Wednesday, May 2, 2012

I do believe that this calls for a Constitutional amendment.

I am appalled and disgusted by this.  Three years since the U.S. Senate has passed a budget?!  How the fuck has that been allowed to happen?

I propose a new Constitutional amendment, one in three parts:

1. The federal government may not operate in any form without a budget.

2. The federal government may not spend more than X percentage of GDP in any given budget year, without supermajority of voter approval.

3.  Any congress, House and Senate, which cannot pass a budget, are immediately terminated, with special elections being held to replace said deadbeats.

We, as a nation, cannot function like this, and continue to remain a solvent, sovereign political entity.  No more than can a family that makes $80,000 per year, and spends half a million per year, with no regards for the $420,000 per year shortfall. 

Sooner or later (and it's already later than many believe) the sharks will start circling.

8 comments:

  1. but, but, but, but . . . . . I am "Hoping" for a "Change"! :) It is pretty appaling Ms. H.

    ReplyDelete
  2. ...and we earn the government we deserve, as a nation. I'm beginning to think that's just about the truth, when you consider the levels of consumer debt, and the behavior of the occupidiot crowd.

    Sometimes I wish the franchise was limited to those with a non-government income. And yes, that includes not letting anyone working in almost any job at any level of government (city, state, federal, or anything related to any of the above) vote, with the exception of members of the armed services, fire fighters, and police officers.

    ReplyDelete
  3. I'd like to offer encouragement here . . . I can't. We had a town meeting with Sen. Grassley a few months back, he's considered a solid conservative. I shared with him, in a rather direct manner, he needed to stop spending money - period! I asked if the budget Republicans are circling around would spend less money next fiscal year than it does this fiscal year. mmmmmmmm - No.

    It seems like everyone simply ignores the simple fact that basic economic theory is politics free - things will balance out eventually. I suspect it's not going to be pretty.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. But economics is so hard to understand! How can he possibly make his constituents that depend on the generosity of government altruism that economics is what's at fault for less swill in the trough, not him? He needs that cushy job, you know. We can't possibly expect him to knuckle down and actually work for a living! He's a congresscritter--they're allergic to real life and real work, most of the time. Kind of like most college professors.

      Delete
    2. Good plan..BUT....who would pass such a law?

      Congress?

      End of plan.

      Delete
    3. Thing is, with Constitutional amendments, it doesn't take congress, but a petition being signed by enough people to put it to a vote in each state, then being approved by enough people in enough states. It's how Prohibition got passed, and would have been how changing the voting age got changed had the federal not seen the way things were trending and passed it.

      Delete
  4. I'll settle for an open season on Senators.

    Representatives with a smaller season. They can get voted out more often.

    What was it TJIC said? 1 down, 534 to go?

    ReplyDelete
  5. Y'know? That actually sounds like a good idea.

    ReplyDelete