This page has been archived and commenting is disabled.

The Soap Opera Just Got Very Exciting: Eric Cantor Will Propose Balanced Budget Amendment To US Constitution

Tyler Durden's picture




 

Well now things are really getting downright exciting:

House Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-VA) today issued the following statement regarding House consideration of a balanced budget amendment, H.J. Res. 1, sponsored by Congressman Bob Goodlatte:

“We are being asked by the Obama Administration to approve a debt limit increase. While President Obama inherited a bad economy, his overspending and failure to enact pro-growth policies have made it worse and now our national debt is currently more than $14 trillion. House Republicans have made clear that we will not agree to raise the debt limit without real spending cuts and binding budget process reforms to ensure that we don’t continue to max out the credit card. One option to ensure that we begin to get our fiscal house in order is a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution, and I expect to schedule such a measure for the House to consider during the week of July 25th. I have no doubt that my Republican colleagues will overwhelmingly support this common sense measure and I urge Democrats to as well in order to get our fiscal house in order."

As a reminder, while in the US most states have mandatory balanced budgets, the same is not true for the Federal government (a fact that US bankers slaughter calves to daily, out of gratitude that they can plunder future generations' cash flows while converting the NPV into non-extradition islands in French Polynesia complete with thermoregulated gold and Chateau Lafite 1990 cellars).

Should this law pass, it will mean that QE is the only option for future growth, as this will mean a dead end for debt funded deficit spending. Yes, it will benefit bonds since the US will finally start getting its insolvent fiscal house in order, and result in an epic collapse in stocks.

The soap opera just got exciting again.

 

- advertisements -

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
Thu, 06/23/2011 - 17:31 | 1396607 Robslob
Robslob's picture

Thank God

Thu, 06/23/2011 - 18:02 | 1396733 Lazarus Long
Lazarus Long's picture

we have a balanced budget amendment right now its called the debt limit. don't raise the debt limit the budget is balanced. this is just BS for the masses to fight over till the music stops.

Thu, 06/23/2011 - 18:09 | 1396757 bbq on whitehou...
bbq on whitehouse lawn's picture

Yep. That would do it. Cheers.

Oh-bye-the-way congresscritter you have 100k people in your district out of a job and outside your door.  Seems your districts, former TSA employees would like to screen you (for your safety) before you talk with your constituency.

Happy trails.

 

Thu, 06/23/2011 - 18:38 | 1396827 Old Poor Richard
Old Poor Richard's picture

Yup.  Holding the line on the debt ceiling balances the budget, just like that. JUST DO IT.

Wait for Cantor to introduce the "Balanced Budget Amendement" that flounders and dies just like the ERA, meanwhile boosting the debt limit 4 trillion here, 4 trillion there in order to continue funding welfare for the banksters and the military industrial complex--promising the balanced budget any year now...

Thu, 06/23/2011 - 19:11 | 1396899 blunderdog
blunderdog's picture

What's so patently transparent about this ploy is that the Feds haven't paid any fucking attention to the Constitution for decades, now we're supposed to care about some asshole's claim that if they add an amendment, they'll obey it.

How stupid could people be to care about this?  I mean really...

Yeah, that balanced-budget amendment'll be just as respected the 1st, the 2nd, the 4th, the 10th, etc etc etc etc.....

It's so funny I'm crying.

Thu, 06/23/2011 - 21:12 | 1397194 tarsubil
tarsubil's picture

You just see things for the way they are. No need to apologize.

When Republicans start talking about being fiscally conservative, I just hear a bunch of farts and shit.

http://www.southparkstudios.com/clips/388737/rated-arg-for-pirates

Fri, 06/24/2011 - 07:14 | 1397919 HungrySeagull
HungrySeagull's picture

Agreed.

 

Me too.

 

And I am falling over the coffee this morning.

Thu, 06/23/2011 - 19:40 | 1396985 BillyTheBlade
BillyTheBlade's picture

The debt ceiling balances the governments budget just as my credit card limit balances my budget.

Fri, 06/24/2011 - 08:08 | 1398014 Popo
Popo's picture

Exactly.  The debt limit should provide all the limits to budget that we need. File this under "circus" with the rest of government regulation.

Is the banking cartel still winning?   Yes.  

Next subject please.

Thu, 06/23/2011 - 18:44 | 1396839 Doode
Doode's picture

Budget can and should be unbalanced during the extraordinary events in history - WW2, severe recession etc. I want to see the exact wording otherwise the country might never be able to fight another real war and deal with worldwide catastrophies if the amendment is done wrong.

Thu, 06/23/2011 - 19:12 | 1396916 blunderdog
blunderdog's picture

I agree with this personally, I'd be vehemently opposed to a balanced budget amendment if I believed in a single iota of anything the Feds do these days.

But I don't.  They can pass an amendment that declares us all wards of the state for all I care.

Law which can't be enforced doesn't exist.  Members of Congress will probably be the last guys on the planet to realize they're no longer "in power."

Thu, 06/23/2011 - 19:34 | 1396944 Bad Lieutenant
Bad Lieutenant's picture

Yeah, agreed.  I don't see how they can reduce the amendment into something that leaves legit borrowing open without the whitehouse and/or congress being able to invoke exemption whenever they feel like it.  For example, we declared war on Libya right?  How about Iraq in the early stages.  Same thing except now that we'll just have Cheney 2.0 saying that we don't need to adhere to that budget amendment for the 'safety and security of the US' or however they decide to craft the language so they can exempt the amendment.

However, the real elephant in the room is that the deficit is currently 1.4 trillion give or take.  A balanced budget, as the zh commentary notes, would buckle equities.  I think this one sentence comment is a little underplayed.  Let's be honest and realize the kind of crash we'd see in cyclic-related asset prices let alone employment rates etc.  I don't see how the (banking) powers that be would let this thing even come close to passing.  I'm not saying the path we're on now is any better (on the contrary, we're of course setting the global economy for a crisis of biblical proportions), just that these congre$$people put up a show fighting over 10 or 20 billion here and there and now they're going to find $1.4 trillion to cut?

Thu, 06/23/2011 - 19:34 | 1396969 knowless
knowless's picture

sorry to piggyback so far up with OT comment, but;

NPR is soliciting questions regarding the debt ceiling debate, go here:

http://help.npr.org/npr/includes/customer/npr/custforms/contactus.aspx

 

put "debt ceiling" in the subject line, they are trying to formulate a show for next week based on user comments, critical mass on this could be useless or hilarious, you be the judges.

 

 

Thu, 06/23/2011 - 19:52 | 1397003 BillyTheBlade
BillyTheBlade's picture

agreed, but the way around the ammendment would be for the government to constantly maintain crises that "wouldnt allow for a balanced budget", therefore making the amendment as moot as "No State shall...make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts". 

Thu, 06/23/2011 - 22:10 | 1397308 topcallingtroll
topcallingtroll's picture

That would be really cool if we couldnt fight another war. Let the zionists fight their own wars and not drag us into it anymore!

World catastrophe? Let the rest of the world bear the brunt of it. Why should we always pay for everything?

Thu, 06/23/2011 - 23:50 | 1397480 Doode
Doode's picture

Make sure the next catastrophy gets your memo not to affect the US either directly or otherwise!

Thu, 06/23/2011 - 23:57 | 1397492 SMG
SMG's picture

Not Zionists, Illuminati.  Different religions.  Different people.

It would be great if we didn't have to fight anymore wars.  but I fear we are being set up for a large "useless eater" depopulating war with China and the like.

If a pitchfork and torch brigade ever gets going. The Illuminati (in the US people like Rockefeller, Mellon, Federal Reserve)  will be the people to go after.

BTW Do you enjoy working for people who ultimatly want to kill you and use the world resources for their own?

Thu, 06/23/2011 - 23:36 | 1397447 legal eagle
legal eagle's picture

Confident the GOP wants a balanced budget. LMFAO. Do we remember what GW Bush-wacked did to fiscal policy? Give me a fucking break. The problem is Neither party has a monopoly on Bullshit. Boehner voted For how many debt ceiling hikes? How many deficit budgets? Yeah, that is what I thought.

Thu, 06/23/2011 - 17:32 | 1396609 TX-Mike
TX-Mike's picture

WOOT..!  It will fail, but we should line up behind it regardless..  I'm calling my congressman tomorrow!

 

Thu, 06/23/2011 - 17:40 | 1396660 Rainman
Rainman's picture

.....save the call....even if approved these fukkers would redefine " balanced budget ". Deposit this in the theater file.

Thu, 06/23/2011 - 17:46 | 1396691 AbandonShip
AbandonShip's picture

Agree, they'll invent some off-balance sheet category that "doesn't really count" and stuff everything in the basement/attic.  Still, this deserves support.  It's in the right direction.

Thu, 06/23/2011 - 19:38 | 1396970 Hephasteus
Hephasteus's picture

Dissolve the fed. Screw off the bullshit never ending "interest" or it means nothing. It'll become clear that people are only here for providing free energy and "accepting" authority.

Thu, 06/23/2011 - 18:33 | 1396810 Whalley World
Whalley World's picture

I am sure if she could vote on it, Sarah Palin would "refudiate" the proposition.

Thu, 06/23/2011 - 20:41 | 1397118 Calmyourself
Calmyourself's picture

Obama would of course properly refute it.  Of course he would then promptly bow to it within the borders of all 57 states..

Thu, 06/23/2011 - 20:58 | 1397156 nmewn
nmewn's picture

...the teleprompter made me do it!...LOL!

Thu, 06/23/2011 - 17:31 | 1396610 qussl3
qussl3's picture

I dare you.

I double dare you back!

Thu, 06/23/2011 - 17:32 | 1396613 alien-IQ
alien-IQ's picture

Hmmm...July 25...that should give them enough time to actually READ THE FUCKING CONSTITUTION and realize how many things they are currently doing now that violate it.

but I digress...

Thu, 06/23/2011 - 17:44 | 1396668 economessed
economessed's picture

+1776

Thu, 06/23/2011 - 18:30 | 1396815 Re-Discovery
Re-Discovery's picture

ummm . . . the Constitution was adopted in 1787 . . so maybe the folks saying read the Constitution should ALSO read the Constitution.

Thu, 06/23/2011 - 18:54 | 1396861 treasurefish
treasurefish's picture

...ummm, yourself!!!

 

"1776 is the answer for 1984!" ~Alex Jones

 

So maybe the know-it-alls should not jump to ASS-U-ME (love that word)!

Thu, 06/23/2011 - 19:22 | 1396893 Re-Discovery
Re-Discovery's picture

God, get it right.

Especially if you quote it.

"The answer to 1984 is 1776" 

And dont give me this '+1776' answer refers to this.  It would make no sense if it did.  This was an 'a' and 'b' post, so 'c' your way out.

Thu, 06/23/2011 - 19:51 | 1397000 Shell Game
Shell Game's picture

Relax, R-D, that's some real knit-picking girly chit..

Thu, 06/23/2011 - 21:17 | 1397191 Re-Discovery
Re-Discovery's picture

I am a girl. 

Thu, 06/23/2011 - 21:29 | 1397226 tarsubil
tarsubil's picture

Skin to win.

Thu, 06/23/2011 - 17:54 | 1396703 Cassandra Syndrome
Cassandra Syndrome's picture

Like those who debase the currency should fry for their sins?

There's a Keynesian electric stimulus package for Krugman to glibfully write about in the New Dork Times.

Thu, 06/23/2011 - 17:58 | 1396730 yabyum
yabyum's picture

"pro growth policy"= tax cuts for the hyper wealthy.

Thu, 06/23/2011 - 19:27 | 1396940 carbonmutant
carbonmutant's picture

Janet the Neapolitan seems to be the only one in the current administration that has a use for the constitution.

Thu, 06/23/2011 - 20:00 | 1397031 binky
binky's picture

George W. Bush once said (in the presence of 4 republican senators), "Stop waving the Constitution in my face. It's just a Goddamned piece of paper". For a few, fleeting, transitory moments of bucolic glory, he spoke the truth and became a genuine scholar. 

 

Then thirty seconds passed and he was right back where he started.

Thu, 06/23/2011 - 20:39 | 1397120 Calmyourself
Calmyourself's picture

I have seen that stated as fact several times, any evidence of this occurring perhaps?

Thu, 06/23/2011 - 20:44 | 1397129 JLee2027
JLee2027's picture

It never occurred, just a rumor started and perpetuated by the left.

Thu, 06/23/2011 - 17:34 | 1396614 So Close
So Close's picture

Can't wait to see how this plays out.  It goes right to the meat of this issue at hand.  And so I must predict.. Fail.

Thu, 06/23/2011 - 17:39 | 1396637 So Close
So Close's picture

However.. this might have legs... and we can all legally feel better about going down the tubes....

Ron Paul and Barney Frank co-sponser a bill to end the prohibition on Pot.

 

http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2011/06/23/137372951/ron-paul-barney-frank-to-introduce-bill-that-would-end-pot-prohibition

 

Thu, 06/23/2011 - 17:43 | 1396678 Robslob
Robslob's picture

Again...Thank God

Thu, 06/23/2011 - 17:59 | 1396723 Rainman
Rainman's picture

Finally they see there's a pot of pot at the end of the rainbow. Legalize and put a solidarity levy on it !!

Thu, 06/23/2011 - 19:52 | 1397016 SWRichmond
SWRichmond's picture

Eric Cantor is born-again Tea Party.  That's the funniest fucking thing I've heard tonight.

Fri, 06/24/2011 - 08:56 | 1398118 Flakmeister
Flakmeister's picture

Nothing worse than a reformed whore....

Thu, 06/23/2011 - 17:34 | 1396620 treemagnet
treemagnet's picture

Since this is what I really want, this is what cannot occur.

Thu, 06/23/2011 - 17:50 | 1396705 Nels
Nels's picture

Why is this what you want?  What does it give us that is more than the current debt limit law?  Theoretically, we are already in a situation that requires a balanced budget, as they aren't allowed to borrow.

This is just smoke and mirrors, bait and switch.  The trade-off for simply allowing voting on this amendment (which won't finish for years, as the states take their time ratifying it) will be a higher debt limit, kicking the can further down the road.

Thu, 06/23/2011 - 17:54 | 1396717 JustPrintMoreDuh
JustPrintMoreDuh's picture

Yahtzee! 

Thu, 06/23/2011 - 19:29 | 1396954 treemagnet
treemagnet's picture

If it kills this ponzi I'm for it - yes, I must assume things, but you're taking me outta context - we want the same thing.  Its called wishful thinking, I allow myself a little once in awhile.

Thu, 06/23/2011 - 18:41 | 1396834 Dr. Richard Head
Dr. Richard Head's picture

This amendment would be but another on the list that are ignored at face value. 4th and 5th have been quashed, they are after 2nd. They sure love the 16th and 27th though and at least honor the 18th.

Thu, 06/23/2011 - 17:36 | 1396628 optionswriter
optionswriter's picture

Don't get too excited.  While it will likely pass in the House the odds are strongly against such an amendment getting through the Democratically controlled Senate.  More smoke and mirrors.

Thu, 06/23/2011 - 18:43 | 1396832 Re-Discovery
Re-Discovery's picture

Why/how would/can any Democrat vote against?  They voted for it at the state level.  Do they just admit they are fiscally irresponsible?  They will focus on raising taxes.

Thu, 06/23/2011 - 23:22 | 1397426 hardcleareye
hardcleareye's picture

I could see the argument being made that in times of National Crisis (wars, up raising, self defense, Acts of God, etc ) it is necessary that the government be capable of raising money via deficit spending.... and once you open that door up you have lost the integrity of the amendment...  if I recall my American history class correctly, from many years ago, Hamilton verses  Madison and Jefferson, the argument involved a National Bank and National debt owned and implied powers in the Constitution.....

Thu, 06/23/2011 - 23:34 | 1397442 Re-Discovery
Re-Discovery's picture

And Jackson ultimately defeated that interpretation.

The 'great' Lincoln bought it back.  Been downhill ever since.

Hamilton didn't win the Constitutional argument.  He won the realpolitik one.   Which is the only one that matters.

Fri, 06/24/2011 - 01:53 | 1397704 blunderdog
blunderdog's picture

This raises a nice technical point to mention...

Does "balanced budget" imply or *mandate* the adherence to a standard of "no deficit spending"?

Dubya's "budget deficit" didn't appear that significant.  The majority of his spending was off-budget.  Obama placed a great amount of military-excursion spending on-budget, resulting in a huge change in magnitude of "budget deficit" without having such a significant change in absolute level of "deficit spending."

If it weren't for the fact that Congress is made up primarily of lawyers, the common-sense understanding would be that a "balanced budget amendment" would actually seek to eliminate "deficit spending."

But it's become clear they're all a bunch of legalist "letter of the law" scumbags more interested in soundbites and re-election than any honest assessment of our problems, so of course we should call this initiative into question.

Thu, 06/23/2011 - 17:37 | 1396631 DoChenRollingBearing
DoChenRollingBearing's picture

Complete game, politics only.  I wish we could.

Still, maybe the Rs will up the stakes and force spending cuts before raising the Debt Limit.  I doubt it though.  The Rs get taken every time.  Unless that is the plan of course.

Thu, 06/23/2011 - 17:33 | 1396632 FunkyMonkeyBoy
FunkyMonkeyBoy's picture

The constitution is a well drafted set of guidelines...

Unfortunately, the constitution means nothing unless someone is willing to defend it and make sure it is applied. The average american is apathetic and lazy, and is easily pacified with a readily available cheeseburger or two... and US soldiers are too busy killing brown people somewhere for the benefit of big businesses ran by a bunch of old men... 'Go team!'.

 

Thu, 06/23/2011 - 18:23 | 1396781 breezer1
breezer1's picture

never nice to hear but sadly accurate...

Thu, 06/23/2011 - 18:42 | 1396829 Spastica Rex
Spastica Rex's picture

Zerohedge needs an up/down voting system for comments.

There, I said it.

+1

Thu, 06/23/2011 - 19:24 | 1396932 taxpayer102
taxpayer102's picture

@FunkyMonkeyBoy

+1

Thu, 06/23/2011 - 20:00 | 1397029 Blano
Blano's picture

I generally don't care much for some of your comments, but this one isn't too debatable.

Thu, 06/23/2011 - 21:36 | 1397245 Bringin It
Bringin It's picture

FunkyMonkeyBoy is top drawer.  Always on target.

Thu, 06/23/2011 - 17:38 | 1396635 LRC Fan
LRC Fan's picture

Non event. 

The constitution doesn't matter anymore.  Look at the TSA, the destruction of the dollar, and all the random police break ins.  All unconsitutional.  Even if the constitution did matter it's a piece of shit and I never agreed to any part of it, so they can fuck off. 

1. They will move a bunch of shit off the budget, such as "non discretionary spending" of all wars, self defense, social security, medicare, etc etc.

2. They will redefine anything and everything as they plan to do to the CPI, and already do with unemployment. 

3. This won't go into effect until 2013 at the very earliest, probably much later, and will be couched in the generic "expected to create or save "x" trillion in 10+ years.

4. By the time this goes into effect we could very well have a "new consitution" in place. 

5. Other countries or a new NWO will replace the US and that won't count towards this budget. 

Etc etc etc who the fuck knows what tricks they have up their sleeves. 

It won't fucking matter.  If it did, they wouldn't be rolling it out.  It's like Obama and his whole "bring the troops home" bullshit.  The troop levels in Afghanistan are still double what they were when he took office.  Big fucking deal, he's bringing home 30k troops over 2 years or whatever.  Such shit. 

Nothing more than extend and pretend, deny and inflate, ignore and fuck over everyone except the bankers. 

All that said, ZH fucking rules.  Just don't agree with this story...it just won't matter. 

 

Thu, 06/23/2011 - 17:40 | 1396641 DollarDive
DollarDive's picture

I couldn't agree with you more !! +100000000

Thu, 06/23/2011 - 17:40 | 1396646 Sweet Chicken
Sweet Chicken's picture

I like you.

Thu, 06/23/2011 - 17:47 | 1396679 alien-IQ
alien-IQ's picture

George Carlin covered this subject pretty damn well. I suspect you've seen it:

You Have No Rights (George Carlin)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hWiBt-pqp0E

Thu, 06/23/2011 - 17:34 | 1396636 DollarDive
DollarDive's picture

This Amendment will be so convoluted with exceptions, end arounds, and loopholes that by the time it passes it will have the bite of a toothless 92 year old (no offense seniors).  So it will be a balanced budget, unless the world is coming to a fiscal end in which case there will be powers to be granted to the Treasury to save our souls in times of crisis.  Meaningless BULLSHIT.  Never ending garbage meant to manipulate the sheeple with the aim of having us all believe that they are becoming fiscally prudent.  It all means shit unless the value of the dollar spikes and the stock market rises as the dollar rises.  Otherwise it's more smoke and mirrors.

Thu, 06/23/2011 - 17:35 | 1396638 tekhneek
tekhneek's picture

Yeah. This will DEFINITELY pass.

Thu, 06/23/2011 - 17:39 | 1396639 Ray Elliott
Ray Elliott's picture

I commend the noble thoughts about a balanced budget amendment.  Unfortunately, the horses have already escaped from the barn.  It is too late to close and lock the door.

There is no conceivable budget that can meet the government obligations that will "balance".  Instead of "what is the meaning of "is?", the new game will be "what is the meaning of balance?".

Thu, 06/23/2011 - 17:40 | 1396642 TheAkashicRecord
TheAkashicRecord's picture

Let us go back to the beginning and ask the question, how did The Consitution bind anyone (other than the signers at that particular period of time and the people they represented, at that particular period of time) to anything? 

Inasmuch as the Constitution was never signed, nor agreed to, by anybody, as a contract, and therefore never bound anybody, and is now binding upon nobody; and is, moreover, such an one as no people can ever hereafter be expected to consent to, except as they may be forced to do so at the point of the bayonet, it is perhaps of no importance what its true legal meaning, as a contract, is. Nevertheless, the writer thinks it proper to say that, in his opinion, the Constitution is no such instrument as it has generally been assumed to be; but that by false interpretations, and naked usurpations, the government has been made in practice a very widely, and almost wholly, different thing from what the Constitution itself purports to authorize. He has heretofore written much, and could write much more, to prove that such is the truth. But whether the Constitution really be one thing, or another, this much is certain — that it has either authorized such a government as we have had, or has been powerless to prevent it. In either case, it is unfit to exist.

http://jim.com/treason.htm

Thu, 06/23/2011 - 17:52 | 1396713 Commander Cody
Commander Cody's picture

The Constitution is not a contract.  It is the outline for a structure of government agreed to by the delegates of the states at the time (1787).  It establishes the expectation that the government that results works for the good of the people - all citizens.

I read the lawyer drivel in the link.  Waste of time.

If you think there is a better model for a government, then show us.  We'll wait.

Thu, 06/23/2011 - 18:19 | 1396770 zuuuueri
zuuuueri's picture

The articles of confederation weren't so bad. Except of course that they didn't leave much room for a central government, which really cramps your style if you're a megalomaniac politician, or a central banker.. 

 

 

Thu, 06/23/2011 - 22:58 | 1397392 hardcleareye
hardcleareye's picture

The folks that had to deal with Shay's Rebellion didn't share your point of view....

Fri, 06/24/2011 - 07:17 | 1397924 zuuuueri
zuuuueri's picture

ha! jefferson had a different point of view than that. 

how about the whiskey rebellion?

yes, there will always be some folks, even among those who are ruled, who think that the answer is always 'we need more power to force them to obey' 

 

Thu, 06/23/2011 - 18:35 | 1396805 bbq on whitehou...
bbq on whitehouse lawn's picture

Well the thing is that old constitution is apart of culture. It has taboos and accepted practices.

Its a guideline of thought that most residents of the USA agree more or less with.

Its a general understanding of philosophy, if nothing else.

It was the understanding of the principals and conditions and taboos of that document that were the pre-conditions of your birth.

You were born because of the conditions of that document.

Without that document you would not be. So do you hold now to those conditions under which you were created?

Are you, or are you not: Sovereign? If so then you need no document nor culture underwhich to operate, if not then you must operate under the conditions you were created.

If you have no culture nor conditions of culture then you need no state of operations nor do you have defense of such a state of your operations.

You see either you are a product and are beholden to that culture you were created under or you are not and have only yourself to: provide service to and ask service from.

See its not always about you. Or is it :P

Thu, 06/23/2011 - 17:40 | 1396644 American Sucker
American Sucker's picture

Pffft.  Who needs a budget?  Continuing resolutions for the win.

Thu, 06/23/2011 - 17:36 | 1396645 clotario
clotario's picture

Political theater....and it hardly needs to be said that if Bush II were still in office Cantor and his ilk would be chanting "spend spend spend! Deficits don't matter!"

Thu, 06/23/2011 - 17:40 | 1396647 Rainman
Rainman's picture

The WMD sent up from the House ?? And it makes all the sense in the world ?? Odds of passing GO are 99-1. Another $3 trillion in debt= 2-1. 

Thu, 06/23/2011 - 17:37 | 1396650 MyKillK
MyKillK's picture

I can almost guarantee that if this amendment is passed, most of the "balance" in the budget is going to come by way of tax increases.

 

You better hope to god this doesn't pass.

Thu, 06/23/2011 - 17:43 | 1396659 treemagnet
treemagnet's picture

How much more is there to tax?

Thu, 06/23/2011 - 17:45 | 1396670 Rainman
Rainman's picture

...zero, but there is plenty of room for a solidarity levy.

Thu, 06/23/2011 - 17:55 | 1396706 plocequ1
plocequ1's picture

I have no money. All i have is my chastity, My industry and my deepest humility.

Thu, 06/23/2011 - 18:46 | 1396835 Spastica Rex
Spastica Rex's picture

Bend over, then.

Thu, 06/23/2011 - 17:38 | 1396653 SwingForce
SwingForce's picture

This is terrible news.....Everything gets cut except Defense

Thu, 06/23/2011 - 20:12 | 1397056 Sunshine n Lollipops
Sunshine n Lollipops's picture

Defense (what laughable doublespeak) is THE sacred cow. Not only are defense cuts never enacted, they are never even mentioned or considered.

Thu, 06/23/2011 - 17:38 | 1396655 treemagnet
treemagnet's picture

On the other hand - someday, someway, something sudden will change the landscape.  Maybe the winds of politics shift at the right time for once.  This is me being positive, support it. 

Thu, 06/23/2011 - 20:15 | 1397064 Sunshine n Lollipops
Sunshine n Lollipops's picture

I'm with you, Biff! I've got a feeling we're gonna win this gosh-darn future!

Thu, 06/23/2011 - 17:42 | 1396656 agrotera
agrotera's picture

Nice work EC!!!!! As the Cable Guy says, "Get er done."!!!

Thu, 06/23/2011 - 17:40 | 1396661 caerus
caerus's picture

Doesn't mean much I think, similar legislation proposed but not passed in 1982, 1997, 2005...

Thu, 06/23/2011 - 17:44 | 1396664 bankonzhongguo
bankonzhongguo's picture

There is no law in Amerika anymore.

If you are searching for the legal permission to do anything, you're already finished.

You think GS, GE, TSA or Team Obama look to "the law?"

If anything, the bigger the crime the safer you are.

 

 

Thu, 06/23/2011 - 17:44 | 1396665 bigwavedave
bigwavedave's picture

Just kicking the keynsians down the road....

Thu, 06/23/2011 - 17:44 | 1396667 idea_hamster
idea_hamster's picture

QE = only option for growth
+
Getting fiscal house in order?

Sounds like a humidifier and dehumidifier duking it out in the same room.

Or (1+1/x)^x as x--> inf.

Thu, 06/23/2011 - 17:57 | 1396722 Joeman34
Joeman34's picture

?

Thu, 06/23/2011 - 18:35 | 1396816 idea_hamster
idea_hamster's picture

QE expands the monetary base, so is inherently inflationary.  Inflation drives yields up and bond prices down as lenders look for protection against falling future real cash flows.

Balanced budget means the total volume of UST is capped and will fall as debt is retired. Falling availability drives yields down and prices up as lenders compete for a(n eventually) dwindling supply of low-risk paper for collateral.  Also, all talk of US default goes directly out the window.

My point is that these countervailing pressures will have to resolve in a market price.  One drives UST prices down, the other up.  Alluding to a Richard Wright joke, it's like putting a humidifier and a dehumidifier in the same room and watching them "duke it out."

The formula is one expression for e, the base of the natural logorithms.  Take 1+1/x and raise it to the x power, and find the limit as x goes to infinity.  The term 1+1/x gets closer and closer to just 1, while the exponent (which increasingly magnifies any deviation from 1 in the base) goes to infinity.  The base and the exponent fight it out and the result is the constant e.

Thu, 06/23/2011 - 22:52 | 1397387 hardcleareye
hardcleareye's picture

Bullshit, you are not taking into account the other non linear variables like liquidity preference, monetary base size and velocity of money etc, these also drive inflation and bond rates and are interrelated.

Unintended consequences.....

Thu, 06/23/2011 - 17:46 | 1396672 BlackholeDivestment
Thu, 06/23/2011 - 17:43 | 1396673 rockraider3
rockraider3's picture

Cantor?  I thought it was Jim DeMint that was behind this?  That was my understanding from DeMint's interview on Glenn Beck this morning.  He even has a website for it:

http://www.cutcapbalancepledge.com/

And I didn't see Cantor as one of the politicians that pledged. 

Thu, 06/23/2011 - 17:47 | 1396674 DollarDive
DollarDive's picture

I say screw the balanced budget amendment.  

Let's start with Government Austerity; 

1. Eliminate 30% of all government workers, including defense. Department heads decide - 90days.

2. Force All past and present workers to pay 25% of their health care premiums like most everyone else.

3. Eliminate ALL government pensions - in favor of 401k's

4. 401k's wil have matching provision for up to 7% match.....PERIOD!

5. 20 days Paid Time Off (this will include all sick days / personal days etc).

6. 5 Paid Holidays 2 Floaters.

If we work on this list - we get it to Congress to have them start chopping now !!

Thu, 06/23/2011 - 17:47 | 1396675 Gubbmint Cheese
Gubbmint Cheese's picture

If US GDP = C + I + G+ (x-m)... and G goes from +$1.6t/year to $0.00.. then we should expect US GDP to do what exactly (all other things being equal)?

 

 

Thu, 06/23/2011 - 17:55 | 1396716 AbandonShip
AbandonShip's picture

"all other things being  equal" is the sticking point.  You already know the answer to such a simple question so why pose it? 

Now if we lose that rather Draconian assumption you tried to tuck away in parenthesis, when G goes down then C + I can go up...that's what Friedman says.

Thu, 06/23/2011 - 18:45 | 1396843 Spastica Rex
Spastica Rex's picture

I see what you did there...

Thu, 06/23/2011 - 18:04 | 1396741 infiniti
infiniti's picture

It would be a great depression, the likes of which most people have only read about.

 

If they phased in an annual cut of $250b per year, we could eliminate the deficit in a little over 6 years. Of course, GDP growth would be 0% over that timeframe and the situation might actually deteriorate due to structural issues like demographics.

Thu, 06/23/2011 - 22:47 | 1397377 hardcleareye
hardcleareye's picture

ROTFLMAF.... ++

Thu, 06/23/2011 - 17:44 | 1396680 Deepskyy
Deepskyy's picture

In a normal world, this would be akin to saying "ball is in your court bitch" to the democrats and Keynesian RINOs on the hill.  You could do all sorts of political arm twisting by hauling anyone who votes against this sucker out in front of a camera and microphone and demand they explain why they are against a balanced budget and fiscal sanity.  It would pass within days.

However this is not a normal world, this is Wonderland and Wonderland is one more fucked up place.  This will turn into more kubuki theatre and nothing will be done.  We'Re aLL a LittLe MaD HeRe!!!

 

Thu, 06/23/2011 - 17:48 | 1396681 JustanEmotion
JustanEmotion's picture

It almost sounds to whimsical. Reminds me of the age old adage "If it sounds to good to be true, it probably is..."

It could possibly be an attempt by the Right to safe face once the house of cards does collapse. *shrugs*

They at least would have the ability to say that they tried...

 

Thu, 06/23/2011 - 17:48 | 1396683 gwar5
gwar5's picture

OK Cantor, good start.

That'd be the proper way to change the Constitution, or, to find out who is really a fraud about getting the budget under control. Make all the votes on the record and if the vote doesn't fit, they ain't worth shit. 

 

Thu, 06/23/2011 - 17:49 | 1396684 Loco Vida
Loco Vida's picture

yow...............but what about making war and all that good stuff????????

 

MIC aint gonna be happy and either is the Babys Daddy

Thu, 06/23/2011 - 17:46 | 1396690 Cole Younger
Cole Younger's picture

Its not going to happen....it needs to, but it will never happen. This is a excercise in political vote counting to set up a Senate blow out for republicans in 2012...Obama will never let it get to the States for a vote as it would tie the U.S. hands and kill most social spending.

Thu, 06/23/2011 - 17:53 | 1396698 Loco Vida
Loco Vida's picture

Balanced on our backsides:

In all reality it just means our taxes will go up without the govt getting smaller and us retaining what little rights we have

Thu, 06/23/2011 - 17:49 | 1396702 Canaduh
Canaduh's picture

But, honey, I haven't cheated on you since the last time, so you know I won't do it again. Trust me.

Thu, 06/23/2011 - 17:54 | 1396704 Mr Lennon Hendrix
Mr Lennon Hendrix's picture

While ignoring the clause about Constitutional Money.  Brilliant.

Thu, 06/23/2011 - 17:51 | 1396708 SilverIsKing
SilverIsKing's picture

I'd be more impressed if he pushed for a Constitutional ammendment that makes it mandatory to uphold the Constitution.

Thu, 06/23/2011 - 18:04 | 1396739 JustPrintMoreDuh
JustPrintMoreDuh's picture

best sarcasm ever!

Thu, 06/23/2011 - 19:42 | 1396981 Hephasteus
Hephasteus's picture

LOL. How about a constitutional amendmant that says principal does not equal principal plus interest and never will. And to go fix crazy someplace else. Cause crazy doesn't want to be fixed. It just wants to be taken seriously.

Thu, 06/23/2011 - 17:51 | 1396710 LauraB
LauraB's picture

I'm all for a balanced budget amendment as long as it includes a cap on taxes (e.g. 10% flat tax).  They shouldn't be able to just keep raising taxes to meet increased spending with the excuse that they have to balance the budget.  If taxes are capped, then they will be forced to cut spending to balance budgets.

Thu, 06/23/2011 - 17:58 | 1396732 Caviar Emptor
Caviar Emptor's picture

They don't want an amendment. They want to bargain for income tax cuts in the top bracket

Thu, 06/23/2011 - 17:55 | 1396711 besnook
besnook's picture

they need to first pass an amendment that fed .gov has to follow the constitution before they pass more amendments.

Thu, 06/23/2011 - 17:59 | 1396715 spanish inquisition
spanish inquisition's picture

...with the amendment there will be some minor exceptions, 172 which can be added to pending unforeseen circumstances...currently we have if we are at war, in a state of emergency...et cetera ....... or need to wrap up quick for polo season.

To cure the exceptions we will propose accounting shifts, push backs onto the states for whatever we cant borrow under a 1 year time frame to promote liquidity.... 

now on page 318 of the amendment we have the non deficit pre borrowing provision in case of exception providing cure if pre borrowing derivatives strike split is negative..... 

Thu, 06/23/2011 - 17:59 | 1396720 Caviar Emptor
Caviar Emptor's picture

Cantor just wants tax cuts for himself. Everything else is a cover story. 

Imagine the outrage of the people who said "Reagan proved that deficits don't matter!!" And who think nostalgically about Reagan who tripled the Federal Budget deficit in only one single administration !!

Now that's what I call spending!

Thu, 06/23/2011 - 17:57 | 1396726 SamThomas
SamThomas's picture

No need for all the hoopla surrounding the long-sought balanced budget amendment, which would take years to organize and pass.  All that is needed is for the Congress to fail to raise the debt ceiling which is being debated right now.   Instantly, if the Treasury is unable to issue new debt, the government will be put on a cash-only diet:  tax receipts alone.  Cold turkey. 

Not that our beloved elected officials are likely to do this, either, of course.  Eventually, after sufficient histrionics, the debt ceiling will be raised, matters will continue along the accustomed course, until, like an out-of-control train on a steep downward grade, we careen off the rails into the abyss of national insolvency.

Thu, 06/23/2011 - 18:04 | 1396740 billwilson
billwilson's picture

Uhm ... some spending cuts, and some tax increases, and some cool heads, and they could make good progress. Unfortunately ideology trumps common sense in Washington.

Cut defense 25 - 50 %

VAT

Higher gas taxes

Tax carried interest as income

End Bush tax cuts

End corporate welfare 

 

Thu, 06/23/2011 - 20:31 | 1397097 HellFish
HellFish's picture

Just about the only thing the government is supposed to do is have a military.

VAT - on top of the income tax?  I don't need anymore of my own income.

Higher Gas taxes - Really, are you insane?

End Bush tax cuts - raise more taxes?

Corporate welfare?  We already have the highest corporate taxes in the world.

Are you European or Communist?

How about a spending cut?  Lower entitlements?

 

Thu, 06/23/2011 - 22:40 | 1397353 hardcleareye
hardcleareye's picture

Corporate welfare?  We already have the highest corporate taxes in the world.

<rolling eyes and shaking head>

Perhaps you should "educate yourself" on the the Gap Between Statutory and Real Corporate Tax Rates. 

Bill first words were "some spending cuts, and some tax increases, and some cool heads..."  Damn good advice in my book.

Thu, 06/23/2011 - 20:45 | 1397132 Calmyourself
Calmyourself's picture

Back away from the keynesian bottle Bill.  You better attend a keynesian anon meeting..

Thu, 06/23/2011 - 18:01 | 1396743 silvertrain
silvertrain's picture

grandstanding...

Thu, 06/23/2011 - 18:25 | 1396794 Re-Discovery
Re-Discovery's picture

who can vote against it?  maybe a few urban democrats.  and who in the senate?

democrats will say "oh goody, higher taxes" an republicans will say "oh goody, less spending". 

smart political move

Thu, 06/23/2011 - 18:02 | 1396746 kito
kito's picture

sooo anybody want to discuss the prognosis for pms should this measure ever pass?

Thu, 06/23/2011 - 18:50 | 1396857 Spastica Rex
Spastica Rex's picture

I have a big brown paper sack full of the most amazing valuable items, or so I've been told. I bought the bag under the stipulation that I couldn't look inside. I bought it for 5 million dollars and I'm told its worth 10 now! I'll sell it to you for 8.

Thu, 06/23/2011 - 19:15 | 1396918 InconvenientCou...
InconvenientCounterParty's picture

nope. Neither does Ron Paul. I saw his favorites the other day.

Empires need to acquire, consume, subordinate etc. When has any empire simply parked the chariots and acquiesced?

 

Fri, 06/24/2011 - 04:16 | 1397799 Jendrzejczyk
Jendrzejczyk's picture

One can only ASSume the PMs will continue to follow their long term trend lines.

http://www.kitco.com/charts/popup/au3650nyb.html

Thu, 06/23/2011 - 18:06 | 1396747 ILikeBoats
ILikeBoats's picture

Sure, open up the Constitution and allow the current set of castrati Republicans to do open-heart surgery because of an "emergency"; really sounds like a good idea...

Thu, 06/23/2011 - 18:07 | 1396751 monopoly
monopoly's picture

This is better than an old 3 stooges movie. Luv it.

Thu, 06/23/2011 - 18:04 | 1396752 Shameful
Shameful's picture

A big fat nothing burger. Lets say it goes in, and lets assume the wording is simple and does not allow for a lot of loophole play. So what? Who will force Congress to abide by it? The court has basically already stated we citizens have no recourse against congressmen that are in violation of the Constitution save to "vote the bums out", and clearly that does not work. There is simply no way to enforce it, nor would there be since enforcement would go to the congress itself ,which is misbehaving. All it would mean is Congress would gleefully and openly violate the Constitution with each budget bill, and demonstrate how above the law they are.

Thu, 06/23/2011 - 18:38 | 1396828 Vic Vinegar
Vic Vinegar's picture

All it would mean is Congress would gleefully and openly violate the Constitution with each budget bill, and demonstrate how above the law they are.

Based on that, I say let’s go for it.  I’m all about more transparency when it comes to government.

Thu, 06/23/2011 - 19:06 | 1396895 Shameful
Shameful's picture

Be careful what you wish for.  Do you really want a precedent that Congress can openly violate the Constitution with no available recourse and that the Constitution is officially a dead letter?  It's a dead letter now, but at least we can pretend.  Once that illusion fails, then so does the ruling class needing to hold back at all.

Thu, 06/23/2011 - 19:27 | 1396948 Vic Vinegar
Vic Vinegar's picture

Look at the issue of Constitutional money (among any number of examples).  It is a dead letter.  How official does one need to get?  An Executive Order?  A tweet from Jay Carney?

Thu, 06/23/2011 - 18:08 | 1396754 fonestar
fonestar's picture

Yes, a balanced fiat money printing system based on debt!  Brilliant! 

Maybe if they'd just follow the first constitution they wouldn't find it necessary to amend it or write another.

Thu, 06/23/2011 - 18:09 | 1396755 Caviar Emptor
Caviar Emptor's picture

US Gov Debt Outstanding: 

1980:   907,701,000,000.00

1990: 3,233,313,451,777.25

http://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/reports/pd/histdebt/histdebt_histo4.htm

Mr small government

Thu, 06/23/2011 - 18:11 | 1396765 King_of_simpletons
King_of_simpletons's picture

At 11:59 midnight these squawking aholes will shake hands and walk out with a deal to raise the debt limit. Same old same old drama.

Thu, 06/23/2011 - 18:13 | 1396768 pelican
pelican's picture

I still think the entire thing is going to self destruct. 

 

And to quote Jim Morrison again...

"I don't know about you, however I am going to get my kicks before the entire shit house goes up in flames."

Thu, 06/23/2011 - 18:13 | 1396769 bigwavedave
bigwavedave's picture

america is fucked. face it. for years now it has been like a past-his-prime heavweight boxer pretending to still be #1 cod-damnit! 

Thu, 06/23/2011 - 22:09 | 1397297 topcallingtroll
topcallingtroll's picture

He may be past his prime and getting pudgy and bald, but i still dont see anyone out there willing to go toe to toe with him.

Thu, 06/23/2011 - 18:15 | 1396774 bigmikeO
bigmikeO's picture

A Constitutional Amendment to balance the budget would rock, even if dumb-ass liberals don't believe in the Constitution. No revenue, no spending. Works in my life, my state, should be the same for my country.

Thu, 06/23/2011 - 18:32 | 1396808 jplotinus
jplotinus's picture

The US has nothing in the way of a 'liberal' political tradition, much less liberal policy orientation. What has failed is a hyper-capitalistic state where there exists less than a handful of actual socialists elected to any governmental office, federal or state.

There is no socialism in the US now or at anytime in the past, ever. What passes for liberal is merely a quadrant of corporatist capitalism. That is all there is in the US.

Blaming 'liberals' for over-spending is pure propaganda. The tax rate on wealthy people has been cut by more than 2/3rds since the 1950s. The claim that tax cuts creates jobs and increases destroys them is not based on any rational, provable claim. What statistical inputs there are that point in that direction are not accepted as valid among statistical professionals. Thus, the claim, itself, is political propaganda, pure and simple.

In case it is not clear, to the extent the US economy crashed as a result of overspending, that spending consisted in outlays for warring and preparations for warring. One cannot acknowledge on the one hand that the US outspends the rest of the world, combined, on warring, while not recognizing that is unsustainable, on the other. The pretense that living standards are not jeopardized by the hammerlock that the MIC, and its banker branch, have on the US, on its policies, procedures, mindset, outlook and demeanor, is absurd in the uttermost.

There is nothing liberal about the Democricans, let alone the Republicrats. Neither are liberal, nor are their policies.

Thu, 06/23/2011 - 22:14 | 1397316 hardcleareye
hardcleareye's picture

Could not have said it better myself.  ++

Thu, 06/23/2011 - 18:16 | 1396775 jplotinus
jplotinus's picture

Useless theatre. Even if passed, and so what if it is or isn't, it will take a lot longer than the next several months to get ratification of a constitutional amendment amongst the states. Last I looked, it isn't exactly clear how the US will avoid a debt default and a cascading, global financial meltdown between now and, say, mid-October.

if the US dollar ceases to function as an easily convertible, trusted fiat currency, then, it's Katy bar the door in terms of all that is considered normal.

The likely outcomes are draconian police-state, marshall law procedures, food and fuel rationing and a lot fewer games on teevee. Oh no!

Thu, 06/23/2011 - 18:18 | 1396780 bigwavedave
bigwavedave's picture

"a lot fewer games on teevee"

you dont think we will see a version of the first reality tv show? 'the running man'?

Thu, 06/23/2011 - 18:21 | 1396784 pelican
pelican's picture

I have that feeling too.  If not Oct, then within the next few years.  I am in the process of eemptying my 401k.  Even if it doesn't come apart, the compound interest myth of the 401k is nonsense.

 

 

Do NOT follow this link or you will be banned from the site!