend
>	Liberals who have been intoxicated on government programs for lo
>	these many years, but I think the connection is very a very weak
>	one at best.

  I find it amusing that the best you can do to argue against my points is to
use these little word gimmicks. 

  Once again you are missing the fact that a budget can be balanced just as
easily by raising taxes as it can by cutting spending. 

  Most likely no effort will be successful at forcing the government to obey
this amendment and it will eventually be either repealed or ignored but if/when
the courts order the IRS to collect taxes to balance an eight year old budget
the howl from the right wing will be hysterical. 

  George

	You know, I saw Eye of Newt gloating how they got the balanced budget
ammendment through, but never saw him once talk about how it was one of 5
versions, and it was written by a dem & a repub. I would think he should spend
more time on how they were able to work together for this and not more time on
gloating on something that they can't take full credit for. 


Glen

    
    
    Awwwwwwww.... poor baby....
    
    Is his itty bitty feewings hurt cause Newty was gloating??

    
    >gloating??
    
    That's `gwoating', Andy.  ;^)
    

RE <<< Note 50.286 by SOLVIT::KRAWIECKI "Be vewy, vewy caweful awound Zebwas!" >>>

>    Awwwwwwww.... poor baby....
>    
>    Is his itty bitty feewings hurt cause Newty was gloating??

  Funny thing to say when defending Newt. I know of no celebrity today who
cries and whines more like a little baby when he doesn't get his way.

  Waaaaaaaaaaaa, mean old Connie Chung made mommy tell the truth about what
I said about Hillery, Waaaaaaaaaaaaaa that's not fair Waaaaaaaaaaaaaa mean
old Democrats made me give my book money back Waaaaaaaaaaaaa mean old Barney
Frank makes fun of me in public Waaaaaaaaaaa.

  George

| <<< Note 50.286 by SOLVIT::KRAWIECKI "Be vewy, vewy caweful awound Zebwas!" >>>



| Awwwwwwww.... poor baby....Is his itty bitty feewings hurt cause Newty was 
| gloating??

	Nope. His gloating just helps prove he doesn't mean what he says when
he talks about working together. I don't care if he looks like a liar or not. 

    
    You are dense Meowski...
    
    >Funny thing to say when defending Newt.
    
    Look up "retort"...
    
    and then "defend"...
    
      get back to me before the end of the day... okay?
    

    
    RE: .289
    
    >I don't care if he looks like a liar or not.
    
     Then don't complain/comment about his apparent "gloating", which BTW,
    is your extremely subjective opinion...
    

    
    
    
    Does anyone else find it amusing to hear the libs squealing like a
    stuck pig to see that they aren't going to be able to spend like
    drunken sailors any longer?
    
    
    Some of the other BBA that Glen mentioned were:
    
    1) BBA, but it's suspended when unemployment rises above 4%
    
    2) BBA, but costs for infrastructure are not counted in the budget.
    
    
    Both of these gems were written by dems and soundly defeated.

	Andrew, you sound so angry today. I hope life is treating you well.
Good luck, my Christian brother. May God soften your heart today.

In Him,


Glen

                     <<< Note 50.284 by HELIX::MAIEWSKI >>>

>  I find it amusing that the best you can do to argue against my points is to
>use these little word gimmicks. 

	PLEASE, clever little word gimmicks. ;-)

>  Once again you are missing the fact that a budget can be balanced just as
>easily by raising taxes as it can by cutting spending. 

	I suppose it's possible in theory. But in the last 4 years we have
	suffered the two largest tax hikes in the history of the nation
	and the budget STILL ain't balanced.

	To continue with your analogy.....

	It is universally recognized that giving ever increasing amounts
	of alchohol to an alchoholic will not help them deal with their
	problem.

>  Most likely no effort will be successful at forcing the government to obey
>this amendment and it will eventually be either repealed or ignored but if/when
>the courts order the IRS to collect taxes to balance an eight year old budget
>the howl from the right wing will be hysterical. 

	You can present no evidence to support such a chicken little assertion.
	On the other hand you have been given evidence that more than half the
	states that make up the Union have already found a way to make this
	very process work. Work without court intervention and without 
	repealing their BBAs.

Jim

| <<< Note 50.291 by SOLVIT::KRAWIECKI "Be vewy, vewy caweful awound Zebwas!" >>>


| >I don't care if he looks like a liar or not.

| Then don't complain/comment about his apparent "gloating", 

	Oh of course Andy. We aren't supposed to bring forth repub liars, as
they will save the country. If Newt wants to really work with the dems, he
should give credit where credit is due. When he doesn't, he looks like a liar.

| which BTW, is your extremely subjective opinion...

	He looked like a pig rolling around in poop yesterday! He kept saying
repub this/that. I think most could see exactly what he was doing.


Glen

               <<< Note 50.295 by BIGQ::SILVA "Squirrels R Me" >>>

>	He looked like a pig rolling around in poop yesterday! He kept saying
>repub this/that. I think most could see exactly what he was doing.

	Glen, your honest opinion.

	Do you believe that a BBA would have been passed in the House
	if the Republicans did NOT control the House?

Jim

| <<< Note 50.292 by GRANPA::MWANNEMACHER "Space for rent" >>>


| Does anyone else find it amusing to hear the libs squealing like a stuck pig 
| to see that they aren't going to be able to spend like drunken sailors any 
| longer?

	Wannamonkey, sir, can you produce a lib who wants to not make cuts in
spending on all sorts of things, including welfare?

| 1) BBA, but it's suspended when unemployment rises above 4%
| 2) BBA, but costs for infrastructure are not counted in the budget.
| Both of these gems were written by dems and soundly defeated.


	My dearest wannamonkey, the final, of 5 versions, was authored by a dem
& repub. It was something that proved both parties could work together, both
parties had to compromise (dems didn't get the items that would be cut
mentioned, repubs didn't get taxes being raised by 75% vote). For a guy that
says they do need to work together, he doesn't like to give the credit out to
everyone who deserves it.


Glen

    
    RE: .295
    
    If he's a liar, then bring up all the lies, accuse him and go from
    there!!!
    
      Your attempt at discrediting heim because he "looked" like he was
    gloating is nothing but sour grapes...
    
      As for attempts at walking on water, go back and read some of your
    (IMHO) filthy innuendos.... after which you attempt to fool the box
    with your "Go in peace my son..."  Hypocrite....
    

| <<< Note 50.296 by SEAPIG::PERCIVAL "I'm the NRA,USPSA/IPSC,NROI-RO" >>>


| Do you believe that a BBA would have been passed in the House if the 
| Republicans did NOT control the House?

	Before the vote I would have said no. But 5 different versions came
forth, and four were voted down before the 5th passed. To me that shows that
people will pass good bills, and not just for the sake of passing.


Glen

	Balanced snarf!

| <<< Note 50.298 by SOLVIT::KRAWIECKI "Be vewy, vewy caweful awound Zebwas!" >>>


| If he's a liar, then bring up all the lies, accuse him and go from there!!!

	Easy Andy. He says they need to work together, but takes all the
credit. He takes all the credit when a dem & repub author the bill that passed.

| Your attempt at discrediting heim because he "looked" like he was
| gloating is nothing but sour grapes...

	No, wine is not involved here.

| As for attempts at walking on water, go back and read some of your (IMHO) 
| filthy innuendos.... 

	Maybe you can point them out for me Andrew. 

| after which you attempt to fool the box with your "Go in peace my son..."  
| Hypocrite....

	Attempt to fool the box? Surely you jest. If people couldn't see the
sarcasm dripping from that one, well... then I guess they would be like you,
wrong.


Glen

RE          <<< Note 50.292 by GRANPA::MWANNEMACHER "Space for rent" >>>

>    Does anyone else find it amusing to hear the libs squealing like a
>    stuck pig to see that they aren't going to be able to spend like
>    drunken sailors any longer?
    
  I notice that you completely ignored my arguments as to why that won't
happen. Can't say that I blame you, it's much easier to make your claim that
way.

  What this means is that if this works, which it probably won't, you can kiss
any hope of a tax break good-by.

  George

RE    <<< Note 50.294 by SEAPIG::PERCIVAL "I'm the NRA,USPSA/IPSC,NROI-RO" >>>

>	You can present no evidence to support such a chicken little assertion.
>	On the other hand you have been given evidence that more than half the
>	states that make up the Union have already found a way to make this
>	very process work. Work without court intervention and without 
>	repealing their BBAs.

  And I entered arguments to support my side of the debate against this point.
Any time you wish feel free to argue against my points go right ahead.

  Of course you won't, you will just keep repeating your claim and keep
ignoring my arguments because you know you can't win.

  George

    
    
    Gee, I remember when the BBA came up in the last congress and got
    defeated.  I wonder why that was.
    
    
    Gwen,
    
    The politicians don't want to live within their means.  Now they will
    be forced to. 

    Re: .272
    
    >Can you say Gramm-Rudman?
    
    I see you've missed the point.  The proposal of legislation is only a
    part of the system.  The system involves more than Congress.  It
    involves everyone.  And if you're going to give up after the first
    attempt and run off whining to the Constitution, then you don't deserve
    to mess with it.
    
    >Not a patch.
    
    Yes, it is.  The problem can be fixed without additional functionality. 
    It's just that people aren't willing to do it the hard way.
    
    >"Crises of dissatisfaction"? Yes, it's quite likely that a lot of 
    >people will be dissapointed.  Of course most of them will be the big 
    >government, tax and spend crowd.
    
    God, you're so good at missing the point.  The whole business of the
    balanced budget is a crisis of dissatisfaction.  As long as the people
    remain detached from the political process in record numbers, you will
    encounter many more situation where they are dissatisfied and
    frustrated with Congress.

    
    RE: .301
    
    >Easy Andy. He says they need to work together, but takes all the
    >credit. He takes all the credit when a dem & repub author the bill
    >that passed.
    
    
      Which is it? Taking credit? Gloating? Lies? Make up your mind!
    
    >wine
    
     Wine? More like whine!
    
    
     As for the rest.... I ain't playing your little games.... 
    
    Free clue...
    
    >Notes DIR/AUTHOR=SILVA/ALL
    
      Go from there....
    

| <<< Note 50.304 by GRANPA::MWANNEMACHER "Space for rent" >>>



| Gee, I remember when the BBA came up in the last congress and got defeated. I 
| wonder why that was.

	Why don't you compare the version that got defeated last time to the
one that passed this time wannamonkey. Then let us know if you still wonder
why.



Glen

    
    RE .285
    
>	You know, I saw Eye of Newt gloating how they got the balanced budget
>ammendment through, but never saw him once talk about how it was one of 5
>versions, and it was written by a dem & a repub. I would think he should spend
>more time on how they were able to work together for this and not more time on
>gloating on something that they can't take full credit for. 

    Glen,
    
    It's true that the bill was co-authored by a Democrat, and that some
    Democrats votes for the bill. However, you certaintly can't claim
    that this was a bipartisan bill. Over 2/3 rds of the Democrats
    voted against the bill.
    
    Yes, Newt should have praised the Democrats that helped him, but
    he also has every right to claim that this was a Rebublican effort.
    
    				On to the Senate!!
    
    				Ed
    
    

    Re: .271
    
    >the BBA would not allow Congress
    
    How not allow?  Do we throw the members of Congress into jail until
    they come up with the right budget?  What happens if the fiscal year
    ends and we have no budget in place?  Do federal departments have to
    stop spending money?
    
    >to pass any annual budget which exceeds the annual revenues for the 
    >same time period.
    
    Those annual revenues only being a guess.
    
    What's to stop Congress (or the President) from authorizing additional
    expenditures after the budget has passed?  Say California gets hit with
    the Big One in December.  Do we say, "Oh, well, we've only allocated
    $.5 billion for federal disaster relief, and we've spent most of it,
    what with the hurricanes and tornadoes and floods and all.  Guess
    you'll just have to make do with what's left"?  Or do we authorize
    additional expenditures for emergency relief of a major disaster?
    
    >Without a BBA, the best laid plans etc.
    
    I don't see a BBA providing any ironclad guarantees, and you can be
    loopholes will get exploited.

| <<< Note 50.306 by SOLVIT::KRAWIECKI "Be vewy, vewy caweful awound Zebwas!" >>>



| Which is it? Taking credit? Gloating? Lies? Make up your mind!

	All of the above. 

| Wine? More like whine!

	Cool....

| As for the rest.... I ain't playing your little games....

	There ain't no little games Andy. Let's make it easy on you. Is there
anybody in this notesfile that honestly felt I wasn't being sarcastic to Andy
when I talked about him feeling angry?

| >Notes DIR/AUTHOR=SILVA/ALL

	You know, I always wondered how to do that. It was the /ALL command I
kept forgetting. That would work for extracting as well, right?



Glen

    Re: .276
    
    >Many people have no interest in a balanced budget.
    
    Then how do you plan to get the BBA passed without popular support?

    re .303
    
>  And I entered arguments to support my side of the debate against this point.
>Any time you wish feel free to argue against my points go right ahead.

    And I have replied to these. So summarize, I claim nothing 
    will get tied up on the courts as you claim. A court injunction will
    take place to prevent an unbalanced budget from taking effect, and
    all discressionary spending will stop 'till the budget is balanced.
    This is what happens in the states today.
    
>  Of course you won't, you will just keep repeating your claim and keep
>ignoring my arguments because you know you can't win.

    Just as you refuse to answer my contined challenge to state the
    Democratic plan to balance the budget. You sound like most of
    those in congress who are against the BBA. They never produce
    plans to balance the budget. 
    
    You claim you support a balanced budget, and are just against
    the ammendment. What, if anything, have you done to provide this
    support?
    
    					Ed
    
    

| <<< Note 50.312 by DECC::VOGEL >>>



| >  Of course you won't, you will just keep repeating your claim and keep
| >ignoring my arguments because you know you can't win.

| Just as you refuse to answer my contined challenge to state the Democratic 
| plan to balance the budget. 

	Ed, you DO realize that you just admitted to him that you are ignoring
his arguments, right??? :-)


Glen

    Re .311
>    Re: .276
>
>    >Many people have no interest in a balanced budget.
>
>    Then how do you plan to get the BBA passed without popular support?

    Because we are a representative democracy, that's how. I hope our
    representative have the courage to do what is politically unpopular.
    This is sometimes their job. I admit the Republicans have been
    hiding the truth because they are afraid it will cost them their
    jobs. It might anyway, but if the BBA becomes law it may be worth it.

    Even if the BBA passes the Senate, it will be a difficult battle
    to get it past the states.

    Yes...there are many people who want to take money from future
    generations. They will fight the BBA. It's funny how the ever-popular
    word "greed" is never used to describe this crowd.

    					Ed

    
>
>| >  Of course you won't, you will just keep repeating your claim and keep
                ----
>| >ignoring my arguments because you know you can't win.
>
>| Just as you refuse to answer my contined challenge to state the Democratic 
>| plan to balance the budget. 
>
>	Ed, you DO realize that you just admitted to him that you are ignoring
>his arguments, right??? :-)
>
>
>Glen
    
    Glen, the "you" George was refering to was not me. I have addressed
    his concerns. He simply refuses to believe that the courts will
    act quickly. 
    
    					Back to work,
    
    					Ed
    
    

    Re: .314
    
    >I hope our representative have the courage to do what is politically 
    >unpopular.
    
    So, the argument is:  Our representatives don't have the courage to do
    what is politically unpopular (balance the budget), so we're hoping our
    representatives have the courage to do what is politically unpopular.
    
    Gosh, I'm convinced.

RE                       <<< Note 50.312 by DECC::VOGEL >>>

>    And I have replied to these. So summarize, I claim nothing 
>    will get tied up on the courts as you claim. A court injunction will
>    take place to prevent an unbalanced budget from taking effect, and
>    all discretionary spending will stop 'till the budget is balanced.

  So fine, they balance the budget by raising their estimate of how much
tax they will collect. Then what happens?

>    This is what happens in the states today.

  My point exactly.
    
>    Just as you refuse to answer my contined challenge to state the
>    Democratic plan to balance the budget. You sound like most of
>    those in congress who are against the BBA. They never produce
>    plans to balance the budget. 

  No I keep providing a plan, you keep ignoring it. The Democratic plan started
back when Bush and the Democratic Congress were in power and continued by
Clinton and the democratic Congress was to raise taxes and cut spending and
it's working, the deficit is down from it's high back during the 80's. 
    
>    You claim you support a balanced budget, and are just against
>    the ammendment. What, if anything, have you done to provide this
>    support?
    
  I was against Reagonomics which lead to the double digit deficit. I
supported the Budget deal between Bush and the Democrats which started
bringing it under control and I support Clinton's move to raise taxes on
the rich which also helped close the gap.

  George

    Taxing the rich is a stupid idea.  It is nothing more than class
    warfare.
    
    -steve

	.307

>| Gee, I remember when the BBA came up in the last congress and got defeated. I 
>| wonder why that was.
>
>	Why don't you compare the version that got defeated last time to the
>one that passed this time wannamonkey. Then let us know if you still wonder
>why.

	Why couldn't the Democrat-dominated 103rd come up with a workable
    	version?

    
    
    It's almost a done deal, we'll see what happens.  Finally, something
    positive getting done in congress. 

| <<< Note 50.319 by CSC32::J_OPPELT "Whatever happened to ADDATA?" >>>



| Why couldn't the Democrat-dominated 103rd come up with a workable version?

	Ya should be asking them Joe.

    	In effect, Glen, we did on Nov 8 1994.

               <<< Note 50.299 by BIGQ::SILVA "Squirrels R Me" >>>

>	Before the vote I would have said no. But 5 different versions came
>forth, and four were voted down before the 5th passed. To me that shows that
>people will pass good bills, and not just for the sake of passing.

	A virtually identical bill never made it out of committee
	in the last Congress. You remember, the one that was controlled
	by the Dems.

Jim

RE          <<< Note 50.320 by GRANPA::MWANNEMACHER "Space for rent" >>>

>    It's almost a done deal, we'll see what happens.  Finally, something
>    positive getting done in congress. 

  Another content free note.

  Of course you won't answer any of my arguments as to why this is a bad
idea will you.

  George

                     <<< Note 50.303 by HELIX::MAIEWSKI >>>

>  And I entered arguments to support my side of the debate against this point.
>Any time you wish feel free to argue against my points go right ahead.

	I did. I told you that your points had NOTHING to do with
	whether the court became involved. Because they didn't.
	All they addressed was the fact that it is a "bad" thing
	for the States to run a deficit.

Jim

    
    
    Because they hold no water, George.  It's been done in many states,
    it's been done in business' all over the country and it's been done
    with families all over the country as well.  It can be done and now it
    will have to be done.
    
    
    Mike

            <<< Note 50.305 by DTRACY::CHELSEA "Mostly harmless." >>>

>    I see you've missed the point.  The proposal of legislation is only a
>    part of the system.  The system involves more than Congress.  It
>    involves everyone.  And if you're going to give up after the first
>    attempt and run off whining to the Constitution, then you don't deserve
>    to mess with it.
 
	I don't think I missed the point. Gramm-Rudman was hardly the first,
	nor was it the last, attempt to get the Congress to act responsibly.

>    Yes, it is.  The problem can be fixed without additional functionality. 
>    It's just that people aren't willing to do it the hard way.
 
	COULD be fixed? Theoretically. But all past attempts have failed.
	It is noe time to put an absolute restriction on the Federal
	government. Precisely the purpose that the Founders had when they
	sat down to write the Constitution.

Jim

            <<< Note 50.309 by DTRACY::CHELSEA "Mostly harmless." >>>

>    How not allow?

	The same way that States with a BBA are not allowed.

>    What's to stop Congress (or the President) from authorizing additional
>    expenditures after the budget has passed?  Say California gets hit with
>    the Big One in December.  Do we say, "Oh, well, we've only allocated
>    $.5 billion for federal disaster relief, and we've spent most of it,
>    what with the hurricanes and tornadoes and floods and all.  Guess
>    you'll just have to make do with what's left"?  Or do we authorize
>    additional expenditures for emergency relief of a major disaster?
 
	Nothing. THe difference is that they will either have to reduce
	spending in some other area, or raise taxes to cover the additional
	expense.

Jim

RE          <<< Note 50.326 by GRANPA::MWANNEMACHER "Space for rent" >>>

>    Because they hold no water, George.  It's been done in many states,
>    it's been done in business' all over the country and it's been done
>    with families all over the country as well.  It can be done and now it
>    will have to be done.
    
  What does an amendment to a constitution have to do with businesses and
families? Most businesses and families I know don't have constitutions to
amend. Where to you get this stuff about businesses and families keeping their
budgets balanced because they amend their constitution? 

  If there is an argument against amending the Constitution businesses and
families are it. If they can agree to voluntarily balance their budget, why
can't Congress?

  George 

    Re: .327
    
    >Gramm-Rudman was hardly the first, nor was it the last, attempt to get 
    >the Congress to act responsibly.
    
    Then you missed the point.  As I said, you have to get the SYSTEM
    working.  There is more to making the system work than getting Congress
    to act responsibly.
    
    >COULD be fixed? Theoretically.
    
    That is, after all, what "can" means.
    
    >But all past attempts have failed.
    
    Through lack of effort.  If the people want it badly enough, they can
    make it happen.  It's their job to do so.  That's what the Founders had
    in mind.  As for restricting the federal government, the Founders were
    more interested in defining rights and allocating powers.  The
    government already has the right to levy taxes and spend the money; the 
    BBA wouldn't alter their powers or scope.  This is a thing entirely 
    different than saying that people have a right to assemble peaceably. 
    It would be like saying that people have a right to assemble peaceably
    as long as they conform to the fire safety codes.

    Re: .328
    
    >The same way that States with a BBA are not allowed.
    
    Spell it out; I'm not reading every single state BBA.
    
    >THe difference is that they will either have to reduce spending in
    >some other area, or raise taxes to cover the additional expense.
    
    Let's follow this through.  Congress passes the budget for the period
    of, say, January - December 1996.  They allocate a certain amount of
    money for disaster relief.  Most of that money gets spent.  Then the
    Big One hits California, doing billions of dollars in damage.  Congress
    votes additional funds for disaster relief.  The government is now in
    debt.  The budget has already passed -- Congress has fulfilled the
    requirement of passing a balanced budget.  So what happens now?
    
    1.  Congress cannot release money to federal emergency relief until
    they cut it from some other part of the budget.  But it's December;
    everybody's already spent most of their money.  Not to mention the
    fiscal year will be over by the time they decide where the money ought
    to come from.  Meanwhile, people in California need shelter, food and
    clean water.
    
    2.  Congress must raise taxes to cover the expenditure.  But they can't
    collect any tax money by the end of December, so the government still
    carries the debt.
    
    3.  The debt carries over to the budgetary period of 1997.  Congress
    has to pay off the entire debt in this year.  Since they had a balanced 
    budget last year, it's not likely they'll find any new and agreeable 
    places to cut the budget; they'll probably raise taxes.  So we have 
    spend-and-tax rather than tax-and-spend.
    
    4.  The debt carries over to the budgetary period of 1997.  Congress
    arranges loans to pay off the debt, then budgets for the smaller loan
    payments.  We've just increased the deficit, haven't we?

    
    
    Because it sems our beareaucrats don't have the discipline to do so,
    George.  Families and business has to or else they will lose their
    assets or go out of business.  If you get in beyond your means, go try
    and get a credit card, see what happens.
    

| <<< Note 50.322 by CSC32::J_OPPELT "Whatever happened to ADDATA?" >>>


| In effect, Glen, we did on Nov 8 1994.


	No joe, that is a projection from you. But you knew that.

| <<< Note 50.323 by SEAPIG::PERCIVAL "I'm the NRA,USPSA/IPSC,NROI-RO" >>>


| A virtually identical bill never made it out of committee in the last 
| Congress. You remember, the one that was controlled by the Dems.

	Jim, are you sure the wording was virtually identical?

>	Jim, are you sure the wording was virtually identical?


Who cares! The point is that there has been a lot of talk about a BBA for
more than 10 years but a bill never made it out of the democratically controlled
congress.

The Dem leadership didn't want it, they didn't want the LIV, and many other
things that are in the contract.

That's why the Repubs are in the majority today!

Doug. 

| <<< Note 50.335 by BRITE::FYFE "Never tell a dragon your real name." >>>


| >	Jim, are you sure the wording was virtually identical?


| Who cares! 

	It makes a BIG difference.

| The point is that there has been a lot of talk about a BBA for more than 10 
| years but a bill never made it out of the democratically controlled congress.

	Talk is fine, but did it get the publicity it has gotten now? No. It
wasn't pushed as hard then to the American people. Even today if the American
people were told where the cuts would be made, it wouldn't fly if it was in
certain areas. 


Glen

            <<< Note 50.330 by DTRACY::CHELSEA "Mostly harmless." >>>

>    Then you missed the point.  As I said, you have to get the SYSTEM
>    working.  

	That is one possible method. THe OTHER way is to change the system.

>    Through lack of effort.  If the people want it badly enough, they can
>    make it happen.

	Then we are back to my original comment about bi-annual feedback.
	That is just too slow to deal with a very real problem.

>As for restricting the federal government, the Founders were
>    more interested in defining rights and allocating powers.

	In those definitions you will find very real restictions placed
	on the Federal government.

>  The
>    government already has the right to levy taxes and spend the money; the 
>    BBA wouldn't alter their powers or scope.  

	Correct. The only change that it makes is to require that those
	two functions match.

>This is a thing entirely 
>    different than saying that people have a right to assemble peaceably. 

	Notice that the Constitution does not say "the people have the
	right to peaceably assemble". It says that "Congress shall make
	no law...abridging....the right of the people peaceably to 
	assemble". Clearly different meanings between the actual wording
	and your representation. THe Bill of Rights does not grant rights,
	it prohibits the government from abridging rights.

Jim

>| Who cares! 
>
>	It makes a BIG difference.


Do we know what the wording of this particular bill that just passed is?


>	Talk is fine, but did it get the publicity it has gotten now? No. It
>wasn't pushed as hard then to the American people. Even today if the American
>people were told where the cuts would be made, it wouldn't fly if it was in
>certain areas. 

That's just BS. GR was their first best attempt. The people supported it, the
Dems ignored it, and the Repubs could do nothing about it.

Well that has changed now ... and the foundation is being set for the long
battle ahead.

Doug.

               <<< Note 50.334 by BIGQ::SILVA "Squirrels R Me" >>>

>	Jim, are you sure the wording was virtually identical?

	Yes. "Virtually" being a relative term of course. For all the 
	differnces the 5 bill that were under discussion were mostly 
	the same too.

Jim

| <<< Note 50.338 by BRITE::FYFE "Never tell a dragon your real name." >>>

| >| Who cares!
| >
| >	It makes a BIG difference.


| Do we know what the wording of this particular bill that just passed is?

	I don't. i don't know the wording of the one that failed. That's why I
asked Jim if he knew they were virtually identical for. To make that claim he
surely had to see both versions.

| >	Talk is fine, but did it get the publicity it has gotten now? No. It
| >wasn't pushed as hard then to the American people. Even today if the American
| >people were told where the cuts would be made, it wouldn't fly if it was in
| >certain areas.

| That's just BS. 

	You really think the American public would support the bill if cuts
were made in ss, medicare and such?

| GR was their first best attempt. 

	GR?



Glen

	Jim, what differences were there between the 2 bills?

    
    
    
    You tell us, Glen.......

               <<< Note 50.341 by BIGQ::SILVA "Squirrels R Me" >>>


>	Jim, what differences were there between the 2 bills?

	For a precise answer I'll need to get a copy of the former
	and a copy of the versions that actually passed.

	Stand by.

Jim

	Wannamonkey, read .340

RE          <<< Note 50.332 by GRANPA::MWANNEMACHER "Space for rent" >>>

>    Because it sems our beareaucrats don't have the discipline to do so,
>    George.  

  Right, and why is that? It's because the American people have not yet
decided that they are willing to make the sacrifices necessary to balance
the budget. So the reason the BBA is a bad idea is that the Constitution
of the United States should only be amended when there is a consensus as
to the SOLUTION of a problem as well as it's cause.

>Families and business has to or else they will lose their
>    assets or go out of business.  If you get in beyond your means, go try
>    and get a credit card, see what happens.
    
  But the question is, what does that have to do with a constitutional
amendment? That's a wonderful argument for balancing budgets but it's not
an argument for amending the Constitution.

  George

RE    <<< Note 50.335 by BRITE::FYFE "Never tell a dragon your real name." >>>

>The Dem leadership didn't want it, they didn't want the LIV, and many other
>things that are in the contract.
>
>That's why the Repubs are in the majority today!

  No that has nothing to do with why the Republicans are in the majority today.
The Republicans are in the majority because they promise tax cuts which is
exactly what will go by the boards if this amendment has any effect at all. 

  George

    
    I don't know, George.  All the polls have shown for a few years that
    the people favor the BBA.  You keep asserting the american people
    aren't ready to give up the services.  I think that's BS.  The people
    on the public dole (including the politiskunks don't want to make the
    sacrifice, most working people won't feel a thing.  
    
    
    Mike

RE    <<< Note 50.338 by BRITE::FYFE "Never tell a dragon your real name." >>>

>That's just BS. GR was their first best attempt. The people supported it, the
>Dems ignored it, and the Repubs could do nothing about it.

  No this is incorrect. GR was a response to the Reagan deficits of the early
80's. Once enacted George Bush and the Democratic congress started making it
work with their budget compromise which involved higher taxes and some cuts
in spending.

  It was the Republicans who were against that agreement and wanted to return
to Reagonomics and big deficits. Then then turned on George Bush claiming he
had broken his "read my lips" pledge for the tax increase in his deficit
reduction plan.

  When Clinton came to office he continued the trend of reducing the deficit
with his tax on the rich which the Republicans were also against.

  For the most part it is the Republicans who push for a deficit with their
unrealistic tax cut demands and it is the Democrats who believe in a pay as
you go system paying for programs with taxes.

  The ironic thing is that if this amendment works it will work because tax
cuts will become unconstitutional. As a liberal I'd be all for that except
that I feel protecting the Constitution from knee jerk politics is more
important than economics.

  George

	.340

>	You really think the American public would support the bill if cuts
>were made in ss, medicare and such?

    	See .333

RE          <<< Note 50.348 by GRANPA::MWANNEMACHER "Space for rent" >>>

>    I don't know, George.  All the polls have shown for a few years that
>    the people favor the BBA.  You keep asserting the american people
>    aren't ready to give up the services.  I think that's BS.  The people
>    on the public dole (including the politiskunks don't want to make the
>    sacrifice, most working people won't feel a thing.  
    
  Right, but that's because people believe "cut my taxes and balance the
budget by cutting the spending that benifits someone else, leave my programs
alone".

  The problem is that no one is demanding that Congress cut spending for which
they benefit.

  To use your family example, when a family wants to balance their budget they
cut things that they would like but can't afford. The American people are not
yet ready to cut services which they receive.

  For example, how many people here at Digital would be happy to take a 10%
cut in pay if they knew that it was due to Digital contracts being cut by
the Federal Government? Not many would be my guess. Can you see a Digital
Sales Rep meeting with an Air Force Major General and asking for a lower
contract price so that we could help cut government spending?

  George

                     <<< Note 50.345 by HELIX::MAIEWSKI >>>

>  Right, and why is that? It's because the American people have not yet
>decided that they are willing to make the sacrifices necessary to balance
>the budget. 

	Actually I think that the majority of the people HAVE made the
	decision that they want the budget balanced. The problem lies
	in the fact that as smaller sub-groups they have not reached
	a consensus as to how to accomplish this.

	So the reason that the BBA is a good idea is that there will
	be a Constitutional restriction on the Congress to balance 
	the budget and they will be forced to ignore the inumerable
	special interest groups that have for too long grown accustomed
	to the government dole.

Jim

RE    <<< Note 50.352 by SEAPIG::PERCIVAL "I'm the NRA,USPSA/IPSC,NROI-RO" >>>

>	Actually I think that the majority of the people HAVE made the
>	decision that they want the budget balanced. The problem lies
>	in the fact that as smaller sub-groups they have not reached
>	a consensus as to how to accomplish this.

  Which as I've said is why there should be no BBA. Again, the lesson we learned
from prohibition is that you can't solve a problem with a constitutional
amendment that the people will not accept. And the people are not yet ready
to forgo spending on programs from which they benefit.

>	So the reason that the BBA is a good idea is that there will
>	be a Constitutional restriction on the Congress to balance 
>	the budget and they will be forced to ignore the inumerable
>	special interest groups that have for too long grown accustomed
>	to the government dole.

  No, they will just be forced to ignore all those right wing breast beaters
who are always clamoring for tax cuts. The BBA gives politicians the perfect
excuse to raise taxes, "we had no choice, the Constitution made us do it".

  George

    
    
    So, George, tell me about all the services I receive that I wouldn't
    want cut.

George,

I must admit that your replies in this topic have made me laugh almost as much
as brian's misadventure with the tuna sandwich the other day, and that had
me laughing out loud on the way home.

Bob

	Wannamonkey, do you think if SS or medicare is cut that the people will
back this measure? What if money for crime is cut? 

      <<< Note 50.350 by CSC32::J_OPPELT "Whatever happened to ADDATA?" >>>


	Show me how asking a question is projecting anything but a question.
There is your difference. Your comment was a statement.

    	Every cut will piss SOMEBODY off.

RE          <<< Note 50.354 by GRANPA::MWANNEMACHER "Space for rent" >>>

>    So, George, tell me about all the services I receive that I wouldn't
>    want cut.

  For starters, how about your salary. Digital's biggest customer is the
United States Federal Government.

  George

    
    Re .316

>    Re: .314
>
>    >I hope our representative have the courage to do what is politically
>    >unpopular.
>
>    So, the argument is:  Our representatives don't have the courage to do
>    what is politically unpopular (balance the budget), so we're hoping our
>    representatives have the courage to do what is politically unpopular.
>
>    Gosh, I'm convinced.
 
    Balancing the budget will be very unpoplar. Passing a BBA could be
    less so if the public is not aware of exactly what a balanced budget
    will mean to them.

    No the argument it that the representative will do what is best for
    the future of the country even if that against the will of most of
    the people. This is one reason why a representative democracy is
    better than a true democracy.

    I'm sorry that I did not communicate better.

    					Ed

    	RE .340 - Glen
    
>	You really think the American public would support the bill if cuts
>were made in ss, medicare and such?

    	If the people knew the truth about these programs then they would
    	want them cut (IMO - of course).
    
    					Ed
    
    

    >       You really think the American public would support the bill if
    cuts
    >were made in ss, medicare and such?
    
    I believe the government should have 10 IRAs for all to be required to
    put money into...Their own IRA!!  Government OUT of the retirement
    business.  The contributor would be far better off!
    
    -Jack

    RE .317

>  No I keep providing a plan, you keep ignoring it. The Democratic plan started
>back when Bush and the Democratic Congress were in power and continued by
>Clinton and the democratic Congress was to raise taxes and cut spending and
>it's working, the deficit is down from it's high back during the 80's.

    I'm sorry that I did not realize this was the plan you endorse. I do
    not recall you stating this. In that case, here's my reply:

    Please re-read my reply .77. It explains how the deficit has really
    been reduced. Further, this plan of yours calls for increasing
    deficits after this year. Even Clinton admits that. So the plan
    you support is not for a balanced budget, nor one for even a reduced
    deficit? Is that correct?

>I support Clinton's move to raise taxes on the rich which also helped 
>close the gap.

    George...how much additional money will this tax increase bring in?
    Remember the current project deficit is around $200B. Do you know
    the answer? I do.

    Thanks for taking the time to reply, and to clarify your position.

    					Ed

>	Wannamonkey, do you think if SS or medicare is cut that the people will
>back this measure? What if money for crime is cut? 

Can I answer this?

As far as I'm concerned you can cut SS, medicaid, medicare, crime package .et.al.

However, I want it done in a responsible manner.

For instance: Anyone eligible for SS with an income of 100K or more is doing well
enough that they don't need SS. The price paid for success in this coutry.
Food Stamps! Eliminate them. Tie all food support to a system where the purchaced
products can be verified (electronic coded list - use a debit card that only
allows for consumables). No extraordinary lifesaving efforts for the elderly
(heart transplants after 65 and such). 

Audit the military, streamline procurement

and the list goes on and on ...

and it contains several non-PC items as well.

Make the hard choices to reach the goal. 

Doug.

                     <<< Note 50.349 by HELIX::MAIEWSKI >>>

>  It was the Republicans who were against that agreement and wanted to return
>to Reagonomics and big deficits.

	Let's review. Bush's deficits were fairly outrageous. Democrats
	controlled both Houses of Congress at the time. Democrats voted
	for budgets that contained those deficits. They did NOT vote
	against those deficits.

Jim

                     <<< Note 50.353 by HELIX::MAIEWSKI >>>

>  Which as I've said is why there should be no BBA. Again, the lesson we learned
>from prohibition is that you can't solve a problem with a constitutional
>amendment that the people will not accept. And the people are not yet ready
>to forgo spending on programs from which they benefit.

	You've fallen in love with this analogy, haven't you?

	The problem is that you fail to recognize that the BBA seeks to
	control the behavior of 535 people, not 150 Million.

>  No, they will just be forced to ignore all those right wing breast beaters
>who are always clamoring for tax cuts. The BBA gives politicians the perfect
>excuse to raise taxes, "we had no choice, the Constitution made us do it".

	I have no doubt that those seeking massive tax relief will be
	dissapointed, as will those who want tobbacco subsidies, farm
	price supports, Public Broadcasting, NEH funding, NEA funding,
	more stealth bombers, Star Wars, etc.

	Equal pain, it's the Amercivan way. Time we got back to it.


  George

    
    
    Go ahead, George.  Take it.  I have other skills, My family and I won't
    starve.
    
    

| <<< Note 50.367 by GRANPA::MWANNEMACHER "Space for rent" >>>



| I have other skills, My family and I won't starve.


	But even the people on the streets wouldn't pay you for those skills
Mike. Looks like yer gonna starve... :-)

    
    
    Nice guy, Glen.  

	Why thank-u wannamonkey. 

RE    <<< Note 50.365 by SEAPIG::PERCIVAL "I'm the NRA,USPSA/IPSC,NROI-RO" >>>

>	Let's review. Bush's deficits were fairly outrageous. Democrats
>	controlled both Houses of Congress at the time. Democrats voted
>	for budgets that contained those deficits. They did NOT vote
>	against those deficits.

  No, you are off by a few years. Reagan and the Democratic congress ran up
most of the current deficit during Reagan's years in office. When Reagan took
office the interest on the debt was a couple percentage points. By the time he
left it was one of the big 4 items along with defense, social security, and
entitlements. Reagan proposed it, Congress passed it, Reagan signed it. 

  By the time Bush took office, GRH had passed and he worked with the democrats
to try to cut the deficit. They did a decent job but the budget agreement cost
Bush the presidency ("Read My Lips...). Under Clinton they have continued
cutting the deficit. 

  George

    Based on your attitude toward Bushes "Read my lips" lie, I would assume
    you are against tax hikes George?

RE    <<< Note 50.366 by SEAPIG::PERCIVAL "I'm the NRA,USPSA/IPSC,NROI-RO" >>>

>	The problem is that you fail to recognize that the BBA seeks to
>	control the behavior of 535 people, not 150 Million.

  Nope, wrong. The problem is that voters are sending a message to Congress
to cut their taxes while not cutting spending on which they depend. There are
more than 535 voters.

  George

Me thinks Georges 'cause and affect' rationale is flawed ...

You want how many ships Mr. Reagan? Will give you fewer and that's gonna cost 
ya this much pork ...
You want how much into SDI Mr. Reagan? Will give you less and that's gonna 
cost ya this much pork ...
And since there is all this new money comming into the coufers lets raise
the cost of a few entitlements by a few billion ....

Reagan had a direction, the dems had a direction. The problem was trying to
in both directions at once. Now I'm not saying that Reagan was an innocent
bystander in all of this, but the bulk of irresponsibility falls on the
the folks who were ultimately in control of the purse strings and the agenda ...

Reagan should have exersized his threat and never have signed those budgets ...

Doug.

    	George needs another history lesson. Reagan and the Republicans
    	in the Senate did try to control spending by cutting the COLA
    	adjustments for higher-income Social Security recipients. 

    	The Democrats along with the AARP when ballistic. This caused
    	the Republicans to lose the Senate in '86.

    	So please George, don't say the Republicans never tried to cut
    	spending. They went after the biggest of them all!!

    						Ed

    
    
    And George keeps asserting that people want the defecit cut and not
    lose any "services".  I say that's hogwash.  

RE    <<< Note 50.372 by MKOTS3::JMARTIN "I lied; I hate the fat dinosaur" >>>

>    Based on your attitude toward Bushes "Read my lips" lie, I would assume
>    you are against tax hikes George?

  Where did you get that? All I did was to point out that it was going back
on his pledge that caused the fall out between him and the conservatives.

  I supported that deal. I think he did the right thing agreeing to that
package. His mistake was in making that pledge in the 1st place.

  George

    
    
    Kind of like Clinton's pledge, eh George?  Oh that's right, with
    Clinton it was a bigger flip flop.  From middle class tax cut to the
    biggest tax increase in history....

    nancy kassebaum, a republican, was quoted in the glob this weekend,
    saying the following about the bba.
    
    	"it's a bad idea whose time has come.  it's like prohibition.  we
    	might have to do it just to get it out of our system."
    
    if this is her attitude, i have to wonder if she's as profligate with
    her own cash as she is with the cash of the 250 million people who
    are trusting her to spend it wisely.  for her sake, i hope not.  for
    their sake, i hope her attitude is not mirrored among her colleagues.

RE    <<< Note 50.374 by BRITE::FYFE "Never tell a dragon your real name." >>>

>Reagan had a direction, the dems had a direction. The problem was trying to
>in both directions at once. Now I'm not saying that Reagan was an innocent
>bystander in all of this, but the bulk of irresponsibility falls on the
>the folks who were ultimately in control of the purse strings and the agenda ...

  Yes, and that's Reagan and the Democratic congress. Reagan proposed massive
deficits, the democrats passed them, Reagan signed them.

>Reagan should have exercised his threat and never have signed those budgets ...

  And if he hadn't, it would have killed the boom time recovery that won him
the election in 1984. He went along with that deficit because it was his idea.
Or at least it was the idea of the guys who were pulling the strings that made
his arms and legs move.

  George

RE                       <<< Note 50.375 by DECC::VOGEL >>>

>    	George needs another history lesson. Reagan and the Republicans
>    	in the Senate did try to control spending by cutting the COLA
>    	adjustments for higher-income Social Security recipients. 
>
>    	The Democrats along with the AARP when ballistic. This caused
>    	the Republicans to lose the Senate in '86.

  First of all, check that date, 1986. The worst part of the deficit was run
up before then. By '86 the GRH mentality was beginning to work and both sides
were looking for cuts. Republicans were trying to cut entitlements and the
Democrats were trying to raise taxes and cut defense.

  Early '80s - Reagan and the Democrats ran up big deficits

  Mid   '80s - Reagan and the Democrats gridlocked over partisan politics

  Late  '80s - Bush and the Democrats acted responsibly and cut a budget deal 

  George

RE          <<< Note 50.378 by GRANPA::MWANNEMACHER "Space for rent" >>>

>    Kind of like Clinton's pledge, eh George?  Oh that's right, with
>    Clinton it was a bigger flip flop.  From middle class tax cut to the
>    biggest tax increase in history....

  Clinton made his promise based on a CBO estimate of how much would be
collected in taxes. When that estimate turned out to be wrong he had to make
a change.

  If anything that shows how useless the BBA will be since it will be based on
those same estimates.

  In any case, your last two notes are clearly contradictory. The last two
presidents got elected promising tax cuts and neither could deliver because
the people won't stand for the spending cuts that it would take to make them
work.

  George

    Re: .337
    
    >Then we are back to my original comment about bi-annual feedback.
    
    It's not every two years.  Congresscritters get feedback throughout
    their terms.  That's what letters to your congresscritter are for, not
    to mention approval ratings.
    
    >you will find very real restictions placed on the Federal government
    
    No kidding.  I was addressing the TYPE of restrictions.
    
    >It says that "Congress shall make no law...abridging....the right of
    >the people peaceably to assemble". 
    
    And therefore the Constitution states that people have the right to
    peaceably assemble -- which is what I said.
    
    And you didn't address the point of the analogy -- that the type of
    restriction you want to implement is substantively different than the
    restrictions embodied in the current Constitution.

    Line item veto would be interesting, but you'll never see it unless the 
    same party controls both Congress and the White House.

            <<< Note 50.383 by OOTOOL::CHELSEA "Mostly harmless." >>>

>    It's not every two years.  Congresscritters get feedback throughout
>    their terms.  That's what letters to your congresscritter are for, not
>    to mention approval ratings.
 
	You are trying to convince someone that was on the short end	
	of the "letters to Congressmen" tactic. With call and letters
	running 10 to 1 against, we still gor the AW and Magazine ban.

	The ONLY effective message you can send is to NOT re-elect
	the twit. That process has a two year cycle.

>    >It says that "Congress shall make no law...abridging....the right of
>    >the people peaceably to assemble". 
    
>    And therefore the Constitution states that people have the right to
>    peaceably assemble -- which is what I said.
 
	No, it does not say that. The difference IS important.

   
>    And you didn't address the point of the analogy -- that the type of
>    restriction you want to implement is substantively different than the
>    restrictions embodied in the current Constitution.

	Not all that different. Just addresses a different topic. The
	Constitution places restrictions of the Federal Government. This
	is just one more restriction. I says that they must balance expenses
	and income. No big deal really. Except, of course, for those who
	have become accustomed to the government dole.

Jim

            <<< Note 50.384 by OOTOOL::CHELSEA "Mostly harmless." >>>

>    Line item veto would be interesting, but you'll never see it unless the 
>    same party controls both Congress and the White House.

	But I thought that all we had to do was write letters supporting
	the idea............

Jim

| <<< Note 50.385 by SEAPIG::PERCIVAL "I'm the NRA,USPSA/IPSC,NROI-RO" >>>




| Except, of course for those who have become accustomed to the government dole.

	Hey, he's been pretty quiet, so lets not drag him into all this. We
don't need yet another repub saying yet another stupid comment. :-)


Glen

    Re: .385
    
    >You are trying to convince someone that was on the short end of the 
    >"letters to Congressmen" tactic.
    
    It's still feedback.
    
    >The ONLY effective message you can send is to NOT re-elect the twit.
    
    No.  It's the only message _guaranteed_ to have an effect.
    
    >No, it does not say that. The difference IS important.
    
    Excuse me?  You quoted it yourself, the words "the right of the people
    peaceably to assemble."  The Constitution says the people have that
    right.  I did not say, and am not saying, that the Constitution
    _grants_ that right, only that it says people have that right.  That
    right is explicitly recognized by the Constitution, as opposed to other
    rights which are _implicitly_ recognized by the Constitution.
    
    >The Constitution places restrictions of the Federal Government. This is 
    >just one more restriction.
    
    So, if we decide that all purchases on behalf of the federal government 
    must have at least three bids submitted, and the lowest chosen, then we 
    should put that in the Constitution.  After all, it's a restriction.

    Re: .386
    
    >But I thought that all we had to do was write letters supporting the 
    >idea............
    
    Actually, you have to convince them that their jobs depend upon it. 
    You can do that throughout their terms.  As long as they _believe_
    you'll vote a certain way, you don't actually need to have cast your
    vote.  Anticipation is as good as the real thing, in this case.

            <<< Note 50.388 by OOTOOL::CHELSEA "Mostly harmless." >>>

>    It's still feedback.
 
	I'll give you that one in the seamtics war. ;-)

>    >The ONLY effective message you can send is to NOT re-elect the twit.
    
>    No.  It's the only message _guaranteed_ to have an effect.
 
	There is still no guaruntee.

>    Excuse me?  You quoted it yourself, the words "the right of the people
>    peaceably to assemble."  The Constitution says the people have that
>    right.  I did not say, and am not saying, that the Constitution
>    _grants_ that right, only that it says people have that right.  That
>    right is explicitly recognized by the Constitution, as opposed to other
>    rights which are _implicitly_ recognized by the Constitution.
 
	It does recognize the right. But in the context of our discussion
	the 1st Amendment restricts the government. It does not empower
	the people.

>    >The Constitution places restrictions of the Federal Government. This is 
>    >just one more restriction.
    
>    So, if we decide that all purchases on behalf of the federal government 
>    must have at least three bids submitted, and the lowest chosen, then we 
>    should put that in the Constitution.  After all, it's a restriction.

	If the Congress was incapable of enacting legislation requiring
	such bids (they are not) and the bidding process was completely
	out of control (it's not), then yes, placing such a restriction
	on the government via the Constitution would be a legitimate
	use of the process.

Jim

    
    George,
    
    I know there have been a lot of replies, but could you please reply
    to my .363.
    
    					Thank you,
    
    					Ed
    
    

    
    Re .384
>
>    Line item veto would be interesting, but you'll never see it unless the 
>    same party controls both Congress and the White House.
    
    I suspect you are wrong. Both Clinton and the Republicans in the
    Congress claim they support this. 
    
    On the other hand, it will do very little to impact the deficit.
    
    					Ed
    
    

RE                       <<< Note 50.363 by DECC::VOGEL >>>

  Krist, I have to go all the way back to Friday? Ok let's see what you've got
here.

>                     -< Is that really your plan George? >-

  A man with a plan. Is what my plan?

>    Please re-read my reply .77. It explains how the deficit has really
>    been reduced. Further, this plan of yours calls for increasing
>    deficits after this year. Even Clinton admits that. So the plan
>    you support is not for a balanced budget, nor one for even a reduced
>    deficit? Is that correct?

  Now it's back to .77. Am I getting paid for this?

  No, that's not correct, last time I heard him talk Clinton was claiming
that his plan will continue to shrink the budget.

>    George...how much additional money will this tax increase bring in?
>    Remember the current project deficit is around $200B. Do you know
>    the answer? I do.

  He already raised the taxes. Remember they did that as soon as he took
office. Remember the big flap because he made it retroactive about half way
through the year.

>    Thanks for taking the time to reply, and to clarify your position.

  You're welcome.

  George

RE                        <<< Note 50.77 by DECC::VOGEL >>>

>    .The end of the savings & loan bailout. 
>
>    .An improving economy 
>
>    .A change in treasury policy to greatly shorten the maturity of government 
>     debt. 

  There was also the tax on the rich and there has been an ongoing effort to
shut down military bases. 

  George

    
    George,
    
    I wanted to know how much money was being brought in by the
    tax increase on the wealthy that you are so proud of. Sorry
    that my .363 was unclear. Do you know how much that tax increase 
    has reduced the deficit?
    
    Also, while Clinton claims he wants to reduce the deficit, he
    has presented no plans to do so, and current CBO estimates show
    the deficit increasing.
    					Where's the beef?
    
    					Ed

  The only thing I saw was the pie chart in New Week Magazine at the beginning
of last year showing the deficit decreasing. If the tax on the rich was really
that small then fine, I guess we don't have to repeal it. 

  At any rate, I'm still waiting to hear specifics on the Republican plan to
balance the budget so if the current deficit is shrinking due to the things you
mentioned in .77, the base closings, and the tax on the rich then that's a
whole not more specific than what we are getting from the GOP. 

  George

                     <<< Note 50.394 by HELIX::MAIEWSKI >>>

>  There was also the tax on the rich 

	Yep. Sat down with my accountant over the weekend and found out
	that I'm rich. At least according to Brother Clinton.

Jim

  Congradulations

  George

    George,

    The tax on the rich is currently estimated to bring in an
    additional 10 Billion this year. Original estimates said
    20, but those damn rich people have this habit of shielding
    their income when you raise their rates from 28% to 40% in
    a few years.

    Taxing the rich is fine, but this time it got us 10 Billion
    in a 1500 Billion dollar budget. There just aren't enough
    rich!! I've heard you could tax millionaires at 100% and
    the money would run the government for three weeks.


    Trust me, even Clinton admits the deficit is going up. Here's
    why: 

    1] He refuses (as do the Republicans) to cut SS, it will increase
    this year (I'm not sure by how much). It is the largest government
    program.

    2] Clinton is now calling for increases in defense spending. Actually
    the increase is less than the rate of inflation, but it's still
    and increase. This is the second largest program.

    3] Medicare will rise 11% this year. Clinton refuses to touch it.

    4] Interest on the debt will rise significantly as our 4 Trillion
    in debt is now being financed at a short term rate of 7% instead
    of 3% as it was last year. 

 
    I agree the Republicans have not specified their cuts. They
    claim they need the BBA to give them the clout to get their
    cuts passed (and for cover to try to keep their seats!!)
    They say they will get specific when they announce their budget 
    in a few months. 

    You must admit, at least Republicans have admitted to
    going after Medicare. Today Newt said that Medicare must be reworked to
    greatly reduce the cost. Over the weekend I heard Armey 
    say the same thing. 

    As I have said all along...the Republican plan may not
    be perfect, but it's the only game in town.

    If you are seriously concerned about the deficit I would consider
    contacting a group called the Concord Coalition. This group,
    formed by Senators Tsongas and Rudman is dedicated to a balanced
    budget.

    Again, thanks for taking the time to reply to my questions.
    I'm also glad you are concerned about deficit and our future.

    					Ed

RE                      <<< Note 50.399 by DECCXX::VOGEL >>>

>    I agree the Republicans have not specified their cuts. They
>    claim they need the BBA to give them the clout to get their
>    cuts passed (and for cover to try to keep their seats!!)

  Well here we agree. I would go on to say the major motivation for for the
Republicans supporting the BBA is to keep their seats. 

  Republicans are every bit as responsible for the deficit as the democrats.
They are the ones that have continually been fanning the flames of the tax
revolt while pushing for higher defense spending. Had they not done this there
would be no expectation on the part of the voters for having their cake and
eating it too. 

  The insincerity of the GOP was highlighted today by Newt himself who has
refused to join the President in calling for aid to Mexico. Once again rather
than participating in defining the problem of the deficit the GOP is taking 
this opportunity to pressure Clinton into making the unpopular request while
they stay with their safe position of "let's just pass the BBA then we can
force those Democrats into shape".

  Yes, the major purpose of the BBA is to shield Republicans from having to
make tough choices (like aid to Mexico). Politically their best hope is that
the Democrats in the Senate will block the amendment then the GOP can spend
the entire 2 years refusing to take a position while blaming the Democrats
for all the world's problems.

  I actually feel that the Democrats should vote for this unless amendment and
they should vote for a version which goes into effect immediately. If nothing
more it would force Newt to fish or cut bait and make some real enemies among
the people who thought all those cuts didn't mean them.

  George

    
    RE: .398
    
    P & K  candidate for a "reply without substance"???

  Not at all. He says he's rich, I say congradulations.

  Too bad about how he has to pay more taxes but as others have said it's not
all that much.

  George

    congraTulations......

RE            <<< Note 50.404 by CONSLT::MCBRIDE "aspiring peasant" >>>

    congraTulations......

       " foah braaak'en my heart"

    congraTulations......

       " foah tah ren it ah part"

                      - T. Woolburry

  George

    Re .401 - George

>  Well here we agree. I would go on to say the major motivation for for the
>Republicans supporting the BBA is to keep their seats. 

    I agree.

>  Republicans are every bit as responsible for the deficit as the democrats.

    I agree

>  The insincerity of the GOP was highlighted today by Newt himself who has
>refused to join the President in calling for aid to Mexico. 

    Here you are wrong. Newt, as well as Dole, have publicly supported
    the aid to Mexico. I saw Newt on the news last night claim this.
    What they are asking is that the president provide the leadership
    necessary to get this through the congress (currently 70+% of
    the people are against it). They are also asking for a majority
    of Democrats to vote for the bill. They do not want this to be
    a Republican bill because then it would be too easy for the Democrats
    to say "The Republicans want cut <fill in your favorite program>
    but they give aid to Mexico".

    The reason the Mexico bail-out is in trouble is lack of leadership
    on Clinton's part, and no support at all from the Democratic congressional
    leaders. You really can not blame the Republicans for this one.
    Oh...I'm for the bail-out.

>Politically their best hope is that
>the Democrats in the Senate will block the amendment then the GOP can spend
>the entire 2 years refusing to take a position while blaming the Democrats
>for all the world's problems.

    I agree here too. If the Democrats block the BBA without providing
    an alternative of their own, this will make them the party of "gridlock".
    It will give the Republicans a great issue in '96.

    The Democrats need to provide an alternative. They have none. This
    is what I've been saying all along.

    						Ed

    
    Actually, Clinton is trying.  But Gephart/Bonior, in case nobody
    noticed, now have a much lower record in supporting BC than Newtie
    does.  Just exactly why should any Democrat want to follow BC now ?
    I can see maybe Kennedy, who is trying to shore up his image with
    fellow senators by a show of party loyalty.  But for the rest of
    them, they have opposed Clinton before even when Clinton had the
    pursestrings to threaten them.  Now that Prexy Bill is newtered,
    he has no clout with the congressional democrats, and can't display
    "leadership" even though poor Panetta keeps telling him to.  He has
    nothing like his former power.  All he can do is sit with his veto
    by the phone, and hope Bob or Newt calls.  Otherwise, the Mexico
    bailout is dead on arrival without them.
    
      bb

    My understanding is that the Mexicans don't want aid from us.  

| <<< Note 50.408 by MKOTS3::JMARTIN "I lied; I hate the fat dinosaur" >>>



| My understanding is that the Mexicans don't want aid from us.


	Jack, where did you hear that?

    RE: .408
    
    Jack,
    
     They do not like some of the conditions being attached to the bailout

    Heard it on Limbaugh a few nights ago.  He backed it up with an article
    from the Washington Times and showed film clips of Mexicans burning the
    American flag.  I also saw an interview with a  Washington economist 
    that we would immediately be perceived as the big bad creditor and that
    this would strain relations with the US

    Re: .390
    
    >the 1st Amendment restricts the government
    
    So what?  Have I been arguing that the Constitution _doesn't_ restrict
    the government?  No.
    
    >If the Congress was incapable of enacting legislation requiring such 
    >bids (they are not) 
    
    Congress is not incapable of enacting a balanced budget.
    
    >and the bidding process was completely out of control (it's not)
    
    I don't think the budget process is entirely out of control.  As I
    recall, recent budgets have been more balanced than they were in the
    past (like during the Reagan years, when we were apparently trying to
    spend the Russians into oblivion).  The process might not be under as
    much control as you would like, but neither is Congress running hog
    wild.  It could be a heckuva lot worse.

    Re: .392
    
    >Both Clinton and the Republicans in the Congress claim they support this.
    
    Timing is an issue.  A line item veto gives the president more power
    over Congress.  If you're a Republican, why would you make it easier
    for a Democrat to thwart your programs (or at least make it harder for
    you to get your programs implemented)?  Republicans are more likely to
    get it implemented for after Clinton's term, in anticipation of a
    Republican president.

RE                       <<< Note 50.406 by DECC::VOGEL >>>

>    The reason the Mexico bail-out is in trouble is lack of leadership
>    on Clinton's part, and no support at all from the Democratic congressional
>    leaders. You really can not blame the Republicans for this one.
>    Oh...I'm for the bail-out.

  You and I must have been listening to different news casts. I heard Clinton
making a speech and saying we should support the bailout by guaranteeing
loans. All I heard Gingrich say was that he might go along but the President
should take the lead.

  Well Clinton did take the lead so I expect that tonight when I go home I'll
hear Newt saying "Ok, Clinton did good and took the lead, he has all my
support".

  Think I should hold my breath waiting for that one?

>    I agree here too. If the Democrats block the BBA without providing
>    an alternative of their own, this will make them the party of "gridlock".
>    It will give the Republicans a great issue in '96.
>
>    The Democrats need to provide an alternative. They have none. This
>    is what I've been saying all along.

  We seem to agree on a lot. I guess what we are down to is that I agree with
you that the Democrats don't have much of an alternative but I feel that with
the BBA the Republicans have about as close to nothing as you can have and
still vote on it.

  A bill that won't work isn't much better than a party with no alternative.

  George

                     <<< Note 50.403 by HELIX::MAIEWSKI >>>

>  Not at all. He says he's rich, I say congradulations.

	Actually what I said was that according to Clinton (and you
	I suppose) I'm rich.

	According to me I think you are both purveyors of untruths.

	You see, my wife is permanently disabled. As such she receives
	Social Security disability payments. A greater percentage of 
	these payments are taxed this year due to Clinton's "tax on
	the rich". Because of this wonderful plan we now have significantly
	less disposable income than if she had been able to continue 
	working, even if she had stayed at the same salary over the
	last 8 years.


Jim

    	We shouldn't be bailing out Mexico either.

            <<< Note 50.412 by OOTOOL::CHELSEA "Mostly harmless." >>>

>    I don't think the budget process is entirely out of control.  As I
>    recall, recent budgets have been more balanced than they were in the
>    past (like during the Reagan years, when we were apparently trying to
>    spend the Russians into oblivion).  The process might not be under as
>    much control as you would like, but neither is Congress running hog
>    wild.  It could be a heckuva lot worse.

	And the world could end tommorrow. A VERY weak argument. This reminds 
	me of coversations I have with my daughter. When discussing the sorry
	state of her room I must keep reminding her that better is not
	neccessarily good.

	Adding 250 BILLION to the national debt when we already owe 4
	TRILLION dollars is certainly not in control.

Jim

RE    <<< Note 50.415 by SEAPIG::PERCIVAL "I'm the NRA,USPSA/IPSC,NROI-RO" >>>

>	You see, my wife is permanently disabled. As such she receives
>	Social Security disability payments. A greater percentage of 
>	these payments are taxed this year due to Clinton's "tax on
>	the rich". Because of this wonderful plan we now have significantly
>	less disposable income than if she had been able to continue 
>	working, even if she had stayed at the same salary over the
>	last 8 years.

  What you are bumping into here has nothing to do with Clinton, it's the old
marriage tax. 

  My personal opinion on this is that there should be a new constitutional
amendment and it should prohibit the government at any level from in any way
being involved in marriage or divorce. 

  All cases of couples splitting up, regardless of marital status would be
treated as palimony suits by the probate courts and the IRS would be prohibited
from forcing people to pay a different rate or pay a higher rate because of who
ever they chose to be involved. 

  The way taxes would work is that any citizens would be allowed to file
jointly with anyone they wished and any citizen would be allowed to file as a
single tax payer any time they wished. 

  That's been a pet peeve of mine for a long time and it would completely solve
your problem. Don't hang the fact that governments use marriage laws to meddle
into people's private lives on the Democrats or liberals. 

  George

                     <<< Note 50.418 by HELIX::MAIEWSKI >>>

>  What you are bumping into here has nothing to do with Clinton, it's the old
>marriage tax. 

	You are wrong. We've been married for over 22 years. The fact
	that our taxes went UP has nothing to do with the fact that we are
	married. It has to do with the fact that Clinton LIED when he sold
	the public on his "it's only the rich" tax increase.

Jim

What's the definition of "rich" according to Clinton's tax increase?

                      <<< Note 50.420 by EVMS::MORONEY >>>

>What's the definition of "rich" according to Clinton's tax increase?

	Well to hear Bill (and George) tell it you have to make $140,000
	per year in order to be rich. The reality is that it takes less
	then half that.

Jim

RE    <<< Note 50.419 by SEAPIG::PERCIVAL "I'm the NRA,USPSA/IPSC,NROI-RO" >>>

>	You are wrong. We've been married for over 22 years. The fact
>	that our taxes went UP has nothing to do with the fact that we are
>	married. It has to do with the fact that Clinton LIED when he sold
>	the public on his "it's only the rich" tax increase.

  That depends. If you are married and filed a joint return then your total
income is the sum of your income and her income.

  Did she file separately and still end up paying more?

  George

RE    <<< Note 50.421 by SEAPIG::PERCIVAL "I'm the NRA,USPSA/IPSC,NROI-RO" >>>

>	Well to hear Bill (and George) tell it you have to make $140,000
>	per year in order to be rich. The reality is that it takes less
>	then half that.

  That's still pretty good compared to the national average but the point is
so what?

  I've taken a beating in this file because I am so insensitive to the BBA
which is going to allow the savior GOP to find courage to make tough decisions
once it's passed.

  What you are seeing right here is the problem. Rather than bitching about
higher taxes, in the spirit of the BBA you should be proud of the fact that
you are taking a leadership position in coughing up the bucks to do your part
to balance the budget.

  And if you think that what Clinton is making you pay is bad, hold on to your
hat. With a BBA even the GOP will be able to raise your taxes and pass it off
saying "hey, what could we do? There was this or that national emergency and
the BBA made us do it".

  Get use to it,
  George

re George -- 50.418

	I never thought it would happen!  I almost agree with George...I need 
	a drink!  

	I agree that the government should get out of the marriage business.
	Marriages of any form should come under contract law if they wish
	to be fomalized under the law (for designating legal dependants for
	example).  Also, every such contract should have an prenegotiated 
	termination clause.  No more licenses for marriages.

	Have a GREAT day!
	Pete

    Re last few:

    George, Doug is correct.

    In Clinton's tax change there was a condition the impacted everyone
    who received Social Security payments whose income is (I believe)
    greater than 35K for a couple. This, along with the gas tax
    increase are the two specific parts of Clinton's tax package
    that impacts many people not considered "rich". 

    At one time all SS income was tax free. Some years ago (line 5?)
    they started taxing 50% of SS income for people couples making
    over some amount (50K??).

    In the 93 budget deal, the amount of SS income subject to tax was
    raised to 85%, and the income level was lowered. This is what's hitting
    Doug.


    FWIW I agreed with this part of Clinton's tax bill. I agree because
    it helps make the SS system more fair. It is unfortunate that it
    also applies to SSDI payments as well as retirement payments 'though.

    Today's trivia question: 85% of SS income is considered taxable. Why
    was 85% chosen?

    					Ed

                     <<< Note 50.422 by HELIX::MAIEWSKI >>>

>  That depends. If you are married and filed a joint return then your total
>income is the sum of your income and her income.

	We file jointly. Please make a note. The issue is the INCREASE
	(on the rich only, according to you and Bill), not the penalty
	that married couples pay for joint filing status.

Jim

                     <<< Note 50.423 by HELIX::MAIEWSKI >>>

RE    <<< Note 50.421 by SEAPIG::PERCIVAL "I'm the NRA,USPSA/IPSC,NROI-RO" >>>

>	Well to hear Bill (and George) tell it you have to make $140,000
>	per year in order to be rich. The reality is that it takes less
>	then half that.

>  That's still pretty good compared to the national average but the point is
>so what?

	The point is that YOUR FAVORITE DEMOCRAT LIED THROUGH HIS TEETH!

>  What you are seeing right here is the problem. Rather than bitching about
>higher taxes, in the spirit of the BBA you should be proud of the fact that
>you are taking a leadership position in coughing up the bucks to do your part
>to balance the budget.

	George, go back and read what I wrote. I have NOT bitched about 
	the higher taxes. I've bitched about the LIES you keep telling
	about the Clinton tax increase. It was NOT just a tax on the 
	"rich".

>  And if you think that what Clinton is making you pay is bad,

	It's not the money, George. It's the LIE about who was
	going to pay the money.

Jim

George,

>  Yes, and that's Reagan and the Democratic congress. Reagan proposed massive
>deficits, the democrats passed them, Reagan signed them.

He proposed increased spending which would increase the deficits that Carter had
already put in motion. Part of that spending was to go towards rebuilding
a deficient military due to changes made in the Carter admin. Much of it went
into tax cuts (poor description of what really happened) to pump money into
a supplied side economy to boost us out of double digit stagflation. He also
proposed significant reductions in discretionary and entitlement spending.

Nice that the dems would be so kind as to ignore the last one. Makes it kinda
tough to buy the votes they needed to stay in power. Two out of three ain't bad
I suppose.

Reciepts went down in 1982/1983 year (small reccession) but other than that
they rose giving significant credence to Reagans policies.

The people of this country have been telling the government to cut spending since
1983/1984. Reagan was a strong supporter of spending cuts, Bush got elected on
spending cuts (he didn't, he's gone), Clinton got elected on 'the economy' and
'reinventing government'. I'm actually pleased with some of the directions his
admin has taken but object to him taking credit for things he has had little
affect over.

Since little action as occured when replacing presidents, the people have decided
to replace representatives. One way or another, this budgets gonna get balanced.

Doug.

RE    <<< Note 50.426 by SEAPIG::PERCIVAL "I'm the NRA,USPSA/IPSC,NROI-RO" >>>

>	We file jointly. Please make a note. The issue is the INCREASE
>	(on the rich only, according to you and Bill), not the penalty
>	that married couples pay for joint filing status.

  Well if my constitutional amendment were passed there would have been no
increase since the IRS would be prohibited from forcing you and your wife to
file jointly. She could have used the single taxpayer table and no doubt would
not have been impacted.

  Still I want to know since this seems to be a balanced budget debate, why
are you complaining about taxes while supporting the BBA? You are either for
balancing the budget or against it. If you paid a higher tax, then you are
doing more to balance the budget.

  Stand tall, be proud. Bill Clinton helped you do something for your country.

  George

                     <<< Note 50.429 by HELIX::MAIEWSKI >>>

>  Well if my constitutional amendment were passed there would have been no
>increase since the IRS would be prohibited from forcing you and your wife to
>file jointly. She could have used the single taxpayer table and no doubt would
>not have been impacted.

>  Still I want to know since this seems to be a balanced budget debate, why
>are you complaining about taxes while supporting the BBA? You are either for
>balancing the budget or against it. If you paid a higher tax, then you are
>doing more to balance the budget.

	And your proposed amendment would reduce tax revenues, making balancing
	the budget an even more difficult task.

	As I said (several times) I raised the issue of my increasing tax
	burden only to expose the lies that you and your favorite Democrat
	are telling.

>  Stand tall, be proud. Bill Clinton helped you do something for your country.

	I have been supporting this country financially for 25 years. Never
	once played games with the deductions, never once failed to file.
	But I resent it when the President lies about what he has done. His
	"tax on the rich" reaches down well into the lower middle class for
	certain taxpayers. And the "deficit reductions" actually reflect
	and INCREASE in federal spending. The "reduction" is merely a
	reduction in projected growth in that spending.

	THe BBA is an attempt to make the Feds accountable, make them
	responsible. 

	If you want to increase taxes to balance the budget, then they'll 
	need to come out and tell us about it. But I think that the American 
	people will want to see REAL reductions in federal spending before 
	they are willing to ante up more grist for the federal pork mill.

Jim

RE    <<< Note 50.427 by SEAPIG::PERCIVAL "I'm the NRA,USPSA/IPSC,NROI-RO" >>>

>	The point is that YOUR FAVORITE DEMOCRAT LIED THROUGH HIS TEETH!

  First of all, Bill Clinton is not my favorite democrat. I think he's ok
but as the saying goes, he's no JFK.

  Second of all, so what? With the exception of an occasional fluke, every
politician who gets as far as the House of Representatives much less the
President got there because he lied through his teeth.

  The lesson of the '80 '84 and '88 elections was that you have to lie about
cutting taxes to stand a chance of getting elected. It took the Democrats a
frigg'en decade to learn that lesson but they finally got it right.

  George 

RE    <<< Note 50.430 by SEAPIG::PERCIVAL "I'm the NRA,USPSA/IPSC,NROI-RO" >>>

>	I have been supporting this country financially for 25 years. Never
>	once played games with the deductions, never once failed to file.
>	But I resent it when the President lies about what he has done. 

  No you don't. You only resent it when a Democratic president lies about what
he has done.

  When Reagan and Bush promised tax cuts and didn't deliver, that was fine
but when a democrat does it, then it's a problem.

  The reason Clinton lied was because the lesson from the '80, '84, and '88
elections was that you had to lie about a tax cut to get elected. And guess
what, it worked.

  I don't know who will win in '96 but I can guarantee you one thing. It will
be someone who lies and tells us we are in for a tax cut.

>	If you want to increase taxes to balance the budget, then they'll 
>	need to come out and tell us about it. But I think that the American 
>	people will want to see REAL reductions in federal spending before 
>	they are willing to ante up more grist for the federal pork mill.

  It's never happened before, it won't happen now. All that pork goes to
someone's table and who ever loses it will be screaming bloody murder.

  George

>>  I think he's ok
>>  but as the saying goes, he's no JFK.
    
    George, what is this affinity people have with deifying JFK?

Re    <<< Note 50.433 by MKOTS3::JMARTIN "I lied; I hate the fat dinosaur" >>>

>    George, what is this affinity people have with deifying JFK?

  Got me, I don't do that.

  George

                     <<< Note 50.432 by HELIX::MAIEWSKI >>>

>  No you don't. You only resent it when a Democratic president lies about what
>he has done.

>  When Reagan and Bush promised tax cuts and didn't deliver, that was fine
>but when a democrat does it, then it's a problem.

>  The reason Clinton lied was because the lesson from the '80, '84, and '88
>elections was that you had to lie about a tax cut to get elected. And guess
>what, it worked.

	I, like you, have come to expect that campaign promises are to be
	viewed as empty rhetoric. I'm not talking about Bill's middle
	class tax cut pledge. I'm talking about his (and your) lie concerning
	just what segment of the population was affected by his "tax on the
	rich".

	Do try to keep up, it's becoming quite tiring having to continually
	remind you about the topic under discussion. Your attempts to deal
	with the observations made here via obsfucation, while classic,
	are quite transparent.

>  It's never happened before, it won't happen now. All that pork goes to
>someone's table and who ever loses it will be screaming bloody murder.

	Indeed they will. But we will STILL have a balanced budget, and 
	THAT will be worth listening to all the whining.

Jim

    
    You're kidding about Bush, of course.  Republicans resented the
    sell-out after "Read My Lips" very much indeed.  Many fled to Perot.
    
    When did Reagan sell out ?  The time he said he would cut taxes, he
    did.  This may have been wrong, as you claim, but it was honest.
    
    As to not resenting lying, I'm afraid you're wrong about the
    Democrats among our citizenry as well - they resent it in the
    Democrats they elect intensely, and kick them out at the next election.
    
    Getting caught in Big Lies (a la Nixon) is very poor politics in
    either party.
    
      bb

RE    <<< Note 50.435 by SEAPIG::PERCIVAL "I'm the NRA,USPSA/IPSC,NROI-RO" >>>

>	I, like you, have come to expect that campaign promises are to be
>	viewed as empty rhetoric. I'm not talking about Bill's middle
>	class tax cut pledge. I'm talking about his (and your) lie concerning
>	just what segment of the population was affected by his "tax on the
>	rich".

  So are you saying that the rich were not effected by this "tax on the rich"?
It's only a lie if they are paying the same as before while middle class taxes
have gone up.

>	Do try to keep up, it's becoming quite tiring having to continually
>	remind you about the topic under discussion. Your attempts to deal
>	with the observations made here via obsfucation, while classic,
>	are quite transparent.

  Once again nice try. When things are not going well talk more about how you
are winning and try to avoid discussing the issues.

>	Indeed they will. But we will STILL have a balanced budget, and 
>	THAT will be worth listening to all the whining.

  That's IF it works and IF it does work that whining will be coming from
the anti-tax fanatics who will no longer stand a chance of seeing a real tax
cut.

  George

                     <<< Note 50.437 by HELIX::MAIEWSKI >>>

>  So are you saying that the rich were not effected by this "tax on the rich"?
>It's only a lie if they are paying the same as before while middle class taxes
>have gone up.

	The lie was very specific. Steve Jong and I went over this once
	before. The lie is that only those with an income of $140,000
	or greater were affected by the "tax on the rich". I have shown
	that this is not true.

>  Once again nice try. When things are not going well talk more about how you
>are winning and try to avoid discussing the issues.

	I made no claim to winning (more obsfucation on your part). I merely
	pointed out that you are apparently incapable of addressing the issues
	that are raised. I suspect that the reason that you do this is because
	you have no cogent reply.

>  That's IF it works and IF it does work that whining will be coming from
>the anti-tax fanatics who will no longer stand a chance of seeing a real tax
>cut.

	There is no reason to believe that it will not work to balance the
	budget. In fact we have numerous examples of governments that operate
	under this type of restriction that work just fine.

	Those expecting tax relief are very likely going to be dissapointed.
	Those expecting continued support from the government for their
	pet programs will also be dissapointed. But sometimes acting 
	responsibly means that we can not have everything our hearts desire.

Jim

    
      By the way, the debate in here is a pale shadow of the one going
     on this week and the next few in the Senate, the home of our
     country's greatest pontificators.  For once, the Senate seems better
     suited to the problem at hand than the House.  Three weeks to debate
     a consitutional amedment seems about right.  I caught a few pros-cons
     on CSPAN last night. We can be proud to be the nation of such
     profound ponderation.  The vote will almost surely be desperately
     close.
    
      Strom Thurmond, who sponsored the one the Senate passed 67-33 in
    1982, went on through the night on the history of this provision.
    There have been proposals since 1936, and again in the 40's and 50's
    and 70's and 80's.  Being a Yankee by trade, I have trouble with his
    deliberate pace, but this sort of stentorianism is why he gets
    re-elected, I'm told.
    
      bb

RE    <<< Note 50.438 by SEAPIG::PERCIVAL "I'm the NRA,USPSA/IPSC,NROI-RO" >>>

>	The lie was very specific. Steve Jong and I went over this once
>	before. The lie is that only those with an income of $140,000
>	or greater were affected by the "tax on the rich". I have shown
>	that this is not true.

  The phrase "Tax the rich" says to me that the rich will pay more tax. No
where in that phrase do I see anything about how the middle class will not pay
more taxes. 

  Now are you claiming that the rich are paying the same while the middle class
is paying more? If both are paying more then where is the non-truth in "tax the
rich"? If it were "tax only the rich" maybe but that's not what I said. 

>	I made no claim to winning (more obsfucation on your part). I merely
>	pointed out that you are apparently incapable of addressing the issues
>	that are raised. I suspect that the reason that you do this is because
>	you have no cogent reply.

/zoom down to your level

  You are an idiot. You never say anything that makes sense, I'm always right,
you are always wrong

/zoom back up to the debate

  Keep it up, I can play that game just as easily as you can.

>	There is no reason to believe that it will not work to balance the
>	budget. In fact we have numerous examples of governments that operate
>	under this type of restriction that work just fine.

  It is my belief that the BBAs of the states are not what's keeping their
budgets balanced. Rather they are forced to stay balanced by other factors. The
states managed their budgets for two centuries without this gimmick and now that
these amendments have passed they are still managing their budgets. I think
it's a bit of an empty claim to say that the BBAs the only thing responsible
for what States have been doing on their own for 200 years. 

  George

                     <<< Note 50.441 by HELIX::MAIEWSKI >>>

>  The phrase "Tax the rich" says to me that the rich will pay more tax. 

	That is not the lie that was told by your (non-JFK) hero.

>/zoom down to your level

>  You are an idiot. You never say anything that makes sense, I'm always right,
>you are always wrong

>/zoom back up to the debate

	You again choose to obsfucate. I did not, regardless of my personal
	opinion, call you an idiot. I merely stated that everytime an issue
	is raised that you have no cogent response for, you argue (at length)
	about something else. 

>  It is my belief that the BBAs of the states are not what's keeping their
>budgets balanced. Rather they are forced to stay balanced by other factors. The
>states managed their budgets for two centuries without this gimmick and now that
>these amendments have passed they are still managing their budgets. I think
>it's a bit of an empty claim to say that the BBAs the only thing responsible
>for what States have been doing on their own for 200 years. 

	Well the folks living in those states believe that the way to get
	balanced budgets was to make it a Constitutional requirement. Before
	the amendments, the states ran deficits. After, they did not. Those
	states without amendments continue to run deficits. So there is
	crystal clear evidence that the process of BBAs works. Your "beliefs"
	to the contrary do not change this fact.

Jim

    You are backpeddling, George.  Tax the rich means "tax the rich".  If
    Clinton had planned on taxing the middle class, he should have said so
    up front.  It was misleading at best.
    
    Now, when you add to this the fact that the cutoff was supposed to be
    $140k/yr, and it is proven NOT to be true (aka, Jim Percival), then you
    now can conclude that it was an outright LIE...or did he not know what
    his tax policy was that he put into effect?
    
    He lied to get voter support, plain and simple.  
    
    Of course, I was against the whole concept of "tax the rich"...not only
    is this an overly simplistic way of looking at things ("let them pay
    their fare share"...like they don't already), it is nothing more than a
    terribly disguised policy of economic retribution (class warfare at its
    worst).  But that's another discussion.
    
    
    -steve

    
    Allegedly, the rich are taxed more ONLY to maintain
    a well regulated militia.   In all other cases, we
    all pay more, regardless of our financial class.
    
    W.
    

RE    <<< Note 50.442 by SEAPIG::PERCIVAL "I'm the NRA,USPSA/IPSC,NROI-RO" >>>

>	You again choose to obsfucate. I did not, regardless of my personal
>	opinion, call you an idiot. I merely stated that everytime an issue
                                                         ---------
>	is raised that you have no cogent response for, you argue (at length)
>	about something else. 

  The important word here is "everytime". How can you say that "everytime" we
discuss an issue I change the subject implying that I am always wrong and you
are always right? That is saying that I am an idiot by implication. Who could
possible be wrong that often? Who could possibly be right that often? 

>	Well the folks living in those states believe that the way to get
>	balanced budgets was to make it a Constitutional requirement. Before
>	the amendments, the states ran deficits. After, they did not. Those
>	states without amendments continue to run deficits. So there is
>	crystal clear evidence that the process of BBAs works. Your "beliefs"
>	to the contrary do not change this fact.

  How do you know that along with passing the amendment they didn't take other
steps that would have resulted in balanced budgets anyway? 

  If BBA's are the only way states can stay afloat, how did they manage for the
1st two centuries without these amendments?

  States are under pressure to balance their budgets Constitutional amendment
or not because they live within the U.S. Economy and are subject to banking
rules and regulations and because they have to protect their bond ratings just
like anyone else. How can you be sure that those factors are not what really
forced these states to get back on track?

  By contrast, the United States of America is not subject to any banking
regulations, rather they make the regulations. They don't have to worry about
bond ratings.

  States take in tax money and put it into banks from which they spend money.
If they spend more than they take in they go into the red and owe someone
something.

  The United States defines money. They cause it to come into existence by
spending it or lowering interest rates, and cause it to stop existing by taking
in taxes and raising interest rates. If they spend more than they take in it's
the dollar itself that bends in the form of inflation or it's recession if they
correct with high interest rates. 

  That is why if you study economics you will see two different sets of rules
for Micro Economics and Macro Economics. They are not the same. What works or
doesn't work in one of those areas does not necessarily determine what will or
will not work in the other. 

  George

RE               <<< Note 50.443 by CSOA1::LEECH "I'm the NRA." >>>

>    You are backpeddling, George.  Tax the rich means "tax the rich".  If
>    Clinton had planned on taxing the middle class, he should have said so
>    up front.  It was misleading at best.

  Again, so what? Every politician tells this lie.

  Ronald Reagan lied when he said Reagonomics would work. Remember how David
Stockman, the man responsible for the details of Reagonomics said he could only
get it to work by erasing leading ones? And sure enough the only way it worked
it all was by running up a double digit deficit. 
    
  As long as the American people vote against people who tell the truth, no
one who tells the truth will ever get elected.

  George

	.445
    
>.442>	You again choose to obsfucate. I did not, regardless of my personal
>>	opinion, call you an idiot. I merely stated that everytime an issue
>                                                         ---------
>>	is raised that you have no cogent response for, you argue (at length)
>>	about something else. 
>
>  The important word here is "everytime". How can you say that "everytime" we
>discuss an issue I change the subject implying that I am always wrong and you
>are always right? That is saying that I am an idiot by implication. 
    
    	Jim didn't say "everytime we discuss an issue".  He said "everytime
    	an issue is raised that you have no cogent response for"
    	                   ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
    
    	Jim seems to be implying that there are times that you *DO* have
    	a cogent response.  He gives you room to take credit for NOT
    	diverting the conversation.
    
    	Instead you now argue about whether you divert the conversation
    	EVERY TIME, leaving lots of room to assume that you admit to
    	doing that often, though not EVERY time.

  So what does this have to do with a balanced budget amendment?

  If you want to debate my debating style, why don't you start a new note
for that purpose.

  For krist sake, stop whining about my notes and stick to the topic.

  George

	.446
    
>  Again, so what? Every politician tells this lie.

>  As long as the American people vote against people who tell the truth, no
>one who tells the truth will ever get elected.

    	A sad commentary indeed, and one that is difficult to dispute,
    	though you did seem to have a problem in .445 with someone using
    	absolutes about you, yet you turn around in your very next entry
    	and do the same to others.

    P&K, anyone?  8^)

RE      <<< Note 50.449 by CSC32::J_OPPELT "Whatever happened to ADDATA?" >>>

>    	A sad commentary indeed, and one that is difficult to dispute,
>    	though you did seem to have a problem in .445 with someone using
>    	absolutes about you, yet you turn around in your very next entry
>    	and do the same to others.

  At least I'm sticking to the topic. It makes sense to discuss politicians and
their failure to keep promises with regard to tax cuts when talking about a
Balanced Budget Amendment. 

  What sense does it make to discuss my noting style with regard to this issue?
What possible impact will my noting style have on the Senate debates? None,
these people don't even know we exist.

  Most often when people resort to ad hominem attacks it's because they are
taking a bath debating the issues. If you want to debate my style of debating,
start a new note.

  George

    
    Advocating a policy you believe in, which then fails, is NOT a lie.
    
    Ted Kennedy does not lie when he advocates ridiculous liberal policies
    which fail every time.  He is dead honest, just as Reagan was.  He's
    just wrong, as humans often are.
    
    George Bush and Bill Clinton are a different story.  They said, "I will
    do x if you elect me."  and then "Now that I'm elected, I believe I'll
    do something else."
    
    The two things are not the same.   bb
    

    	It seems to me that the focus on style was directed by your
    	"nice try..." in .437 and your "zooming" in .441.

RE      <<< Note 50.453 by CSC32::J_OPPELT "Whatever happened to ADDATA?" >>>

>    	It seems to me that the focus on style was directed by your
>    	"nice try..." in .437 and your "zooming" in .441.

  Yet another note about my noting.

  George

    
    This is soapbox.... Maybe you should find a conference where you can
    discuss/debate the merits of cigarette butts and littering??

RE                      <<< Note 50.452 by GAAS::BRAUCHER >>>

  Reagan lied. According to David Stockman all of Reagan's people knew that
Reagonomics would not work because he told them it wouldn't work. But they went
ahead anyway. 

  George Bush knew that it wouldn't work in 1980, that's why he called it
Voodoo Economics. 

  The closest thing we've had to honesty in the White House was Gerald Ford and
Jimmy Carter. In 1980 Reagan beat Bush in the primary by lying about
Reagonomics and did the same thing to Carter in the general election. Bush then
lied in '88 and finally in '92 Clinton was the 1st democrat to wise up and start
lying about taxes as well. 

  The one consistent thing through this entire mess was that every time a
candidate told the truth about taxes he got beat by someone who lied and said
he'd lower the taxes. 

  George

    George,
    
    At this point, there is no BBA, so arguing at length whether the BBA
    will work is somewhat moot. You (and others, of course), say it won't
    work. It appears though, that a majority of Americans think it will
    work. So fine, let's get the best, most enforcable BBA we can get
    and see what happens.
    
    I personally think that you're being too hasty in assuming that
    taxes are the only solution when a budget problem arises, but
    you've made your point reasonably well and we have to make sure
    our congresscritters understand that we don't want a BBA that's
    nothing more than a convenient way to raise revenues without
    paying a political price... thanks (and I mean this sincerely)
    for tipping us off on that possibility.
    
    As for the stuff way back about how the people won't stand for
    cuts in their favorite programs... there will always be special
    interests that make a lot of noise when you take the axe to
    their favorite program, but we simply have to. We need a fire
    sale. Everything must go. Social Security. Welfare. Useless
    defense programs. Federal law enforcement agencies. National
    parks. Chop, chop, chop. The only place where we should not
    be too eager is transportation (roads, air traffic control,
    etc.), because that is such a crucial and integral part of
    modern society that it simply cannot be done without.
    
    I'd prefer they start with the buzzards at NIST, but that's
    another can 'o worms that's not entirely tied to my fiscal
    conservatism.
    
    -b

                     <<< Note 50.445 by HELIX::MAIEWSKI >>>

>  The important word here is "everytime". How can you say that "everytime" we
>discuss an issue I change the subject implying that I am always wrong and you
>are always right?

	Well, I will grant you that "everytime" may be an overstatement.
	Edit to "most of the time".

> That is saying that I am an idiot by implication.

	No implication of your idiocy at all. the arguments that you
	DO present are not those of an idiot, they are just off topic.

> Who could
>possible be wrong that often? 

	Well, you "could" be wrong that often. But we really don't know
	since, in your obsfucation, fail to address the issues being
	discussed. Since you do not offer an opinion or reasoning to back
	up your opinions on these issues, a determination of the merits
	of your position is not possible.

>  How do you know that along with passing the amendment they didn't take other
>steps that would have resulted in balanced budgets anyway? 

	I know that it is a step that they took. I make the claim that this
	step accounts for their balanced budgets. If you dispute the claim
	then it is your responsibility to provide evidence that other steps
	are responsible, not mine.

>How can you be sure that those factors are not what really
>forced these states to get back on track?

	Because until the amendments forced the issue, they ran deficits.
	The problems caused by those deficits were enough to warrant the
	changes in state Constitutions.

>  That is why if you study economics you will see two different sets of rules
>for Micro Economics and Macro Economics. They are not the same. What works or
>doesn't work in one of those areas does not necessarily determine what will or
>will not work in the other. 

	The "rules" as you call them have nothing to do with developing 
	a balanced budget. All you point out is that the penalties for
	not doing so are different for the states and the Feds.

	We are talking about an amendment that requires a balanced budget,	
	we are NOT talking about why balanced budgets are a good idea.

Jim

    
    Took in the debate last night in the Senate.  Gramm pro, Dodd con.
    
    They were both excellent performances.
    
      Unfunded mandates is now off to conference for minor adjustments.
    The House will take up Line Item Veto today, and hope to pass it
    next week.  Line item will be more bipartisan than unfunded was.
    
      bb

  With Line Item Veto are they going for an amendment or a law?

  George

    
    Dunno - I'll catch it tonight.  I think they are still debating
    the details.  The move is to limit it to appropriations.
    
    One absurd problem is that you don't want, when any Congress passes
    a law saying, "The Prex shall not do 'X'.", you have to make sure he
    cannot Line-Item Veto the "not" !!!
    
    Where is Mr. Bill when you need him ?  I'd like to see a text.  Has
    anybody noticed what a bad job the print media are doing on what they
    do best ?  I get the Glob, the Lowell Sun, and the Wall Street Journal.
    
    None of them, liberal or conservative, has conveniently printed the
    actual texts of any of these important "process" measures that make
    up the first 100 days of the "contract with America".  Why not ?
    
      bb

    RE .462 - George. 

    The line-item veto is a law, not an amendment. However, if it passes
    there is a chance that there could be a constitutional test by those
    opposed to it. As I understand it, the constitution is very unclear
    in this area. I remember during the Bush administration that there
    were several people (Sununu was one) who believe the president
    had the authority to impose a line-item veto. They wanted a court
    challenge then. I know of no one whose threatening a court action, but
    it is possible.

RE .463
>  One absurd problem is that you don't want, when any Congress passes
>    a law saying, "The Prex shall not do 'X'.", you have to make sure he
>    cannot Line-Item Veto the "not" !!!
 
    As I understand it the line-item veto will only apply to appropriation
    bills. For example if there was bill that said that neither congress
    nor the president can accept gifts, the president would not have the
    power to veto the part concerning him.

>    Has anybody noticed what a bad job the print media are doing on what they
>    do best ?  I get the Glob, the Lowell Sun, and the Wall Street Journal.
>
>    None of them, liberal or conservative, has conveniently printed the
>    actual texts of any of these important "process" measures that make
>    up the first 100 days of the "contract with America".  Why not ?


    And why not? The American people want to know about O.J. !!!

    					Ed

  >  And why not? The American people want to know about O.J. !!!

>    As I understand it the line-item veto will only apply to appropriation
>    bills. For example if there was bill that said that neither congress
>    nor the president can accept gifts, the president would not have the
>    power to veto the part concerning him.

Very unfortunate, if true. I had hoped that the line item veto would have
very explicitly been designed to allow the elimination of ridiculous
riders from important bills, appropriatory or otherwise.

    	Dem Colorado Senator Ben Nighthorse Campbell has given his
    	support to the BBA.

    
    RE .465 Hi Doug
    
    I could care less about O.J. I can't wait for the damn thing to get
    over so that they can move Crossfire back to 7:30. 
    
    My point is that this is the kind of junk that sells papers and gets
    TV viewers. This is why stories such as the BBA are pushed to
    the back pages. A sad commentary on the American public I'm afraid.
    
    					Ed
    
    
    
    

re:                     <<< Note 275.32 by HELIX::MAIEWSKI >>>

>  Say that you had a neighbor who was just scraping by. Then say that one day
>you looked over and noticed that he was putting an extension on his house,
>he had two new cars, a new boat in the back yard, new cloths and he was going
>out to dinner every night.
...
>  Well the problem is that if you borrow money with no clue as to how you will
>ever pay it back, you will appear to be better off but only until you hit your
>credit limit. And that is exactly what Ronald Reagan got the Democrats to go
>along with in the mid 80's. 

I'm suprised you aren't fully in favor of a balanced budget amendment,
to keep future Ronald Reagans under control.

RE                      <<< Note 50.469 by EVMS::MORONEY >>>

>I'm suprised you aren't fully in favor of a balanced budget amendment,
>to keep future Ronald Reagans under control.

  I'm in favor of balanced budgets. I'm just not in favor of constitutional
gimmicks. The lesson of prohibition was that amending the constitution to force
something on the public does not work. The American people have shown no sign
of being ready to give up the benefits they get from government spending, they
only go along with someone else losing their benefits.

  George

    
    Well, I went on a CSPAN orgy with two TV's last PM - Senate BBA
    debate on one screen (Byrd vs. Simon) and Line Item Veto on the
    other.  I'm sure Ross was drooling over Byrd's collection of glossy
    charts and graphs.
    
    George, the line item veto they are debating is a bill, and it applies
    only to appropriations.  There is a choreographed dance going on here,
    which I think (no, I have no proof) was privately agreed between
    Clinton/Gore and Dole/Gingrich, which goes something like this :  we
    pass the line item veto, thus fulfilling one of our contract items,
    you get it and sign it.  Then we take up HR7 (defense appropriations)
    or as Newt grandiosely calls it, "The American Security Revitalization
    Act"  (one democratic wag called it "The American Weapons Pork Barrel
    Act").  The Repubs vote all kinds of hawkish high-tech weapons, which
    Clinton line-item vetos.  Let's the Republicans claim they fulfilled
    another contract item, let's Clinton look presidential and shore up
    his base.  A win-win for those in the know.
    
      While the line-item will greatly reduce the effectiveness of the
    "omnibus" Bill-from-Hell syndrome, it also opens up several new ways
    of practicing creative politics.  You can posture for your constituents
    knowing you can't be blamed when nothing happens.
    
      I still like it better than the current system of non-germane
    "riders" and hidden pork.  We'll never get a handle on the budget so
    long as the president's only option is a blunderbuss veto of an entire
    omnibus appropriation.
    
      bb

| <<< Note 50.431 by HELIX::MAIEWSKI >>>



| I think he's ok but as the saying goes, he's no JFK.


	This is a Jeapody question, right? Who is Dan Quayle?

     
|   We'll never get a handle on the budget so long as the president's only
|   option is a blunderbuss veto of an entire omnibus appropriation.
    
    Is that a fact?
    
    For the longest time, each party in Congress has had sufficient
    numbers to either fillibuster a bill to death *OR* uphold a
    presidential veto.
    
    It was a trivial matter for the President to send the bill back,
    and in his message say remove this line, that line, this other line
    and I'll vote for it, and have that veto sustained.
    
    In other words, Presidents have had defacto line-item veto for some
    time.
    
    -----
    
    But lets look at the last President who had "line-item veto" power,
    Nixon.  He frequently exercised his recision power in spending,
    but still ran huge deficits.  He was uninterested in getting a
    handle on the budget.  He was interested in abusing recision power
    to get back at his "enemies".  (Which is why the recision power
    was taken away.)
    
    -----
    
    In recent times, Republican Presidents trumpeted up the line-item
    veto as if it was important, and if only, if only that they had it,
    they could balance the budget.  Well, talk is cheap.  The Republican
    President's never got it because they didn't really want it.
    (The votes for it were there in Congress.)
    
    Now, we have a historic opportunity.  Republicans, thinking that they
    had at most a 1 out of 1000 chance of taking control of the House,
    promised something that they didn't want to deliver to a Democratic
    President who actually really wants the line-item veto.
    
    The irony is sweet.
    
    (Still, they are submitting a damn weak line item veto.)
    
    -----
    
    What line-item veto means in the real world....
    
    Before the line item veto:
    
    	What do you, Representative Minority-of-one, need in order to
    	support this bill?
    
    	You understand, Mr. President, that I have a very important matter
    	in my district, and without that matter being addressed in this
    	bill, I do not believe I can support the bill.  It is always
    	possible that I would support the bill without that matter being
    	addressed, and I understand somebody is studying the matter
    	in a sub-committee.  I could of course support this bill even
    	if the language to address this important problem did not
    	appear in the final draft of the bill.  But if that langauge
    	does find it's way into the bill during sub-committee hearings,
    	I can say I you can count on my support for the bill.
    
    	Very well then, I believe we understand one another.
    
    	NEXT!
    
    After the line item veto:
    
    	What do you, Representative Minority-of-one, need to support
    	this bill?
    
    	You understand, Mr. President, that I have a very important matter
    	in my district, and without that matter being addressed in this
    	bill, I do not believe I can support the bill.  It is always
    	possible that I would support the bill without that amendment,
    	which I understand is being studied by a sub-committee, and
    	may appear in the final draft of the bill.  But with that
    	matter in the final language, I can say I will definately
    	support the bill.
    
    	Very well then, I believe we understand one another. You
    	understand that I take a close look at all line items.  By the
    	way, do I understand that you are considering holding
    	committee hearings on a matter of importance to me?
    
    	I believe that's correct.  I understand very well, Mr. President,
    	your interest in that matter.  But since this line is a tax break
    	for an important constituent group, a small but important group,
    	a very small group, a group of one.  But since tax breaks are
    	not subject to line item veto, this particular language should
    	be of far less interest to you.  However, I am interested in
    	another matter as well, which you might be interested in.
    
    	You will hold your subcommitee vote before the final bill
    	gets to the house?
    
    	Oh, I am certain that that will be the case.
    
    	Well, if that's the case, I believe we understand one another.
    
    	I believe we do.  Thank you Mr. President.
    
    	NEXT!
    
    
    								-mr. bill

>    (The votes for it were there in Congress.)

 Perhaps true, but the democratic leadership would not let such a bill
 see the light of day regardless of what the president or the majority
 wanted.

 Doug.

| Perhaps true, but the democratic leadership would not let such a bill
| see the light of day regardless of what the president or the majority
| wanted.
    
    The Republican leadership in Congress had the power to force it
    into the light of day.  If you still don't understand that, you
    just don't understand what really happened about those dozen years
    of whining about the line-item veto.
    
    
    Then again, perhaps you also don't understand why the 3/5's to raise
    taxes House Rule is constitutional, no matter than whining of some
    Democrats.  (Hint - the rule is irrelevant.)
    
    								-mr. bill

    
    Well, we don't actually know how it will work out.  I agree that
    there are opportunities for odoriferous performance either way.
    I agree that there is a certain irony in the GOP being forced by
    it's own rhetoric to relinquish some legislative power to a
    Democratic executive, just at the moment it recovers it after 40 years.
    And yes, it is timid without an LIV for taxes, but hack, it's a
    first date after all.
    
      I stand by "blunderbuss".  The "process" is now so complicated that
    vetoed Bills-from-Hell under the current system get a veto override
    out of pure frustration, not sympathy for the victims of the prexy's
    reservations.  You work out a compromise for two years and then stumble
    over this ?  No, the time for this has come.  Even for Clinton.
    
      bb

   <<< Note 50.473 by PERFOM::LICEA_KANE "when it's comin' from the left" >>>

>    It was a trivial matter for the President to send the bill back,
>    and in his message say remove this line, that line, this other line
>    and I'll vote for it, and have that veto sustained.
 
	Not so trivial really. The Congress (both sides of the aisle)
	has made it a habit to submit the budget late enough in the 
	year so as to virtually preclude the possibility of a veto.
	The choice would have resulted in a government shutdown.

    
Jim

|   The "process" is now so complicated that vetoed Bills-from-Hell under
|   the current system get a veto override out of pure frustration, not
|   sympathy for the victims of the prexy's reservations.
    
    Riiiiiiiiiiight.  George Herbert Walker Bush had one, count it, *ONE*
    of his vetos overridden.  The Cable Bill.
    
|	Not so trivial really. The Congress (both sides of the aisle)
|	has made it a habit to submit the budget late enough in the 
|	year so as to virtually preclude the possibility of a veto.
|	The choice would have resulted in a government shutdown.
    
    Cop out and nonsense.  If you belive the Congress would have
    gone nuts over shutting down the government, then Congress would
    have either:
    
    	Passed a continuing resolution to keep the Gov funded for
    	X number of days while the matter was resolved.
    
    	Passed the bill with the Presidents "line-items" removed.
    
    	Overridden the veto and lived with the consequences.
    
    								-mr. bill

    
    But this overlooks the fact that bills-from-hell are the result of
    tortuous compromises.  The way scurrilous provisions get in is through
    barter (more or less).  So if the president vetos the bill, he kills
    it or sends the bugs scurrying to form up another compromise that can
    garner enough votes.  The new bill will have a whole new set of
    tortuous provsions, etc until the session runs short.
    
    Consider the current voting situation.  Clinton has lost the NRA voters
    permanently.  So politically, he very much wants to veto a repeal of
    the gun ban bill of last year - he has nothing to lose, everything to
    gain.  From Newtie's point of view, he wants a quid pro quo in return.
    
    "I'll send you a nice gun-ban-repeal you can veto if you in return will
    let me swap out some of the "prevention" pork you doled out to
    democratic constituencies, to give to my own "correctional" pork
    consituencies."
    
    In an LIV setting, the deal requires timing, as opposed to the current
    blunderbuss, where you have to go through a bundling/unbundling dance.
    
    I prefer the former, that's all.  bb

   <<< Note 50.478 by PERFOM::LICEA_KANE "when it's comin' from the left" >>>

>    Cop out and nonsense.

	Not a cop out, I just pointed out that it was non-trivial.

>  If you belive the Congress would have
>    gone nuts over shutting down the government, then Congress would
>    have either:
    
>    	Passed a continuing resolution to keep the Gov funded for
>    	X number of days while the matter was resolved.
 
	I recall that (but not when) they actually had to do this
	one year.

>    	Passed the bill with the Presidents "line-items" removed.
 
	Could happen I suppose.
   
>    	Overridden the veto and lived with the consequences.
 
	Also could happen.

	The point is that no recent Presidents have had the guts to
	issue the challenge to the Congress.

Jim

    Mr Bill,

    How nice to have you back in this topic. I see once again
    you're claiming the Republican plan will have no impact
    on the deficit.

    Perhaps you will now answer the question I asked you long
    ago in this topic....What is your plan to balance the budget??
    Or better yet, where is the Democratic plan you support?

    At least George at last stated that he supports the President's
    plan. Details of this plan were outlined yesterday.

    The '95 deficit is projected to be $192.5B, in '96 it will be
    $196.6B, and will hover around 190B 'till the year 2005.
    This is not bad, but it's still a long way from a balanced
    budget.

   					Ed

    President Clinton unveils a $1.6 TRILLION budget.
    
    And Mr. Bill says there's no need for a balanced budget ammendment.
    
    ME

re:PERFOM::LICEA_KANE "
>LIV is just as likely to result in MORE pork, not LESS

The congress is is over 600 people. Anyone in the general public can only vote
for a handfull of this group.

The president is another story. He can be held acountable by all the voters.
Allowing pork through without the 'excuses and whining' of 'those dozen years'
can be political suicide, especially today given the debt/deficit and related
retoric.

>If you still don't understand that, you
>    just don't understand what really happened about those dozen years
>    of whining about the line-item veto.
>        
>    Then again, perhaps you also don't understand why the 3/5's to raise
>    taxes House Rule is constitutional, no matter than whining of some
>    Democrats.  (Hint - the 

Feel free to enlighten me ... (but you won't)

Doug.

    
>    Then again, perhaps you also don't understand why the 3/5's to raise
>    taxes House Rule is constitutional, no matter than whining of some
>    Democrats.

Feel free to enlighten me ... (but you won't)
    
    Do you believe that it requires 3/5's of the House to pass a bill which
    raises some taxes?
    
    No.  It still requires a majority.  It just requires two votes.  Both
    routinely done.  One to vote on the rule for the bill.  One to vote on
    the bill itself.
    
    Get it yet?
    
    								-mr. bill

|   At least George at last stated that he supports the President's
|   plan. Details of this plan were outlined yesterday.
    
    Gosh, what a surprise.  Such a great thinker that George.
    
    
    Clinton has submitted a budget which does not achieve a very achievable
    goal - to cut the deficit in half in four years.  It misses this goal
    by cutting taxes, making a few insignificant restructurings, and
    most unfortunate, opening the top right drawer and doning those damn
    rose colored glasses.
    
    
    Republicans complain that Clinton left all the "tough choices" to them.
    
    Bahahahahaha.
    
    
    
    Then we have the H. Ross. Perobots who are all delighted that some
    Hahvahd student put together their version of a bible.  He claims
    it would have cost the gummint 10 million dollars and two years
    to come up with such a 60 page wonder.  Bzzzzzzzzt.  Wrong.
    It used to be called "The United States Budget In Brief," it
    used to cost a whole $3.50, but Dick Darman and George Herbert Walker
    Bush thought we the people didn't need it so they stopped it.  And
    Clinton has been too interested in putting the budget on the net
    to actually do something truly useful.
    
    
    
    The only hope at this point, my version of the balanced budget
    amendment, which replaces Article I Section 1 and Article II Section
    1 with:
    
    	Article I
    
    	Section 1. All legistlative Powers herin granted shall be
    	vested in the Major League Baseball Owners, which shall
    	consist of an American and National league.
    
    	Article II
    
    	Section 1.  The executive Power shall be vested in the President
    	of the Major League Baseball Players Association. 
    
    								-mr. bill

          H. J. RES. 1
    
          Proposing a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution of the
          United States.
                             IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
                                     January 4, 1995
          Mr. Barton  of Texas, Mr. Hyde....
    
                                JOINT RESOLUTION
          Proposing a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution of the
          United States.
            Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United
          States of America in Congress assembled  (two-thirds of each House
          concurring therein), That the following article is proposed as an
          amendment to the Constitution of the United States, which shall be
          valid to all intents and purposes as part of the Constitution when
          ratified by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several States
          within seven years after the date of its submission for ratification:
                                      `ARTICLE-1A--
            `Section 1. Prior to each fiscal year, Congress shall, by law,
          adopt a statement of receipts and outlays for such fiscal year in
          which total outlays are not greater than total receipts. Congress
          may, by law, amend that statement provided revised outlays are not
          greater than revised receipts. Congress may provide in that
          statement for a specific excess of outlays over receipts by a vote
          directed solely to that subject in which three-fifths of the whole
          number of each House agree to such excess. Congress and the
          President shall ensure that actual outlays do not exceed the 
          outlays set forth in such statement.
            `Section 2. No bill to increase receipts shall become law unless
          approved by a three-fifths majority of the whole number of each
          House of Congress.
            `Section 3. Prior to each fiscal year, the President shall
          transmit to Congress a proposed statement of receipts and outlays
          for such fiscal year consistent with the provisions of this Article.
            `Section 4. Congress may waive the provisions of this Article for
          any fiscal year in which a declaration of war is in effect. The
          provisions of this Article may be waived for any fiscal year in
          which the United States faces an imminent and serious military
          threat to national security and is so declared by a joint
          resolution, adopted by a majority of the whole number of each 
          House, which becomes law.
            `Section 5. Total receipts shall include all receipts of the
          United States except those derived from borrowing and total outlays
          shall include all outlays of the United States except those for the
          repayment of debt principal.
            `Section 6. The amount of Federal public debt as of the first day
          of the second fiscal year beginning after the ratification of this
          Article shall become a permanent limit on such debt and there shall
          be no increase in such amount unless three-fifths of the whole
          number of each House of Congress shall have passed a bill approving
          such increase and such bill has become law.
            `Section 7. All votes taken by the House of Representatives or 
          the Senate under this Article shall be rollcall votes.
            `Section 8. Congress shall enforce and implement this Article by
          appropriate legislation.
            `Section 9. This Article shall take effect for the fiscal year
          2002 or for the second fiscal year beginning after its 
          ratification, whichever is later.'.
    

          H. J. RES. 28                                
    
          Proposing an amendment to the Constitution to provide for a 
          balanced budget for the United States Government and for greater
          accountability in the enactment of tax legislation.
                             IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
                                     January 4, 1995
          Mr. Stenholm  (for himself, Mr. Schaefer....)
                                JOINT RESOLUTION
          Proposing an amendment to the Constitution to provide for a 
          balanced budget for the United States Government and for greater
          accountability in the enactment of tax legislation.
            Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United
          States of America in Congress assembled (two-thirds of each House
          concurring therein), That the following article is proposed as an
          amendment to the Constitution of the United States, which shall be
          valid to all intents and purposes as part of the Constitution when
          ratified by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several States
          within seven years after the date of its submission to the States
          for ratification:
                                      `ARTICLE-1A--
            `Section 1. Total outlays  for any fiscal year shall not exceed
          total receipts for that fiscal year, unless three-fifths of the
          whole number of each House of Congress shall provide by law for a
          specific excess of outlays over receipts by a rollcall vote.
            `Section 2. The limit on the debt of the United States held by 
          the public shall not be increased, unless three-fifths of the whole
          number of each House shall provide by law for such an increase by a
          rollcall vote.
            `Section 3. Prior to each fiscal year, the President shall
          transmit to the Congress a proposed budget for the United States
          Government for that fiscal year, in which total outlays do not
          exceed total receipts.
            `Section 4. No bill to increase revenue shall become law unless
          approved by a majority of the whole number of each House by a
          rollcall vote.
            `Section 5. The Congress may waive the provisions of this article
          for any fiscal year in which a declaration of was is in effect. The
          provisions of this article may be waived for any fiscal year in
          which the United States is engaged in military conflict which 
          causes an imminent and serious military threat to national security
          and is so declared by a joint resolution, adopted by a majority of
          the whole number of each House, which becomes law.
            `Section 6. The Congress shall enforce and implement this article
          by appropriate legislation, which may rely on estimates of outlays
          and receipts.
            `Section 7. Total receipts shall include all receipts of the
          United States Government except those derived from borrowing. Total
          outlays shall include all outlays of the United States Government
          except for those for repayment of debt principal.
            `Section 8. This article shall take effect beginning with fiscal
          year 2002 or with the second fiscal year beginning after its
          ratification, whichever is later.'.
    

	Perhaps our friend Bill will enlighten us as to which Party
	scuttled the first version in favor of the second.

Jim

    2002?(!)
    
    So much for immediacy.

RE        <<< Note 50.482 by REFINE::KOMAR "My congressman is a crook" >>>

>    President Clinton unveils a $1.6 TRILLION budget.
>    
>    And Mr. Bill says there's no need for a balanced budget amendment.
    
  That's nothing more than a proposal, the spending resolutions themselves
start with Newt in the House of Representatives. If they are serious about
a balanced budget why don't the Republicans just pass one? They've got
the majority in both houses.

  There would be nothing Clinton could do about it, he can't add money to the
budget, all he has is a limited ability to delete money through the veto.

  George

    
|	Perhaps our friend Bill will enlighten us as to which Party
|	scuttled the first version in favor of the second.
    
    The one without the little red books.
    
    
    Perhaps Jim could think for a moment and outline the differences
    between the two amendments.  (One major difference.  Several minor
    differences.  One insignificant flaw.)
    
    								-mr. bill

    
    RE .486
    
    Mr Bill, does there is no plan that you support? You can critize the
    Republican plans all you want, but it's pretty meaningless unless
    you can show us the plan you endorse.
    
    Clinton also is gutless in other ways. Not only has he not proposed
    cuts in Medicare, but he has threatened to veto any bill that cuts
    Medicare. 
    
    					Ed
    
    
    
    
    
    

|   You can critize the Republican plans all you want....
    
    WHAT PLANS?  THERE ARE NO PLANS.
    
    Not from Mr. Penny.
    Not from Mr. Kasich.
    Not from Mr. Armey.
    Not from Mr. Archer.
    Not from Mr. Newt.
    Not from Mr. Bob.
    
    								-mr. bill

RE: 50.493 by DECC::VOGEL

A BBA is going to cause rosy forecasting and funny accounting at best.

The best way to balance the budget is to pass a balanced budget.  Simple.
That this will require changes to Medicare,  Medicaid and Social Security.
Not so simple.


Phil

    
    RE .494
    
    Is Mr Penny still in the congress?
    
    Mr Kasich presented a budget last year. In fact there was even
    a vote on the (then called) Penny-Kasich budget cuts. These included
    cuts in Medicare. There were a number of other specific cuts in
    that budget. The Democrats killed it.
    
    Mr Kasich has said he will present a budget in March, which is when
    congress normally presents its budget. You will see the plans then.
    Mr Kasich has promised cuts in Medicare if the BBA passes. If not???
    
    Still waiting for your plan Mr Bill....
    
    						Ed
    
    

    
    re .495:
    
    >The best way to balance the budget is to pass a balanced budget. 
    >Simple. That this will require changes to Medicare,  Medicaid and Social
    >Security. Not so simple.
    
    Exactly. With a BBA cuts in these programs become more simple. Without
    it, it will be very difficult, especially given a president who says
    he will veto any cuts in Medicare.
    
    By the way...Medicare goes broke in the year 2000 (give or take a
    year).
    
    						Ed
    
    

>            `Section 3. Prior to each fiscal year, the President shall
>          transmit to the Congress a proposed budget for the United States
>          Government for that fiscal year, in which total outlays do not
>          exceed total receipts.

  This is probably the most important part of this amendment in that it
suggests a major change in the budget process as described by the Constitution.

  Currently the Constitution specifies that:

 "Section. 7.  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."

and this has been interpreted as saying that the budget process officially
begins in the House. The president's proposal is nothing more than a
suggestion. 

  This amendment now changes this and a Supreme Court could easily interpret
this as meaning that the budget now originates in the White House. They could
interpret this as meaning that the House does not have the right to spend money
on anything unless the President includes it in his proposal. 

  Maybe that's what some people want but I doubt there is a national consensus
on this.

  George

    Kasich had promised his plan for January.  Now, he promises it for
    March.  We shall see.
    
    Unfortunately for the Republicans in the House, who have *NOT*
    presented a budget in years, they can no longer talk the talk without
    also walking the walk.
    
    BTW, Kasich's "Cutting Spending First" was not a full budget.  It also
    included tax increases.  It also counted cuts to the same program more
    than once.  (If I cut a dollar here, I'll save three dollars.)
    
    AND IT DID NOT CUT MEDICARE OR MEDICAID!  It simply assumed that health
    care reform (which he opposed) would hold health care costs to
    inflation+2%.
    
    
    The leaks out of Washington are amazing.  Since health care reform is
    dead and buried, Kasich simply assumes that health care will grow at
    inflation+2%.  What invisible hand will hold this market to
    inflation+2%?  Not the free market.  So, what does he assume will
    hold health care at inflation+2%?  He doesn't assume anything will.
    He just assumes that it will grow at that rate, no more.  Why?
    Because.  Why?  Because why.
    
    Then assume inflation will be lower.  Why?  Because why.
    
    Then put on a few pairs of rose colored glasses, and the rosey senario
    (now called "dynamic scoring" by its proponents) will generate billions
    and billions in revenue when you cut taxes.
    
    
    See.  This is easy stuff.
    
    (Just wait until the states discover that in addition to turning over
    programs to the states, that they also will inherit a percentage of
    the national debt along with those programs.  You want to run welfare?
    Here's the money.  Here's the IOUs.  Have fun!)
    
    
    Until there is solid in writing plan from the Republicans, there is
    NO THERE THERE.
    
    								-mr. bill

    a balanced snarf...

    
      Pardon my paranoia, but there seems to be an odd conjuntion going
     on here.  At the crucial moment in the Senate BBA debate, as the
     congressional democrats seem poised to reject this Republican
     item, the Prex leaks and then releases a proposed budget that says
     that not only the budget deficit will rise next year, but that it
     will NEVER be balanced ?  Uh, could the fix be in ?  It smells.
    
      bb

  I think the reason for Clinton's higher deficit is his middle class tax cut.
Without that, the deficit would be closing. Clinton has learned the lesson that
regardless of the intelligence of such a move, if you want to have any chance
at all against Republicans you have to match them on tax cuts. 

  But what difference does it make? Right now next year's budget is zero. Even
with Clinton's budget proposal it is still zero. The only way it's going to be
anything but zero is if Congress passes spending resolutions and since the GOP
controls both houses of Congress the only way it's going to be anything but
zero is if the GOP decides to spend money. 

  So let's all sit back and watch what the GOP does. It's their ball, let them
run with it. Now they can finally show us how to pass a balanced budget while
still giving everyone tax cuts. They will have no excuses this time if the
budget ends up in the red.

  George

   <<< Note 50.492 by PERFOM::LICEA_KANE "when it's comin' from the left" >>>

>    Perhaps Jim could think for a moment and outline the differences
>    between the two amendments.  (One major difference.  Several minor
>    differences.  One insignificant flaw.)
 
	The major difference is in the vote majority required to increase
	revenues.

	The wording on how the budget is submitted is one of the minor
	differences.

	They both have "bail-out" provisions that I'm not totally
	happy with, and of course they both depend on forecasts.

Jim

                     <<< Note 50.498 by HELIX::MAIEWSKI >>>

>  This is probably the most important part of this amendment in that it
>suggests a major change in the budget process as described by the Constitution.

>  Currently the Constitution specifies that:

> "Section. 7.  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."

>and this has been interpreted as saying that the budget process officially
>begins in the House. The president's proposal is nothing more than a
>suggestion. 

	Who's interpretation?

	The section clearly gives the House the authority to raise revenues.
	It says nothing about spending. The President as "the principle officer"
	of the various departments is responsible for the operation of the
	government and the attendant spending that goes with that operation.

	I suppose the President could send just the spending side of
	the equation to the House, basically saying "this is how much
	money I want". Then the House (and the Senate) could send back
	a statement of revenues, "here's how much money you get".

	But nothing in the proposed Amendment changes the balance of
	power.

Jim

  No, it could change the balance of power. 

  Right now the President's proposal is not in any way binding, it's nothing
more than a suggestion. With this amendment they are turning that proposal
into something with official standing much like a bill from Congress. Remember
the only reason bills from Congress mean anything is because the Constitution
says it does. This amendment could be interpreted as changing the line 

  "Section. 1.  All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a 
  Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of 
  Representatives."

  At the very least, if Congress does add to the proposal the Courts may favor
what the President has in his proposal when deciding what spending resolution
to declare unconstitutional since the amendment specifically points to that
document. That would be a significant change in the balance of power between
Congress, the President, and the Courts.

  George 

                     <<< Note 50.505 by HELIX::MAIEWSKI >>>

>  No, it could change the balance of power. 

	I don't see it that way. All it requires is that the President
	submit a spending plan that is in line with revenue projections.

>  Right now the President's proposal is not in any way binding, it's nothing
>more than a suggestion. With this amendment they are turning that proposal
>into something with official standing much like a bill from Congress.

	Nothing changes. Note the word "proposed" in the Amendment.

> Remember
>the only reason bills from Congress mean anything is because the Constitution
>says it does. This amendment could be interpreted as changing the line 

>  "Section. 1.  All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a 
>  Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of 
>  Representatives."

	Nonsense. A proposed budget is in no way "legislation".

>  At the very least, if Congress does add to the proposal the Courts may favor
>what the President has in his proposal when deciding what spending resolution
>to declare unconstitutional since the amendment specifically points to that
>document. That would be a significant change in the balance of power between
>Congress, the President, and the Courts.

	Nope. Nothing in the Amendment requires the Congress to accept
	the President's proposal. They can dismiss it out of hand if they
	choose and nothing in the wording is violated. 

	The wording does make sense if you think about though. By requiring
	a balanced budget proposal from the President (in his role as
	Chief Executive) the Congress does not need to "start from scratch"
	dealing with all the myriad details concerning departments that
	they do not directly control.

Jim

RE    <<< Note 50.506 by SEAPIG::PERCIVAL "I'm the NRA,USPSA/IPSC,NROI-RO" >>>

>	The wording does make sense if you think about though. By requiring
>	a balanced budget proposal from the President (in his role as
>	Chief Executive) the Congress does not need to "start from scratch"
>	dealing with all the myriad details concerning departments that
>	they do not directly control.

  Exactly right. Nor does the Supreme Court have to believe that the budget
process officially starts with Congress. Since the budget proposal is now a
constitutional document it becomes a fundamental part of the United States
Government and is every bit a constitutional document as legislation itself. 

  Remember, the only reason legislation or for that matter Congress itself
means anything at all is because the Constitution says it means something. The
fact that this is an amendment means that this process of balancing the budget
is just as fundamental to our way of government as the decision to have a
president instead of a king. 

  If that much significance is being attached to this budget proposal, who's to
say a Supreme Court faced with a renegade Congress that refuses to balance the
budget, will not give that proposal more weight and use it to decide which
spending resolutions to declare unconstitutional? What's the point of making
that proposal a fundamental part of government unless it is to be used to
resolve such a conflict? 

  With the exception of the Bill of Rights and the slavery amendments the
Constitution of the United States has only been amended successfully about 10
times. There is a reason for that. These amendments change the most basic
fundamental elements of our government and what it means to be a Federation of
States. That's why we should only pass Constitutional Amendments when there is
a consensus as to what should be done and we are far from having such a
consensus regarding the budget.

  George 

                     <<< Note 50.507 by HELIX::MAIEWSKI >>>

>  Exactly right. Nor does the Supreme Court have to believe that the budget
>process officially starts with Congress. Since the budget proposal is now a
>constitutional document it becomes a fundamental part of the United States
>Government and is every bit a constitutional document as legislation itself. 

	George, please take note that "the budget" is not a concept contained
	in the Constitution today. The Congress can levy taxes which raise
	revenues. But there is nothing detailing spending.

>  Remember, the only reason legislation or for that matter Congress itself
>means anything at all is because the Constitution says it means something. The
>fact that this is an amendment means that this process of balancing the budget
>is just as fundamental to our way of government as the decision to have a
>president instead of a king. 

	Correct. It would make balancing the budget a Constitutional 
	restriction on the Federal government.

>  If that much significance is being attached to this budget proposal, who's to
>say a Supreme Court faced with a renegade Congress that refuses to balance the
>budget, will not give that proposal more weight and use it to decide which
>spending resolutions to declare unconstitutional?

	If the Congress meets the 3/5ths requirement, as contained in the
	Amendment, the Court will do nothing. If they can not meet the
	3/5ths requirement then the budget must be balanced.

>  With the exception of the Bill of Rights and the slavery amendments the
>Constitution of the United States has only been amended successfully about 10
>times. There is a reason for that. These amendments change the most basic
>fundamental elements of our government and what it means to be a Federation of
>States. That's why we should only pass Constitutional Amendments when there is
>a consensus as to what should be done and we are far from having such a
>consensus regarding the budget.

	The amendment process is an arduous one. The Founders provided for
	amendment, a wise move, but did not make such change easy, also a
	wise move. The House has passed an Amendment proposal by the required
	2/3ds majority. The Senate will have its say next. Once that hurdle
	is passed, 38 states must ratify the proposal. If and when this is
	accomplished it would be logical to assume that a consensus HAS
	been reached on the Amendment.

	This, of course, does not imply that a consensus on the BUDGET has
	been reached. But that is NOT what the Amendment addresses.

Jim

|	The major difference is in the vote majority required to increase
|	revenues.
    
    3/5 rollcall vote to increase "receipts" in the defeated Barton
    amendment.  1/2 rollcall vote to increase "revenues" in the passed
    Stenholm/Schaefer amendement.
    
|	The wording on how the budget is submitted is one of the minor
|	differences.

    Actually, this is a major difference.  It introduced a brand new
    concept in the constitution - something that was not a law, but
    a "statement."  And it had the effect that all it took to adopt such
    a "statement" was a majority of Congress.  All that took to adopt
    a "statement" that was not balanced wat a 3/5s majority of Congress.
    
    THERE WAS NO PRESIDENTIAL ROLE IN THIS MATTER.
    
    This "statement" once adopted was quite rigid.  Understand carefully
    what this Amendment said.  Congress could not revise the statement
    to cut an outlay by $1.00 *AND* revise the statement to cut receipts
    by more than $1.00.  If recipets were cut by more than $1.00, then
    outlays by golly had to be cut by more still.
    
    
    Once the "statement" was adopted nothing could change this.
    No number of votes in Congress could revise the "statement," in
    such a way, no number of vetoes, no number of overrides.  Nothing.
    The "statement" became an stake in the ground that could *NOT* be moved.
    
    *THIS* was the flaw in Barton - and it was an important flaw.  An
    unchecked power placed in the hands of Congress.
    
    
|	They both have "bail-out" provisions that I'm not totally
|	happy with, and of course they both depend on forecasts.
    
    One explicitly, one implicitly.
    

    BTW, since it is left to Congress to enforce and implement the amendement
    with appropriate legislation, this whole amendment has just as much
    teeth as GRH's did.  See how well that worked.
    
    
    One last nit.  In time of war or imminent and serious military threat,
    Barton required a majority vote with a rollcall.  Stenholm/Schaefer
    requires a majority vote, but is silent on a rollcall in that matter.
    
    Ironically, or not so ironically depending on your (warped?) sense of
    priorities....
    
    The only other time that rollcall votes are required is to override
    a Presidential veto.
    
    Rollcall votes are not required to declare war.
    
    
    But, under this amendment, rollcalls would be required to pass an
    unbalanced budget, but not a balanced budget.
     
    Rollcalls would be required to raise revenue, but not to cut revenue.
    
    Rollcalls would be required to raise the debt ceiling, but not
    to lower the debt ceiling.
    
    Rollcalls would not be required to cut spending, or raise spending,
    or keep spending the same.
    
    
    And we haven't even started talking about the loophole in both
    amendments big enough to fly another 20 Stealth Bombers through.
    (See definition of "outlays" and "receipts".)
    
    								-mr. bill

RE    <<< Note 50.508 by SEAPIG::PERCIVAL "I'm the NRA,USPSA/IPSC,NROI-RO" >>>

>	If the Congress meets the 3/5ths requirement, as contained in the
>	Amendment, the Court will do nothing. If they can not meet the
>	3/5ths requirement then the budget must be balanced.

  Must or else what? What happens of a majority of Congress but not 3/5ths
passes an unbalanced budget and the President signs it into law? Then what?
Who's going to stop them from spending the money? 

  The court won't act on their own to balance the budget, someone must bring a
case against the government. **IF** they get past the hurdle of sovereign
immunity then the court will have to decide how to balance the budget. With
this amendment, the president's budget proposal has taken on constitutional
authority. Who's to say a judge wouldn't use that to determine which spending
resolution to strike down as unconstitutional. That would be a shift in
power from Congress to the President and the Courts.

>	The amendment process is an arduous one. The Founders provided for
>	amendment, a wise move, but did not make such change easy, also a
>	wise move. The House has passed an Amendment proposal by the required
>	2/3ds majority. The Senate will have its say next. Once that hurdle
>	is passed, 38 states must ratify the proposal. If and when this is
>	accomplished it would be logical to assume that a consensus HAS
>	been reached on the Amendment.

  Well it means that there is a consensus among Congress and the Legislators
but not necessarily with the people. You'll notice that Congress has the
option of submitting the amendment to state conventions instead of the state
legislators which might result in more of an indication of how the people
feel rather than how the legislators feel but they didn't take that option.

  George

   <<< Note 50.509 by PERFOM::LICEA_KANE "when it's comin' from the left" >>>
>        -< BTW, by adopting Stenholm/Schaefer, the GOP rejected Barton >-

	I just LOVE Liberal "logic". The Dems tell the Pubs, "We aint gonna
	vote for that one, but we will go along with this one". Since the
	Pubs don't own 2/3ds of the seats required to get the Amendment 
	passed they accpet the Dem offer. But then according to Bill, the
	result is the Pubs fault. Good one.

>    3/5 rollcall vote to increase "receipts" in the defeated Barton
>    amendment.  1/2 rollcall vote to increase "revenues" in the passed
>    Stenholm/Schaefer amendement.
 
	If we are going to nitpick between the two words, I feel I must
	point out that the roll in favor of the increase must be 1/2 PLUS
	one. A 50/50 split will NOT increase revenue.

>    BTW, since it is left to Congress to enforce and implement the amendement
>    with appropriate legislation, this whole amendment has just as much
>    teeth as GRH's did.  See how well that worked.
 
	The enabling legislation wording is boilerplate. The Constitutional
	restriction will exist with or without legislation passed by the
	Congress.   

>    But, under this amendment, rollcalls would be required to pass an
>    unbalanced budget, but not a balanced budget.
 
	No problem. If they want to circumvent the balanced budget, they
	should be on record.
    
>    Rollcalls would be required to raise revenue, but not to cut revenue.
 
	Same, if they wnat to raise taxes.
   
>    Rollcalls would be required to raise the debt ceiling, but not
>    to lower the debt ceiling.
 
	Same.

>    Rollcalls would not be required to cut spending, or raise spending,
>    or keep spending the same.
 
	As long as they balance revenues.
   
>    And we haven't even started talking about the loophole in both
>    amendments big enough to fly another 20 Stealth Bombers through.
>    (See definition of "outlays" and "receipts".)
 
	The forecast issue.

Jim

                     <<< Note 50.510 by HELIX::MAIEWSKI >>>

>  Must or else what? What happens of a majority of Congress but not 3/5ths
>passes an unbalanced budget and the President signs it into law? Then what?
>Who's going to stop them from spending the money? 

	The Supreme Court would have the ultimate jurisdiction. But we already
	discussed just how unlikely Court involvement would be under the
	Amendment.

>  Well it means that there is a consensus among Congress and the Legislators
>but not necessarily with the people.

	George, THe Constitution guaruntees a representitive form of
	goverment. More precisely defined as a Constitutional Republic.
	Our form of government does not require a majority vote of the
	people to amend the Constitution, or to pass ANY law for that 
	matter.

> You'll notice that Congress has the
>option of submitting the amendment to state conventions instead of the state
>legislators which might result in more of an indication of how the people
>feel rather than how the legislators feel but they didn't take that option.

	Try reading Article 5 again. The convention route is up to the 
	States, not the Congress.

Jim

    RE .499

    I do not recall any promise for a budget by January. I believe Kasich
    always promised March.

    The Penny-Kasich budget cutting bill that was voted down by the house
    last year *DID* call for cuts in Medicare. You are correct, the
    "cutting spending first" partial budget did not include Medicare cuts.
    He said it would not. He promised these in the full budget.

    Yes the Republicans use Rosy scenarios, just as Clinton does. You
    keep saying how bad the Republicans are....I admit they are far
    from perfect....however they are better than the Democrats. 

    Mr Bill...do you think it possible to balance the budget without
    either raising taxes on the middle class, or cutting SS or Medicare?

    Which party leaders refuse to do any of these? This gets me back
    to the question you refuse to answer....Where is your plan??

    					Ed

    

    Oh...I believe Mr Penny is a Democrat.

    rep 502.

>  I think the reason for Clinton's higher deficit is his middle class tax cut.
>Without that, the deficit would be closing. Clinton has learned the lesson that
>regardless of the intelligence of such a move, if you want to have any chance
>at all against Republicans you have to match them on tax cuts.

    Clinton's middle class tax cut will cost about 60B over 5 years. Without
    it the deficits over the next 5 years would average 190B instead of 200B.
    It's a drop in the bucket.

    The reason for the higher deficit is that Clinton does not have the
    guts to propose real cuts.

    					Ed

    George....
    
    An unbalanced budget can NOT be sent to the President without a
    3/5ths vote of Congress.  Therefore, an unbalanced budget can not
    get to the President for him to sign without a 3/5ths vote of Congress.
    
    If Congress fails to pass and the President fails to sign a budget
    (or be overridden), absolutely nothing different from today
    happens.  "No Money shall be drawn from the Treasurey, but in
    Consequence of Appropriates made by Law...."
    
    The government simply shuts down.  Congress will decide
    what sanctions to place on themselves or the President in such
    an instance.  Doubt it will hurt them much more than it does today.
    
    								-mr. bill

RE    <<< Note 50.512 by SEAPIG::PERCIVAL "I'm the NRA,USPSA/IPSC,NROI-RO" >>>

>	The Supreme Court would have the ultimate jurisdiction. But we already
>	discussed just how unlikely Court involvement would be under the
>	Amendment.

  They would only have jurisdiction if someone brought a suit to federal
court. So in the case where Congress and the President pass an unbalanced
budget with less than a 3/5th vote, who stops them from spending the money
and how?

>	George, THe Constitution guaruntees a representitive form of
>	goverment. More precisely defined as a Constitutional Republic.
>	Our form of government does not require a majority vote of the
>	people to amend the Constitution, or to pass ANY law for that 
>	matter.

>	Try reading Article 5 again. The convention route is up to the 
>	States, not the Congress.

  No, it allows an amendment to be ratified by state legislators or by
conventions in the various states:

  "...in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of
   this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the
   several States, or by Conventions in three fourth thereof,..."

  George

RE   <<< Note 50.515 by PERFOM::LICEA_KANE "when it's comin' from the left" >>>

>    An unbalanced budget can NOT be sent to the President without a
>    3/5ths vote of Congress.  Therefore, an unbalanced budget can not
>    get to the President for him to sign without a 3/5ths vote of Congress.

  Ok say the following happens. Congress passes spending resolutions for some
amount (let's pick $1.5 trillion) which is what the CBO estimates they will
take in by taxes. The budget is balanced.

  North Korea invades South Korea. Congress does NOT vote a declaration of war
but votes by just less than 3/5th to purchase supplies for South Korea. The
bill is taken to the White House and the President signs it. The president
orders the chairman of the Joint Chiefs to move supplies to South Korea and
purchase supplies to make up for those depleted.

  Who stops them from doing this?

  George

                     <<< Note 50.516 by HELIX::MAIEWSKI >>>

>  They would only have jurisdiction if someone brought a suit to federal
>court. So in the case where Congress and the President pass an unbalanced
>budget with less than a 3/5th vote, who stops them from spending the money
>and how?

	That's an easy one. Someone from the more than 2/5ths.


>  No, it allows an amendment to be ratified by state legislators or by
>conventions in the various states:

>  "...in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of
>   this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the
>   several States, or by Conventions in three fourth thereof,..."

	And the method for ratification, either by legislature or convention
	is at the State's discretion.

	There is NOTHING in Article 5 that says the Congress can choose
	how the states go about ratifying an Amendment.

	
Jim

 >  The reason for the higher deficit is that Clinton does not have the
 >   guts to propose real cuts.
>    					Ed

Don't confuse lack of guts with political posturing. BC is not in the leadership
position he was in the last two years.

He is leaving ALL the tough cuts to the opposition for the milling of political
hay later.

This may actually hurt him and the dems later on if the public sentiment remains
unchanged for the next two years.

But, manipulating public sentiment is what politics is all about, its just harder
to do these days.

BTW: BC and crew did a real good job of presenting their budget yesterday.
There were many areas not addressed but those that were covered where covered
well. I can't help but think that he would never had proposed alot of these
changes if the dems where the majority.


Doug.

RE    <<< Note 50.518 by SEAPIG::PERCIVAL "I'm the NRA,USPSA/IPSC,NROI-RO" >>>

>	There is NOTHING in Article 5 that says the Congress can choose
>	how the states go about ratifying an Amendment.

  No but they seem to decide anyway. From the joint resolution of the BBA as it
now stands: 

          "That the following article is proposed as an
          amendment to the Constitution of the United States, which shall be
          valid to all intents and purposes as part of the Constitution when
          ratified by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several States
          within seven years after the date of its submission to the States
          for ratification:"

  Notice the end of the 18th amendment (prohibition):

     Section 3.  This article shall be inoperative unless it shall have been 
ratified as an amendment to the Constitution by the legislatures of the several 
States, as provided in the Constitution, within seven years from the date of 
the submission hereof to the States by the Congress.

  And the end of the 21st which repeals the 18th:

     Section 3.  This article shall be inoperative unless it shall have been 
ratified as an amendment to the Constitution by conventions in the several 
States, as provided in the Constitution, within seven years from the date of 
the submission hereof to the States by Congress.

  It would appear that Congress can determine how a state ratifies an amendment
and it appears that they have chosen to do that in this instance.

  George

    
    BC was jawboning baseball, yesterday, but his team (Rubin,Rivlin,Tyson)
    were playing a different sport.  They went into punt formation.  While
    the budget didn't turn over, there was no return.  Call it a "fair
    catch".  Bob Kerrey,James Exon,Dominici,Kasich,Dole, and Rudman all
    came out grimfaced afterwards.  I kept hearing, "Not quite dead on
    arrival, but..."  Dole said, "It's on life-support."
    
    Play the Kerrey-Danforth game and you can see what has to happen.
    Diddle the tax rates, defense, the economy, discretionary spending,
    welfare.  It doesn't matter.  Entitlements win, you lose.  There is
    no way out but to raise retirement ages and all the eligibility ages,
    particularly medicare, and this is not far off, either.  You lose
    within six years.
    
    Americans are not being born, nor are they dying.  No fixed dates of
    eligibility can possibly stand under these circumstances.  The ages
    of 55,62,65,70 for all these things, written into law, must all go
    up on the order of 5 years.  Nothing else matters.
    
    Who will bell the cat ?  Old people do two things : get expensively
    sick, and vote.  Whoever saves the country will be savagely punished
    at the polls.  It is an argument for term limits, isn't it ?  If you
    are a career politician, how can you ever do this ?  A few in both
    parties are showing courage.  Notably, NOT the Prex.  Both Exon and
    Kasich indicated you need $600B over 5-6 years, and only entitlements
    can get you there.  But Clinton has specifically said he's against
    any cuts in them.  So Congress must go it alone.
    
      bb

    
    
    Pretty good analogy, George (I saw some flaws, the crime bill for one).
    
    
    
    Mike

RE                      <<< Note 50.521 by GAAS::BRAUCHER >>>

>    BC was jawboning baseball, yesterday, but his team (Rubin,Rivlin,Tyson)
>    were playing a different sport.  They went into punt formation.  

  I think this is a very good description of what happened. In fact we can
expand a bit on the football analogy. 

  For most of the 1st half of Clinton's administration there was no score. Last
summer Clinton drove down the field for a touchdown on Health Care but got
stopped on the 30 yard line and settled for a 42 yard field goal on the crime
bill. 

  The 2nd half started with the GOP kicking off and planting the White House
deep in their own territory back on their on the one yard line as the GOP took
both houses of Congress. The President tried to run with a middle class tax cut
but got stopped at the line of scrimmage. 

  On 2nd down the President went for long yardage with the State of the Union
Address but got blocked by O.J. Simpson who's trial drew attention away from
Washington. On 3rd down they ran a draw appointing a Surgeon General who had
performed abortions leaving them 4th and long on their own two. 

  So on 4th down, rather than risking the chance of giving the GOP the ball
deep in their own territory, the White House has elected to punt with a $200
billion deficit in their budget proposal. The GOP has called for a fair catch
and now has the ball in great position right around mid field. 

  Question is, what will happen next? As the White House sends their Veto Pen
defense out onto the field will the GOP go for a touchdown by slashing taxes
and passing a balanced budget or will they go three out and punt by passing
their own deficit ridden budget? 

  George

                     <<< Note 50.522 by HELIX::MAIEWSKI >>>

>  On 2nd down the President went for long yardage with the State of the Union
>Address but got blocked by O.J. Simpson who's trial drew attention away from
>Washington.

The lousy clock management didn't help :-)

daryll

    RE .521
    
    
>    The ages of 55,62,65,70 for all these things, written into law, must all go
>    up on the order of 5 years.  Nothing else matters.
    
    There are other ways around the entitlement trap besides raising
    the eligibility ages so much.
    
>    
>    Who will bell the cat ?  Old people do two things : get expensively
>    sick, and vote.  Whoever saves the country will be savagely punished
>    at the polls.  
    
    They are also very organized and have plenty of time and money to
    spend on issues that are important to them.
    
    As for savagely punished...I think it depends upon how it's handled.
    If the Republicans call for reasonalbe cuts in Medicare, and the
    Pres and Democrates, go along without much of a problem, then
    things could be O.K. If the start kicking and screaming, then
    one of two things will happen. Either the Republicans will get
    killed in the polls, or the rest of the country will wake up and
    bury the Democrates for not facing the issues.
    
    I listened to Bob Kerrey last night. He's chairman of the Senate
    Democratic re-election committee (Or whatever it's called). He
    said that if the Republicans call for cuts in Medicare, he *will*
    advise Democrats to run on this issue. He thinks it will be a great
    issue for the  Democrats. I was very disappointed.
    
    					Ed
    
    

    Worse yet, he fumbled and Newt recovered!

    FYI - Here is the congressional ratings for the Mass delegation
    as given by the Concord Coalition. The primary goal of this
    group is to balance the budget.

    The number is the percentage of their colleagues the lawmakers
    outranked in deficit cutting according to last year's coalition
    scorecard. So...the higher the score, the more the person had
    done to cut the deficit.

    Kennedy	15
    Kerry	38

    Blute	76
    Torkildsen	55
    Frank	40
    Kennedy	53
    Markey	11
    Meehan	99
    Moakley	31
    Neal	27
    Olver	33
    Studss	16

    
    Yes, there are other ways to address the age-income-redistribution
    thing besides eligibility, but none of them is any less drastic.
    
    We have a working group and a non-working group.  We legislate a
    redistribution from working to non-working which works.  Now the
    demographics change (over many years) so as to yield a much lower
    ratio of workers to recipients.  Something must give.  We can give
    each recipient less, we can tax each worker more, or we can try to
    reduce the recipient pool or increase the worker pool.
    
    Suppose you means-test.  How drastic does it have to be ?  The answer
    is, pretty drastic.  You knock out medical care over say, income of
    $40K/year - maybe a bit more.  To do it by means test alone, that is.
    And there are mixed strategies.  The trouble with means-testing is that
    you don't put people back in the worker group, so it is only one half
    as effective as upping the eligibility ages, so you have to set the
    test very low.  It becomes almost a welfare program, and now there
    must arise the question of whether it has a sustaining constituency.
    
    The beauty of raising ages is that it is equitable, if nothing else.
    EVERYBODY's benefits get reduced, but NOBODY's get reduced to zero.
    
      bb

    
    Oh, and by the way, you don't actually have to do anything this year
    except set the schedules for the out years, so people know that if
    they thought they could retire in 2000, it's now 2002.  (If it goes
    up by one year, one year out of every four years, you get there in
    time in 20 years.)  The CURRENT budget deficit can be handled out
    of welfare, defense, discretionary.  In six years, that is not true.
    By then, medicare passes over the "event-horizon", and its expense
    dwarfs all government, then the GDP, then the world economy.  The
    demographics is inexorable, but it is still quite a ways off.  Of
    course, in real life the dollars become worthless long before then,
    or else old people start dying more frequently, or something.
    
      bb

  Well there is one trend that could soften the blow a bit. If automation and
information processing continue at their current pace a much smaller number of
people should be able to produce the same goods and services that are being
produced by the larger work force today. 

  I saw a report once issued by the Rand corp that predicted that by the turn
of the century only 4% of the population would be involved in manufacturing,
down from 30% when the report was written. I believe that's a bit optimistic
but automation is allowing fewer people per year to do the work that took many
more people in previous years. 

  If that's the case then the smaller X generation should not have the problems
supporting the aging boomers that many predict.

  George

    
    Hey, there's a thought.  Let's see, George - we get to retire
    between 2010-15, right ?  COLAs, medicare, the works, along with
    our millions of buddies.  We can cruise the Carribean.  These
    hardworking young X'ers in here will support us, salt of the earth
    that they be...
    
      bb

  According to that Rand Corp report which I believe was around 1980, when the
nation was founded 94% of the U.S. population was directly involved in
agriculture and supplied most of their own food and traded with neighbors for
most of the rest. About 3% was involved in manufacturing with the rest other. 

  When the report was written, only 4% of the U.S. population was involved in
agriculture and 30% was involved in manufacturing with the rest in the service
sector. They predicted that by the end of the century the percentage in
manufacturing would be down to 3% due mostly to automation. 

  Today with everyone having a P.C., even service jobs seem to be getting
automated. In my girl friend Patty's law office there now seems to be one
secretary for every two lawyers (or secretaries working half time for one
lawyer) because every lawyer now has a P.C. Other offices I've seen also seem
to have fewer clerical people per professional or white collar worker and
automation is cutting down on the work that those people do as well.

  There is every reason to believe that if this trend continues, in 30 years a
much smaller work force will be able to do the work that's being done today.
Now it may well be that the work force will decrease faster than automation can
pick up the slack but then again maybe not. Automation seems to be coming along
at a pretty quick pace. 

  George 

    > Well there is one trend that could soften the blow a bit. If
    > automation and information processing continue at their current pace a
    > much smaller number of people should be able to produce the same goods
    > and services that are being produced by the larger work force today.
    
    Actually, that is the case today.  The problem is that there are a
    million different insurance companies and a million different health
    care providers and they all use DIFFERENT FORMS!  Add in a couple
    hundred software providers competing for the business and every
    solution has to be reinvented a gajillion times and there's no
    standardisation and no efficiency and no economy of scale.  Sure,
    information technology could become part of the solution, but that
    requires a more thoughtful redefinition of the problem domain.  Which
    is part of what Clinton tried to do, and hopefully, it will be part of
    whatever the Republicans try to do.  But I wouldn't hold my breath.
    
    DougO

  When compilers for computer languages were 1st being built in the 50's there
were few standards and in general there was confusion. Then in the 60's ANSI
started standardizing languages and things got better. For the next 20 years
more and more things got standardized and today you can't make money writing
compilers because everyone just goes out and picks up the latest GNU compiler
from the free software foundation. 

  Yes, health care forms are a jumbled mess, but I'm willing to bet that in
30 years those forms will be standardized and they will be handled easily
by servers on the information highway.

  It will probably happen sooner rather than later if it's done by the American
National Standards Institute rather than being part of a gigantic health care
reform system. "ANSI standard health care forms", kind of has a nice ring.

  George

    
    I take it that health care reform is, once again, dead for the
    foreseeable future?
    
    This could be a dissertation topic for sociologists: why health care
    reform can't happen in the US.

>.  Sure,
>    information technology could become part of the solution, but that
>    requires a more thoughtful redefinition of the problem domain.  Which
>    is part of what Clinton tried to do,

That's not the part the people objected too.

>   I take it that health care reform is, once again, dead for the
>    foreseeable future?
 
You'll see reform, but no takeover.

Doug.  

    re .528

    
>    Suppose you means-test.  How drastic does it have to be ?  The answer
>    is, pretty drastic.  

    Actually it does not have to be very drastic. Today we give over 
    70B in entitlement benefits to households with income over 50K.
    This is a good chunk of change. Further, this figure will rise

   
>    It becomes almost a welfare program, 

    It is a welfare program today. People who put a lot into the
    system get back little compared to those who put a little into
    the system. Not many people realize this
    
>    The beauty of raising ages is that it is equitable, if nothing else.
>    EVERYBODY's benefits get reduced, but NOBODY's get reduced to zero.
    
    No. this is not equitable at all. Today's retirees are getting far
    more out of the system than they put into it. Today's workers (for
    the most part) will get far less out of the system than they put
    into it. Your suggestion makes things even more unfair.

    I agree that ages should be raised, but benefits should be cut
    to the wealthy to reflect more closely what they actually put into
    the system.


    From .529

>   The demographics is inexorable, but it is still quite a ways off.
 
    Current projections show the Medicare trust fund to be broke in
    the year 2002 (or maybe 2000...I'm not quite sure).



    I expect that the Republicans will start by requiring upper income
    seniors to pay the full cost of their Medicare Part B premiums.
    This will be a small but meaningful start.

    					Ed

    Re .530

>  I saw a report once issued by the Rand corp that predicted that by the turn
>of the century only 4% of the population would be involved in manufacturing,
>down from 30% when the report was written. I believe that's a bit optimistic
>but automation is allowing fewer people per year to do the work that took many
>more people in previous years.

    So this is good???? As I understand it, it is these jobs that have
    been traditionally been the higher paying blue-collar jobs. You know
    the job that would pay you $30/hour for having little talent or training.
    These are the jobs that are going away now and are making the
    standard of living difference between the skilled and unskilled even
    greater. This trend will make it more difficult for the Xers.

>  If that's the case then the smaller X generation should not have the problems
>supporting the aging boomers that many predict.

    From Bob Kerrey on C-Span last night - If nothing is done to
    reduce entitlements. The federal tax rate on workers in the year 2030 will
    be 80%

    					Ed

>    
>    This could be a dissertation topic for sociologists: why health care
>    reform can't happen in the US.
    
    Probably because Americans expect and demand the best. This is
    simply not the case in other countries. They ration health care
    and we do not.
    
    1/2 of all health care cost is spent in the final 6 months of
    a persons life. Most all of this cost is spent in a useless
    attempt to keep people who are gonna die anyway alive for a little
    while longer. The most effective way to control health care cost is
    to stop providing this type of service.
    
    Talk about tough choices....even I would not want to make that one!!
    
    					Ed
    
    

RE                       <<< Note 50.538 by DECC::VOGEL >>>

>    These are the jobs that are going away now and are making the
>    standard of living difference between the skilled and unskilled even
>    greater. This trend will make it more difficult for the Xers.

  No it will make it easier for the Xers. Remember, there are fewer Xers than
Boomers so if they had to do the same amount of work that we do now they would
not be able to keep up. But if machines are doing a bigger chunk of the work
then they will have less work to perform yet they will end up producing the
same amount of goods and services. 

>    From Bob Kerrey on C-Span last night - If nothing is done to
>    reduce entitlements. The federal tax rate on workers in the year 2030 will
>    be 80%

  ...unless something else is done like automation which will make fewer people
able to produce more goods and services.

  George

                       <<< Note 50.537 by DECC::VOGEL >>>


>    Actually it does not have to be very drastic. Today we give over 
>    70B in entitlement benefits to households with income over 50K.
>    This is a good chunk of change. Further, this figure will rise

	That'll save about 20% of the spending, or about a third of
	the deficit.

>    I agree that ages should be raised, but benefits should be cut
>    to the wealthy to reflect more closely what they actually put into
>    the system.

	Whose "wealthy"? Bill's "wealthy" or the honest to God rich folks?

>    I expect that the Republicans will start by requiring upper income
>    seniors to pay the full cost of their Medicare Part B premiums.
>    This will be a small but meaningful start.

	What happens if you privatize SS, Medicare?

	At least "on the books" they have a $200 billion dollar kitty,
	with a bunch of money coming in every Quarter. Seems to me that
	a decent annuity funds manager aught to be able to do something
	with that kind of principle.

Jim

re .540:

>>    From Bob Kerrey on C-Span last night - If nothing is done to
>>    reduce entitlements. The federal tax rate on workers in the year 2030 will
>>    be 80%
>
>  ...unless something else is done like automation which will make fewer people
>able to produce more goods and services.

If fewer people are working, they'll have to tax them at an even higher rate!

    Boy, the last several entries have really been a treat.  Particularly
    the part about the wealthy not getting SS benefits because they
    shouldn't get more than they contributed.
    
    I suggest you look at the SS tables for the last 30 years and look at
    the maximum wage base.  I believe the maximum now is about $60K.  track
    that back over the years and you will see that someone could contribute
    the maximum and certainly not be in the rich or wealthy category.
    
    The problem is the whole SS, Medicare, Medicaid program.  It should be
    eliminated and people allowed to deduct the contributions they make for
    their own retirement, not the government.  Failing that, then people
    should get out what they put in, in the same proportion.  If you
    contributed a minimal amount, then you get a minimum amount.  If
    youcontributed the maximum you should get the maximum.  But then that
    gets to the fairness issue, and certainly no one want s to talk about
    fairness for the successful, just the non-producers.
    

Here's my idea of a Social Security System that will be balanced forever,
except for a holdover between periods that will never go out of control if
not messed with.

Everyone knows that Social Security is really a pyramid scheme where current
payers into the plan support those who paid in before and not their own
retirement.  Lets make this official.

The amount a recipient receives follows the same rules as now but rather
than the amount a recipient gets being in dollars the amount is calculated
in "points".  Every quarter (month, year, whatever) the total received in
Social Security taxes is added up and divided by the total number of "points".
Each recipient gets, in dollars, this number multiplied by their "points".

This means that every quarter's (month, year, whatever) receipts pay the
next quarter's payments exactly, yet still rewards people for paying in as now.
This is automatically inflation-adjusting, will never go broke, and in good
times (when lots of people make lots of money) SS recipients benefit as well.
On the other hand they suffer in a recession like everyone else, as payments
can go down as well as up.  But it won't go down by much barring a depression.
The quarter-to-quarter surplus can be eliminated by proper forecasting
(actually it'll be a small deficit/small surplus as the error signal of the
forcasts.  These will _not_ accumulate as long as the above rules are followed) 

    Re .541
>
>>    Actually it does not have to be very drastic. Today we give over 
>>    70B in entitlement benefits to households with income over 50K.
>>    This is a good chunk of change. Further, this figure will rise
>
>	That'll save about 20% of the spending, or about a third of
>	the deficit.

    Yes but the savings continues to grow. It's 1/3 of the deficit
    now, but will be a larger portion in the future. Note that no one
    (including me) is suggesting not paying any benefits to people
    making over 50K.


>	Whose "wealthy"? Bill's "wealthy" or the honest to God rich folks?

    Bill's wealthy. However I for many seniors, 50K/year is a lot
    of money because many of those who make more than 50K own
    their own home. With not mortgage payment, their cost of
    living is much less than someone whose 30 and making 50K.


>	What happens if you privatize SS, Medicare?
>
>	At least "on the books" they have a $200 billion dollar kitty,
>	with a bunch of money coming in every Quarter. Seems to me that
>	a decent annuity funds manager aught to be able to do something
>	with that kind of principle.

    All this money is currently being invested (in U.S. Bonds). Actually
    I'm not sure if money actually changes hands, but the SS administration 
    holds a lot of interest bearing IOU's.

    						Ed

    re .543

>    Boy, the last several entries have really been a treat.  Particularly
>    the part about the wealthy not getting SS benefits because they
>    shouldn't get more than they contributed.

    I meant to say that they should get benefits, but only to a
    level that reflects what they contributed (including interest of
    course).

>    
>    I suggest you look at the SS tables for the last 30 years and look at
>    the maximum wage base.  I believe the maximum now is about $60K.  track
>    that back over the years and you will see that someone could contribute
>    the maximum and certainly not be in the rich or wealthy category.
>
    Actually if you look back you probably won't believe how little
    money people actually contributed. For example in 1968 the most
    anyone could contribute in one year was about $275. 

    Yes it would be possible to contribute the maximum and not be
    earning over 50K. In this case don't cut the benefits.

    
>    The problem is the whole SS, Medicare, Medicaid program.  It should be
>    eliminated and people allowed to deduct the contributions they make for
>    their own retirement, not the government.  

    And how do you pay for the ~700 Billion/year without the contributions?

>    Failing that, then people should get out what they put in, 
>    in the same proportion.  If you contributed a minimal amount, 
>    then you get a minimum amount.  If you contributed the maximum you 
>    should get the maximum.  

    Well...in a way this is the way things work. However people
    who contribute at the poverty level will receive back 89% of
    their pre-retirement earnings in SS. People who contribute at
    the max will get back 19% of the max salary that was subject
    to SS tax.

    					Ed

    

    Re .544

    Gee...here I am in the Social Security rathole again.

    I sure wish Mr Bill would get back to me with the plan
    that balances the budget which he supports. Maybe there
    isn't one?? No that couldn't be it. 

    An interesting idea except that payments over time would
    be reduced because there is a growing number of elderly.

    And we all know that those living on "fixed incomes" scream
    like heck if they don't get their cost of living increase
    every year.

    					Ed

                      <<< Note 50.545 by DECCXL::VOGEL >>>


>    Yes but the savings continues to grow. It's 1/3 of the deficit
>    now, but will be a larger portion in the future. Note that no one
>    (including me) is suggesting not paying any benefits to people
>    making over 50K.

	There HAS to be an end to the growth at some point. That's
	the whole issue under discussion.

>    Bill's wealthy. 

	Bill's wealthy earn $35k or more per year.

>However I for many seniors, 50K/year is a lot
>    of money because many of those who make more than 50K own
>    their own home. With not mortgage payment, their cost of
>    living is much less than someone whose 30 and making 50K.

	So your plan is desinged to penalize those who have managed
	to be responsible?

>    All this money is currently being invested (in U.S. Bonds). Actually
>    I'm not sure if money actually changes hands, but the SS administration 
>    holds a lot of interest bearing IOU's.

	But the government does not list them on the debit side of the
	budget. A little fiscal slight of hand to make the numbers look 
	better than they really are. Seperating the fund would give us
	a much better picture of just how bad the REAL problem is.

Jim

RE                      <<< Note 50.542 by EVMS::MORONEY >>>

>If fewer people are working [due to automation], they'll have to tax them at an
>even higher rate! 

  Not necessarily. If fewer people are working due to automation costs will go
down, profits will increase, and the corporate tax base will increase even at
the same rates. 

  Think of the very long term. There will come a day when just about all
necessary work will be done by machines. Human work will hardly be needed at
all and people will be able to devote themselves 100% to arts, exploration,
research, and so forth. Just as 4% of the population today produces all of our
food, 4% of the population in the future will be able to produce all necessary
goods and services. 

  Will that automatically result in unsolveable economic chaos because the
income tax based on wages will decrease or will we just invent another method
of running the economy? 

  The wealth of a nation is determined by it's ability to produce goods and
services and in the near future even though there will be fewer workers their
productivity will increase resulting in an increase in GNP due to automation. 

  George 

    
    Well, Vogel (German bird ?), it looks like the Republicans ARE going
    to nibble at means testing instead of eligibility ages, at least from
    what I'm hearing.  Needless to say, it wouldn't be my choice - it
    looks like the old divide-and-conquer theory.  So they'll probably
    go your way.  It's better than nothing.  The important thing is to
    make a start.  No matter how they do it, they will get hammered.
    Even by those Democrats who know better.  Oh well, comes with the
    turf.  Majority parties get responsibility.  Better than playing
    defense forever.
    
      bb

    RE .548

    Jim,


>	So your plan is desinged to penalize those who have managed
>	to be responsible?

    My plan would be to give back to those people an amount equal
    to what they would get if their SS contributions were put into
    an IRA. If you wish to call this penalize, that's fine. 

    To reduce benefits on others would be difficult because many
    seniors may have made plans assuming that their income would
    be such a level. To reduce their benefits by 2/3rds could
    cause difficulty.

    I would also be in favor of one of the plans that was proposed to
    the Kerrey-Danforth(sp?) committee. The plan was something like -
    Reduce the SS COLA's to inflation - 2% for all seniors living at
    more than 3 times the poverty level. This would leave their
    current benefits untouched, but would modify future benefits
    to more accurately reflect their contributions.

    					Ed

    

    Re .550

>    Well, Vogel (German bird ?), it looks like the Republicans ARE going
>    to nibble at means testing instead of eligibility ages, at least from
>    what I'm hearing.  Needless to say, it wouldn't be my choice - it
>    looks like the old divide-and-conquer theory.  So they'll probably
>    go your way.  It's better than nothing.  The important thing is to
>    make a start.  No matter how they do it, they will get hammered.
>    Even by those Democrats who know better.  Oh well, comes with the
>    turf.  Majority parties get responsibility.  Better than playing
>    defense forever.
 

    What does the German translation of my last name have to do with
    anything?

    It looks like the Republicans will do both. At least they will
    try to address the problem. This is more than the Democrats can say.

    You may call it "divide-and-conquer" (Something the Democrats
    *never* do), but I suspect the Republicans will be much more careful
    than they were last time.

    For those of you with bad memories, the Republican Senate voted
    in 1985 to eliminate the COLA for SS for 1 year. If this
    had passed, I would guess today's deficit would be about 20 Billion
    less than it is. Of course the the Democrats in the house killed
    this, used it as a big issue in the '96 campaigns and the Republicans
    lost the Senate that year.

    It sure sounds like Clinton will veto any cuts in Medicare. Given
    this lack of leadership, the Republicans will have to be very careful, 
    and make sure any cuts they propose will be acceptable to the voters. 

    						Ed
    

    Since I caught up with this topic a bit late, I'm not sure if this was
    pointed out earlier or not.  SS is a self-funding program and should
    not even be part of the Federal budget as it is a separate program that
    generates it's own funds.  Get SS out of the general budget and you
    will see that the deficit is even much higher than it now appears.
    
    Next, make SS truly an emergency fund for elderly workers.  that was
    it's original intent.  I was not and should not be viewed as a
    retirement program.  The same goes for Medicare and Medicaid.  If the
    government wants to runa health insurance rpogram, let them compete
    with the free market and sell a product.  this would certtainly make
    people look at what they get, want, etc and what are they willing to
    pay for it.
    
    The tax code should be revised to encourage and reward people for their
    personal frugality and preparation.  Investments for retirement and
    insurance programs that provide for old age medical benefits should be
    tax deductable and all interest accrued tax exempt as well.
    
    In the meantime, the government should never be allowed to run a
    deficit except in times of military emergency.  Economic distortions do
    not qualify as emergencies.  For all of those who think Roosevelt ended
    the depression through his social spending, I'd suggest you read some
    of the econmic studies done of his programs and the real impact they
    ahd.  What ended the depression was WWII.  government spending only
    leads to greater dependency and a distorted view of the government's
    role.
     

    
    Ed - my German is rusty, and I wanted to make sure, so if we get
        into a tussle, I can aggravate you by toying with it.  Here's
        some ammo :  Braucher, in deutsch, = "consumer".
    
         I remember this (86 ?) SS COLA thing, and I bet Dole does, too.
    
         On the other hand, how can they bag it on the budget ?  If they
        could just get the gumption to do SOMETHING on entitlements.
    
         Unfortunately, since these ARE entitlements, you are correct
        that BC can veto cuts.  On appropriations, I think he can't.
    
         bb

    I'd be willing to give up all the money I've paid in to SS if the
    government would quit taking that money out of my check each week. 
    I'd rather handle my own retirement, tyvm.

    RE .553

    Yup!!

    RE .554
 
>  Ed - my German is rusty, and I wanted to make sure, so if we get
>        into a tussle, I can aggravate you by toying with it.  Here's
>        some ammo :  Braucher, in deutsch, = "consumer".
>
    Fair enough!!

>         I remember this (86 ?) SS COLA thing, and I bet Dole does, too.
>
>         On the other hand, how can they bag it on the budget ?  If they
>        could just get the gumption to do SOMETHING on entitlements.
  
    What I'm afraid of is that if the do *anything* the Democrats
    will scream and yell, just like they did in the past. The Republicans
    will lose big in '96, and nothing will get done. This is exactly
    what happened 10 years ago. Every time the Republicans show a little
    courage on entitlements the Democrats, instead of helping, use
    it to their political advantage. It sure looks like this is what
    Clinton has planned. Even Bob Kerrey said he would advise using it.

    To get anything to happen the Republicans will have to be very careful.    

    The other hope is for an educated and active public. This would
    cause younger voters to vote in force for those that want to cut
    entitlements, and may even cause some older voters to support 
    those who suggest fair entitlement cuts. 

    I can hope can't I??

    					Ed

RE                       <<< Note 50.556 by DECC::VOGEL >>>

>    What I'm afraid of is that if the do *anything* the Democrats
>    will scream and yell, just like they did in the past. The Republicans
>    will lose big in '96, and nothing will get done. 

  But wait a minute. We live in a democracy which in the words of the first
Republican president is suppose to be government "of the people, by the people
and for the people". 

  What's wrong with a system where Republicans do and say Republican things,
Democrats do and say Democrat things then the people vote to show their
disappointment or approval?

  If the people really and truly want a balanced budget, then those who push
for such a thing have nothing to worry about. The only way they could get in
trouble is if they don't carry out the will of the people and if that's the
case why shouldn't they get voted out of office?

  George

    
     One organization that makes out real well in the BC budget is
    that perennial favoraite of liberals (drumroll please)  :
    
                the Internal Revenue Service !!!!  (applause)
    
     The IRS budget will increase about 11% to $8B, with 115,000 high
    spirited public servants.
    
     Yep, the Democrats have certainly made the case for big government.
    
      bb

    re: .557
    
    We don't live in a Democracy...in fact, the liberals in the box yell at
    me every time I bring up a point regarding how the majority views
    things.  It would seem that the view in here is that the majority would
    quickly oppress those who are not in the mainstream.
    
    -steve

RE                    <<< Note 50.559 by CSOA1::LEECH "hi" >>>

>    We don't live in a Democracy...in fact, the liberals in the box yell at
>    me every time I bring up a point regarding how the majority views
>    things.  It would seem that the view in here is that the majority would
>    quickly oppress those who are not in the mainstream.
    
  From my DEC standard issue American Heritage Dictionary

  Democracy 1. Government by the people, exercised either directly or through
            elected representatives. 2. A political unit based on this form
            of rule. [from the Greek demos, "common people"]

  Republic 1. Any political order that is not a Monarchy. 2. A constitutional
           form of government, esp a Democratic one. [from the Latin respublica
           "public matter"]

  Now I realize that Thomas Jefferson tried to change the definitions of those
words so that Democracy referred to a town meeting type of government while
Republic referred to representative government but his definition didn't stick. 

  But feel free to check out another dictionary and see what they say. The
Latin and Greek Roots however will be difficult to modify.

  George

    We are a Republic, George. 
    
    
    Anyone else think we are a Democracy?

    Re .557

>  But wait a minute. We live in a democracy which in the words of the first
>Republican president is suppose to be government "of the people, by the people
>and for the people". 

    George, we do not live in a democracy. I believe the correct term
    is a representative democracy. There is a big difference. 

>  What's wrong with a system where Republicans do and say Republican things,
>Democrats do and say Democrat things then the people vote to show their
>disappointment or approval?

    Because many people will vote for what's good for them and not what's
    good for the greater whole. The Budget is a perfect example. People
    have found out that they can vote themselves money without ever having
    to pay it back. Such a deal!! The people who will have to pay the
    bills have not been born yet, and have no vote.

    It is up to our representatives to "do the right thing". They sometimes
    have to ignore the will of the people and do what is best for the
    country in the long term. 

    The trouble is when representative ignore the long term future just 
    to make themselves popular on an issue. Both Republicans and Democrats
    are guilty of this when various issues are concerned. When it
    comes to cutting entitlements, clearly something that must be done,
    many Democrats are famous for ignoring the long term good for short
    term political gain.

    						Ed

    
    Note 50.561

    >We are a Republic, George. 
    
    Democratic Republic or Socialist Republic?  :^)
    

    We're supposed to be a Democratic Republic...

    Leech, I'm with you on SS.  I didn't have any choice about that money
    coming out of my paychecks for the last 34+ years.  Since I'm 51 now
    and assuming I'll be able to work for the remaining 14 years until I
    reach age 65; would someone please give me a RATIONAL explanation of
    how SS is an "entitlement" to me????  I will have paid into the system
    for 48 years!!!
    
    There are loopholes that can be plugged.  Two years ago I was out on
    disability after disk surgery.  I was out 6 months, but due to the
    nature of the disability, Corporate Health Services assumed I would
    go into LTD.  Since I pay the LTD rate for 100% of my salary I wouldn't
    have pressed so hard to come back full time if it weren't for the fact that
    my boss was being pressured into posting a req for my slot if I went
    beyond the 6 month point.  Corp. Health Services made a point to call
    me at home to remind me to get all the forms filled out by my neuro-
    surgeon, especially the SS forms.  I almost came unglued.  When I
    inquired as to WHY any monies would come out of SS (since The
    Travelers calls it LTD _insurance_) I was told "that's they way it
    works".  To me this is an abuse of SS.  The LTD rates are considerably
    higher for anyone choosing to be covered for 100% of their salaries,
    so why should ANY of it come from SS?  If I had to pay a few buck more
    per week for the 100% coverage I would (almost) gladly do it.
    
    The rep assumed I was upset because I thought my benefits would be
    reduced when I am old enough to collect and she assured me they
    wouldn't be reduced.  She couldn't understand that I thought it was
    bogus for ANY money to come from SS.  If companies are allowed to
    tout LTD as "insurance", then the insurance companies should take
    their lumps if/when people go into the LTD phase.  IMO the set-up
    now has SS subsidizing insurance companies.
    
      

RE                    <<< Note 50.561 by CSOA1::LEECH "hi" >>>

>    We are a Republic, George. 

  I have no argument with that. Clearly we are not a monarchy. Well, there
was Elvis but that's something else.    
    
>    Anyone else think we are a Democracy?

  Who else do I need besides the dictionary?

  George

    <<< Note 50.565 by DECLNE::REESE "ToreDown,I'mAlmostLevelW/theGround" >>>

>Corp. Health Services made a point to call
>    me at home to remind me to get all the forms filled out by my neuro-
>    surgeon, especially the SS forms.  I almost came unglued.  When I
>    inquired as to WHY any monies would come out of SS (since The
>    Travelers calls it LTD _insurance_) I was told "that's they way it
>    works".  

	It is the way it works. The LTD carrier assumes that SS Disability
	benefits will be available and they work that into the calculation
	of the premiums. When my wife went onto LTD she was told that she
	had to file for SSD or her benefits would be reduced by the amount
	that SSD would pay. The carrier (Prudential in this case) continued
	to pay the 66% salary while the SSD claim was being processed (two
	denials and then a hearing before an Administrative Law Judge who
	approved her claim). SSD then sent a lump sum check going back to
	the beginning of her disability and she had to reimburse Prudential
	(minus lawyer fees). Since that time she receives 3 checks, SSD for
	herself, another one for our daughter because my wife is on SSD
	(please don't ask me to explain the logic of this one) and one
	from Prudential that brings her up to the 66% figure.

	The system is more than a little bit nuts, but it IS the system.


Jim

    
    RE .565
    
>    would someone please give me a RATIONAL explanation of
>    how SS is an "entitlement" to me????  I will have paid into the system
>    for 48 years!!!

    It is an entitlement to you in the same way it is an entitlement
    to everyone else. You meet certain conditions (you paid into the
    system), so you are entitled to certain benefits.
    
    The problem with the SS system is that 'till last year, everyone
    was taking out of the system more than they put into it.

    No one is suggesting eliminating entitlements. Entitlements are
    not a bad thing. The problem is that some entitlement programs
    are setup in such a way that they are destined for disaster....and
    few people want to admit it much less fix it.

    					Ed

    Ed,
    
    The point I was trying to make is that there are people taking out
    of the system who have NEVER paid into it.  It's being used to cover
    so many areas that it was never intended to do when it was enacted.
    
    It was intended to be a supplement at time of retirement, a fact that
    seems to be forgotten by almost everyone.
    
    I don't consider it an entitlement; as Steve Leech said I would have
    been more than happy to have had extra money in my paycheck all these
    years.  I could have decided on how I wanted to invest it for when
    I was no longer working.
    
    As with the LTD issue; I wish someone could point out to me where the
    original bill indicated SS was to cover such things.
    
    

>    I don't consider it an entitlement; as Steve Leech said I would have
>    been more than happy to have had extra money in my paycheck all these
>    years.  I could have decided on how I wanted to invest it for when
>    I was no longer working.
    
    	Actually, if you are going to get it in your paycheck, you'd almost
    	have to be REQUIRED to invest it for retirement, otherwise we'd
    	have all these people spending it durung their working years, and
    	when they retired would have nothing and would then turn to the
    	govt for handouts.  BHL's would then take it upon themselves to
    	formulate some new SS-like program, and we'd be back to where
    	we are today.
    
    	Even if your current SS payments were used for insurance (to
    	cover your dependent children and surviving spouse) and some
    	sort of long-term disability (to prevent you from becoming a
    	drain on the govt in these circumstances) and the rest put into
    	interest-bearing instruments at prevailing market rates, you
    	will end up with a tidy sum at retirement (if you make it that far)
    	that will pay you more than projected SS payments will today.
    	And if you don't make it that far, the insurance and disability
    	programs will cover your situation as well.
    
    	I'm all for such a plan.  I'd be willing to forfeit all the
    	payments I've currently made to SS, and any benefits I am
    	currently entitled to from SS, if I would be allowed to make
    	a quasi-self-directed retirement plan as I described above.
    
    	The problem with such a program is that the government will
    	want to get involved in what I can and can't invest in.  On
    	one hand I don't want that, yet I also don't want someone
    	blowing his retirement on risky ventures and end up broke
    	at retirement, with his hand out to the government, BHL-vicious-
    	cycle, etc.

    RE .569

    What you say is true. However, I believe these SS benefits,
    along with what's called survivor benefits have been around
    for a long time. They are also a very small part of the total
    SS budget. There has been quite a stir lately about children
    qualifying for what I think is called SSDI payments - cash payments 
    to their parents. From what I know children can be evaluated as 
    being learning impaired and qualify. However parents are telling 
    their kids to act dumb just to get the cash. I think I heard
    a story where once parents find out how to do this, they all
    go for it. In some towns 50% of the kids are on SSDI.
    In fact I think this is the fastest growing area of SS. 

    While cutting these and the benefits you talk about will
    help, it is still the big entitlements - SS, Medicare, and Medicaid
    that must be adjusted.

    With that said, I'll be out of the office for the next
    three weeks, so you folks won't have to put up with me
    for a while.

    				Take care all,

    				Ed

    
      The Senate debate drones on - Byrd reminds me of those battery
     commercials.
    
      Meanwhile, the House GOP "task forces" are recommending the abolition
     of, among others, the Department of Energy, the Department of
     Commerce, the Department of Housing and Urban Development, the
     Department of Education.   There is less here than meets the eye -
     several of these functions would servive in part as agencies - but
     there are cuts in the 50-100 billion/year range, plus tens of
     thousands of layoffs proposed.
    
      The Interior Department is likely to get off better.  It is widely
     viewed as well-run.  Proposed Agriculture and Labor cuts are not yet
     known.  The Amtrak subsidy is in deep doo-doo.  The CIA we'll never
     be told, but there are rumors of layoffs for the spooks.
    
      As to Defense, there is also less than meets the eye.  Most of the
     cuts have already been done (we are at a low since WWII, we have
     underpaid troops living in dilapidated housing, we have the wrong
     weapons mix, modernization/replacement costs are inevitable).  Both
     the GOP and Clinton-Perry proposals are for modest increases, not
     anywhere near Reagan levels.  The biggest fight is going to be over
     killing SDI (on which we've spent about $30 billion).
    
      Many other details remain unknown, including the biggies - welfare,
     health, etc.  Keywords : "Block grants", "vouchers".
    
      bb

    Wish I had a tape in the VCR last night; Rush read a list of some
    of the "pork" projects Byrd has garnered for WV.  Byrd got approval
    for a study of the potential of building WV a port in WV....the state's
    landlocked!!!!!  Just about everything else on the list was out-
    rageous as well.
    
    If the "pork" is cut off to WV, that will go a long way in balancing
    the budget all by itself :-)