Balanced budget ammendments to constitution
James Douglas Del Vecchio
This is partialy a response to the "collapse of the US economy"
thread in alt.individualism.
The gist of the thread is that the US Government's debt to its creditors
can only be overcome through either hyperinflation or a bankruptcy of
the Federal government. Even a balanced budget is useless now, its
too late, alledge some posters. $15,000 per capita is what the debt sits
at now, per one poster, money that can only be paid with taxes or inflation.
The only thing that could fix it is a large Federal gvt budget _surplus_ for
dozens of consecutive years, an expectation as unlikely as that of having a
solar eclipse in Washington DC for dozens of consecutive years.
Proposal for Ammendment:
The Congress of the United States of America may only be
paid out of a revenue surplus. The members of congress shall receive
no pay during the years that there is a budget deficit.
I would like to have it as simple and short as it can be, one or two
sentences if possible.
I also started wondering about all the other tax
dollars that are indirectly spend on the congressmen: on franking, on the-
ir personal staff, and the general staff of the house and senate, on their
expense accounts, free travel privelages, reserved spaces at the aiprort,
private health club, etc. etc. I'm sure these things come to many times
their salaries. It might be good if these too were tied to a balanced bu-
dget, and could only be paid for out of a revenue surplus, after everything
else was already paid for. In effect, their own salries and bennifits would
be the _last_ thing in any budget, not the first, and they could not put the
government into debt to pay for them.
If this were the case, then the only way they could really _be_ Senators
and housemembers, and enjoy the fruits of their position, is to pass a bal-
anced budget. On the years that they fail to pass a balanced budget, the
individual members of the House and Senate would think: "Oh shit! time to
go home.". The House and Senate would basicly close down, and unless they
wanted to meet in a Holiday Inn or something, and pay for it themselves, many
of them would just go home until the next budget. There would be no place
for them in Washington.
The less exreme approach might be better, that the salraries are the only
thing at stake, not the benifits. I might exclude freshmen congresmen
from this during their first year, because they never got a chance to vote
on the budget for that year. Some people might object to this exception.
Another idea, is just a rule that the pay of individual congresmen was
contingent on whether that congresman _voted_ for a balanced budget. If
a deficit budget is passed, the congressmen who vote for it would not
be paid during the year that the budget is in effect, while the ones
who opposed it would still get their pay.
The simpler the better, I think. Just a "no pay for anyone (in congress)
except during years of budget surplus", would be best.
Does anyone think this would turn the budgeting process around? It could
be that there are enough congressmen who get so much lobby money that losing
a mere $125,000 wouldn't phase them, but I find that hard to imagine.
Jim Del Vecchio
m.e.lawrence
>Proposal for Ammendment:
>
> The Congress of the United States of America may only be
>paid out of a revenue surplus. The members of congress shall receive
>no pay during the years that there is a budget deficit.
Whatcha wanna bet that the surplus would be equal to the amount needed
for the salaries + $1 more often than not?
--
"You know, you have to be careful not to get yourself locked into this open
systems stuff." -- anonymous IBM account exec
$B!J%^!<%/!&%i%l%s%9!K(B
Robert Gerovski
>In article <1992Jan2.2...@henson.cc.wwu.edu> n902...@henson.cc.wwu.edu (James Douglas Del Vecchio) writes:
>>Proposal for Ammendment:
>>
>> The Congress of the United States of America may only be
>>paid out of a revenue surplus. The members of congress shall receive
>>no pay during the years that there is a budget deficit.
>
>
>Whatcha wanna bet that the surplus would be equal to the amount needed
>for the salaries + $1 more often than not?
That could be fixed with the following proposal:
The Congress of the United States of America shall be paid such that
each member of Congress receives an equal share of 10% of a revenue surplus.
The members of Congress shall reeceive no compensation during years that
there is a budget deficit.
And it's still two sentences!
--
Robert
Gordon Burditt
>>>paid out of a revenue surplus. The members of congress shall receive
>>>no pay during the years that there is a budget deficit.
>>
>>
>>Whatcha wanna bet that the surplus would be equal to the amount needed
>>for the salaries + $1 more often than not?
>
>That could be fixed with the following proposal:
>
> The Congress of the United States of America shall be paid such that
>each member of Congress receives an equal share of 10% of a revenue surplus.
>The members of Congress shall reeceive no compensation during years that
>there is a budget deficit.
In which case, the Congress will arrange to have a surplus every other
year, by such techniques as paying for things a year in advance or
a year later. Eventually, they will perfect it by arranging to have
all the spending in odd years, and all the revenues in even years.
> The Congress of the United States of America shall be paid such that
>each member of Congress receives an equal share of 10% of a revenue surplus.
To this I would add:
The members of Congress shall be charged an equal share of 110% of a revenue
deficit. Members of Congress who have not paid up shall not be allowed to
quit, leave their seat in Congress, urinate off-camera or die. RICO laws
may be used to confiscate all property of an unpaid member of Congress,
including the clothes they are wearing.
Revenues count when they are due _and_ collected.
Expenses count when the funds are committed _or_ paid.
Deficits carry over to the next year, with interest.
Surpluses do not carry over to the next year.
Gordon L. Burditt
sneaky.lonestar.org!gordon
Dr. Laurence Leff
>>>> The Congress of the United States of America may only be
>>>>paid out of a revenue surplus. The members of congress shall receive
>>>>no pay during the years that there is a budget deficit.
I posted a much simpler solution to this whole problem a month or two
ago.
Each year, people will vote a -5 to +5 increase in each tax rate, i.e.,
tarriffs and each of the three tax brackets. The median of the
increases or decreases would determine the new rate. Thus, the rates
of taxes would migrate towards an amount that as many people want
more taxes as want less taxes.
Congress would list priorities for the expenditures. Each congressman
could vote for as many of the expenditures as he or she felt important,
e.g.
n million for homing the homeless
m million for paying Congress
z billion for defense
etc.
These would be arranged in priority order by number of votes.
As dollars come in, they would go to the highest priority item until
the limit for it is hit. Then tax dollars would go to the next
highest priority item, etc.
Let's say all the congress people vote that Congress should be paid.
Then Congress would be paid first.
Then let's say 434 Congresspeople vote for homing the homeless.
Then after enough dollars come in to pay Congress, the homeless would
be homed until m million would be spent.
Then, the defense would be taken care of up to z billion dollars.
In practice, there would be different projects and rates for each
item.
I.E. there might be
m million to pay each Congressperson 10,000 per year
n million to home the homeless
p million to add another 10,000 per year to each Congressperson's salary
q million to dfend the nation
r millionto add another 10,000 per year to Each Congressperson's salary
etc.
If the problem is that you didn't think that Congresspeople could wisely
choose to spend money, then the solution is to allow each individual
to earmark his share of the federal budget to different categories.
Congress would only get to spend those shares belong to eligible voters
who didn't vote.
In other words, if you are apathetic and don't vote your share of the
federal budget, Congress gets to spend it.