Are some politicians finally listening? A proposal for a National Spending Cap - Granite Grok

Are some politicians finally listening? A proposal for a National Spending Cap

We here in NH are quite familiar with "Tax Caps" – like Prop 2 1/2 in MA as I was growing up, several cities here in NH had tax caps put into place by voters.  Why?  Even as THEY, the voters, have the ultimate control of voting out big spenders, once seated, there is little control by voters over the elected. A tax cap limits what the sitting officials can spend on (and thus, raise by taxes).  

Here in NH, where ever it has been voted in, it has generally been well liked by the voters afterwards.

Of COURSE, Progressives (in league with public employee unions) all over the state have BITTERLY fought against these implementations, and I can understand why – passage of such a "limiter" goes against ALL of the basic tenets of Progressivism which is that ONLY unbiased experts embedded in Government can successfully make life’s decisions for the rest of us, which really means:

  • the rest of us are viewed as mere dolts
  • the "experts" are generally NOT unbiased and share the "doltish" meme by definition
  • a fair number of experts is good, but more is better – so government grows

Thus, government grows and grows and grows – and takes more and more from its citizens and returns that money ONLY in ways in that it approves.  

Given the "steel reinforced concrete wall" that Obama is about to drive us into as part of his Determined Weakness scenario, there is now a new way of constraint":

H.J Res. 79 – a Constitutional Amendment

In effect:

Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States to control spending.

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 ten years after the date of its submission for ratification:

Article

‘Section 1. Total annual outlays shall not exceed one-fifth of economic output of the United States of America, unless two-thirds of each House of Congress shall provide for a specific increase of outlays above this amount. Total outlays shall include all outlays of the United States Government, except for those for repayment of debt principal.

‘Section 2. The Congress may waive the provisions of this article while a declaration of war is in effect.

‘Section 3. The Congress shall have the power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

‘Section 4. This article shall take effect beginning the fifth fiscal year after its ratification.’.

No effort to change the Constitution to simply effect change should be done and never should a change be lightly considered.  However, I do believe that the governing has lost the consent of the governed and a good deal of that angst has come about over the issue of spending money we don’t have.

To wit – for each dollar of spending, we have to borrow 42 cents – this is unsustainable and while it seems that all of the Progressives are "full steam ahead" and want even MORE spending and MORE control while it seems that the sane ones amongst us (casually referred to as hateful simply for being against Progressive policies), recognize this is unsustainable and no longer trust the politicians to self-restraining on spending our money.

It is time for US to put a "Nanny collar" on the spenders among the Nanny Staters.

Go ask your CongressCritters and find out if they support this resolution.  Then, ask if they believe that the governed are upset over their spending….

Remember:

WE can see November from here…

but a "figurative choke chain" might be helpful in the "in between times" as well (and yes, my dogs often behave FAR better than some politicians I know)…

>