Proposed House Bill would make deficits an impeachable offense!

The House passed its “no budget, no pay” bill this week to try and prompt politicians addicted to spending to restore some sense of fiscal discipline to the nation’s capital. Now, Rep. Mo Brooks, Alabama Republican, has proposed a bill that would make the failure of future presidents to enforce a balanced budget an impeachable offense.

The Hill reports that Protecting America’s Solvency Act, H.R. 371, would put stringent caps on Congress, forcing it not to spend more revenue than is collected. Provisions in the law could be amended with a four-fifths majority vote.

“I have learned from experience that unless there is penalty … there is a significant risk that the executive, or for that matter the Senate or the House, won’t do it,” Mr. Brooks said.

www.washingtontimes.com...

!

Imagine that. Another sensible bill that won't stand a chance. So humor us congress, and pass that bill. Dare ya! Ha. You think the Emperor would sign that if it made its way to the senate and passed?

Fat chance, and no way in hell. Forcing any accountability at the top? Forget it.

I searched Thomas, and it hasn't been registered yet, or so it appears to me. If anyone can find it, please post, but it will probably be a day or two.

Why didn't republicans propose this when a surplus was turned into a deficit???? Oh right....because that would have been Bush.

The only sensible time to pass such a law is when we are already in a budget surplus.

there should be llots more rules.. this sounds great i wish it would happen.

if you cant do the job right GTFO!

Originally posted by xedocodex
Why didn't republicans propose this when a surplus was turned into a deficit???? Oh right....because that would have been Bush.

The only sensible time to pass such a law is when we are already in a budget surplus.

Oh, I see. So the only time a president should be accountable is either when the GOP is in control, or when there is a surplus. Figures.

Originally posted by TrueAmerican

Originally posted by xedocodex
Why didn't republicans propose this when a surplus was turned into a deficit???? Oh right....because that would have been Bush.

The only sensible time to pass such a law is when we are already in a budget surplus.

Oh, I see. So the only time a president should be accountable is either when the GOP is in control, or when there is a surplus. Figures.

This bill should have been passed under Clinton.

Do you disagree?

Originally posted by xedocodex
Why didn't republicans propose this when a surplus was turned into a deficit???? Oh right....because that would have been Bush.

The only sensible time to pass such a law is when we are already in a budget surplus.

Budget Surplus? In 4 years? Where are you coming up with THAT from?! Surpluses under Obama aren't even on the distant, long term projections his OWN people produced.



Fiscal Year 2013 Budget Package - White House Proposed Version

You'll find that chart and a whole lot more within the 2013 budget link at the GPO page there. His OWN numbers show a 700 billion dollar deficit going into 2022! Surplus isn't in this Administrations vocabulary. Period.



That one shows where we've been for debt as well as where it's all going and broken down a bit. It's clear to see how it most certainly did grow under Bush...and may future generations curse his name for that too. However, it flat out exploded under Obama and the Presidency without a budget ......as the last formal one to pass into law was in 2009 ...and nothing in the forseeable future to change that. It's already too late this year. Maybe next year we get a real budget? Naww.. probably not. Why break a perfect pattern with following Constitutional budgetary requirements now?

* It's critical to note.... Those numbers were prepared by the White House and presented to the GPO for publishing before QE-3 and Operation Twist added another 85 BILLION...PER MONTH to the budget deficit. Thats over 1 trillion a year in negative numbers added to the top line of the first chart, to save everyone the math.

There was no surplus under Clinton, or any other president in the last 100 years.

It's called cooking the books.

Just like the deficit is not 1.7 trillion for 2012.
It's 7 trillion.
Shadowstatistics.com

reply to post by Wrabbit2000


Clinton passed a budget surplus off to Bush, he turned those into huge deficits he passed off to Obama along with a recession. Since Bush didn't include war spending in the budget, Obama did the responsible thing and included it, thus increasing the deficit even more, even though this was Bush spending.

Fact: Obama has increased Federal Spending by the lowest percentage in modern history.


I'm sorry, your Right Wing fantasy talking points only work on your fellow Fox News viewers.


But I'll ask you the same thing I asked the OP, do you agree this bill should have been passed under Clinton?

You know what, on second thought, this bill is pure partisan bullcrap.

Who passes the budget? The CONGRESS...originating in the HOUSE.

How in the hell is Congress, whos responsibility it is to pass the budget, going to hold the President responsible for THEIR failures.

So, disregard my other posts now that I have thought it through...pure partisan hackery on the Republicans part.

Originally posted by TrueAmerican

Originally posted by xedocodex
Why didn't republicans propose this when a surplus was turned into a deficit???? Oh right....because that would have been Bush.

The only sensible time to pass such a law is when we are already in a budget surplus.

Oh, I see. So the only time a president should be accountable is either when the GOP is in control, or when there is a surplus. Figures.

I see his point. Why now? And why are some applauding this? Partisan politics. What's wrong with America. This should be in place for the GOP and the Libs.

Originally posted by xedocodex
reply to post by Wrabbit2000

 

Clinton passed a budget surplus off to Bush, he turned those into huge deficits he passed off to Obama along with a recession. Since Bush didn't include war spending in the budget, Obama did the responsible thing and included it, thus increasing the deficit even more, even though this was Bush spending.

Fact: Obama has increased Federal Spending by the lowest percentage in modern history.


I'm sorry, your Right Wing fantasy talking points only work on your fellow Fox News viewers.

I can back every "talking point" of mine with solid and sourced documentation that does balance down to the dollar in the end. The end numbers as reflected in the above charts *DO*, in fact, include war time spending and it's a part of what pushed Bush's deficits but by no means all of it. Here is another piece of documentation for you on that topic.



This one shows in a much clearer way where the end-of-year budget deficit actually was per year. I cropped it from 1997 onward for space.



That one shows increases in the statutory debt limit. When they were requested, granted and by how much.



This one is a list of combined war spending out of the U.S. budget for Afghan. Iraq pt. I and II as well as Vietnam for comparison purposes. As this one is NOT in the 2013 budget package linked on the previous post, here is the source: Congressional Research Office



This final one is the combined, comprehensive U.S. Federal Budget broken down to Department and sub-section for a great level of granular detail on where the dollars have gone and are going. It's sorted on the 2017 column for total dollars expended per line item on the left. This shows very clearly where the dollars really shake out for cost to whom and for what. (Source on this is, again, the 2013 package with historic tables in spreadsheet format)

As far as "right wing talking points"? Your partisanship is showing and it's not pretty to see at all.

Hope all this helps..as it did take a bit of time to gather up from my archives.

reply to post by TrueAmerican


The proposed house bill should have been implemented years ago. However, the devils in the details. Knowing how slimy our representatives are, they will find a way to put a loop hole in the amendment so they can still have an option available to them to over spend.

Oh, specific to the bill being proposed by the way? This should not only have been passed a few President's ago....it ought to be ratified to Constitutional Amendment so NO future President can modify or exempt himself from it for any reason.

I'd be fine with passing it to fall on the NEXT President because it's the only way it can possibly happen in this climate ...if it's even possible at all. No one can know for sure who is running, let alone who may be favored for a win and history shows it leaning to a Republican in pure statistical pattern. So...this bill passed in those terms likely lands FIRST on a Republican. Won't he have fun with it. It's a necessary thing though and budgets weren't made to be broken unless bankruptcy is the point, IMO.

Spending more than your taxation intake is sometimes very healthy for a country and at other times (like wartime) an outright nescessity. Pushing through this bill would be like throwing the baby out with the bathwater. Your politicians should be persuaded to keep a better budget by peoples vote, not by impeachment.

Just politics. The budget is controlled by the House. All the House has to do to prevent a deficit is not pass a budget that has one. Blaming a deficit-ridden budget on the President is disinengenuous when the House has the final say.

Originally posted by michael1983l
Spending more than your taxation intake is sometimes very healthy for a country and at other times (like wartime) an outright nescessity. Pushing through this bill would be like throwing the baby out with the bathwater. Your politicians should be persuaded to keep a better budget by peoples vote, not by impeachment.

You know.... (grin) I actually like that idea. The reason is simple...the nation could kill two birds with one stone. Allow ONE exception to over-budget spending and that would be wartime costs.

However....here is the part the Presidents would cuss this generation for a long time to come over....

Write into this, as a ratified Constitutional Amendment (not a mere bill), the *ONLY* war spending legally classified under that exemption is spending to a Congressional declared war by the strict terms of the Constitution. If they want to bypass Congress as has been largely done since World War II? Fine....find a way to pay for it out of their own checking account, since Government rarely ever leaves any surplus of note.

This is a way to go...But Congress needs some "penalties" as well. Politicians in general really. From election fraud, to saying whatever is necessary to get elected, no matter if that is truly a belief they hold. There is also the problem of lobbyists, campaign funding, what we saw with the gun running scandal, etc. There needs to be more oversight for the whole of government. As far as this bill, I cannot really judge it until I had seen its outcome. It could be good, or it could be bad.

Hey, wait a minute. Isn't one of Congress's jobs is drafting a budget? The House, Senate, one of them i think.


Edit. Ah, nevermind, answered my own question.

Originally posted by xedocodex
reply to post by Wrabbit2000

 

Clinton passed a budget surplus off to Bush, he turned those into huge deficits he passed off to Obama along with a recession. Since Bush didn't include war spending in the budget, Obama did the responsible thing and included it, thus increasing the deficit even more, even though this was Bush spending.

To be fair, we didn't really have a "budget surplus" under Clinton, we had budget deficit surplus. In other words, rather than the gross federal deficit growing every year it was shrinking (total of about $400B borrowed over four years) and the gross debt:GDP ratio (which is the really important number) started growing in the positive direction. Net federal debt, debt only held by the public and thus excluding things like social security, did shrink by about 2% in 2000, but all other years it just increased at a very small rate (< 1%).

The debt was still there though and growing as deficit spending continued at decreasing rates. Still, Bush definitely shouldn't have treated that like free money.

budgets must start in the house, then be passed in the senate.

the democrat controlled senate has not passed a budget since april, 29, 2009

so they use the baseline set in the 2009 budget.
which means they spend the same amount every year since 2009 + 6%

the 2009 budget included the $787 billion stimulus,
so in 2010 you take $787 billion X 1.06 (for the 6% increase) = $834 billion
2011=$884billion
2012=$937billion

so thats $3.442 trillion more than would have been spent had the tyrants, i mean the democrats passed a budget.

In 1974, a Democrat-dominated Congress in the throes of Watergate passed the Congressional Budget Act of 1974. Among other things, the act established the Congressional Budget Office and codified the notion of baseline budgeting. A budgetary baseline increases about 6% per year. Any expenditure less than that 6% yearly increase is portrayed as a budget cut by Democrats and their media lackeys. One of the games played by Democrats under this law is the passage of stimulus bills. When a stimulus is passed, it adds immediately to the budget baseline for that year and then for every succeeding year. So the Obama-Pelosi-Reid stimulus passed in 2009 added $787 billion of new spending to the federal budget in 2009. It then went on to add $834 billion of new spending in 2010 ($787 billion times 1.06 for the 6% yearly increase); $884 billion in 2011; and finally $937 billion in 2012. Over the last four years, this totals $3,442 billion more than would have been budgeted through the normal process -- which is precisely why the Democrats wanted it passed as a stimulus. Read more: www.americanthinker.com... Follow us: @AmericanThinker on Twitter | AmericanThinker on Facebook

Interestingly enough, the 2009 Obama stimulus was not the first stimulus passed by the Reid- Pelosi congresses. They passed a $152 billion stimulus in 2007 when the democrats retook majorities in the House and the Senate. Another $146 billion stimulus passed in 2008. President Bush signed both of them. The 2007 stimulus added $1,060 billion and the 2008 stimulus added $823 billion of new spending through 2012. Add the three totals together and you end up with $5,326 billion of new spending based simply on adding a new stimulus to the yearly budget baseline and never removing them. That $5,326 billion ($5.3 trillion) represents the entirety of the new deficit spending under the Obama administration which has not had one of their budgets passed since 2009. So what do we learn from all of this? First is that the Democrats are bloody good at deception and fraud. Read more: www.americanthinker.com... Follow us: @AmericanThinker on Twitter | AmericanThinker on Facebook

so who are the tyrants???