History Facts: Economy, Taxation, and Integrity

History Facts:

Economy, Taxation, and Integrity

Calvin Coolidge represents the exact opposite of Left-wing politics.. Coolidge had integrity. He deserves a lot more respect than he ever got. ~C.A. Davidson

“Reprinted by permission from Imprimis, a publication of Hillsdale College.”

key“We must have no carelessness in our dealings with public property or the expenditure of public money. Such a condition is characteristic of undeveloped people, or of a decadent generation.” ~Calvin Coolidge

Senator Selden Spencer once took a walk with Coolidge around the White House grounds. To cheer the President up, Spencer pointed to the White House and asked playfully, “Who lives there?” “Nobody,” Coolidge replied. “They just come and go.”

It is much more important to kill bad bills than to pass good ones. ~Calvin Coolidge

Amity Shlaes
Author, Coolidge

calvincoolidgeCalvin Coolidge and the Moral Case for Economy

AMITY SHLAES is a syndicated columnist for Bloomberg, a director of the Four Percent Growth Project at the George W. Bush Presidential Center, and a member of the board of the Calvin Coolidge Memorial Foundation. She has served as a member of the editorial board of the Wall Street Journal and as a columnist for the Financial Times, and is a recipient of the Hayek Prize and the Frederic Bastiat Prize for free-market journalism. She is the author of four books, Germany: The Empire Within, The Forgotten Man: A New History of the Great Depression, The Greedy Hand: How Taxes Drive Americans Crazy and What to Do About It, and Coolidge.

The following is adapted from a talk given at Hillsdale College on January 27, 2013, during a conference on “The Federal Income Tax: A Centenary Consideration,” co-sponsored by the Center for Constructive Alternatives and the Ludwig von Mises Lecture Series.


WITH THE FEDERAL DEBT spiraling out of control, many Americans sense an urgent need to find a political leader who is able to say “no” to spending. Yet they fear that finding such a leader is impossible. Conservatives long for another Ronald Reagan. But is Reagan the right model? He was of course a tax cutter, reducing the top marginal rate from 70 to 28 percent. But his tax cuts—which vindicated supply-side economics by vastly increasing federal revenue—were bought partly through a bargain with Democrats who were eager to spend that revenue. Reagan was no budget cutter—indeed, the federal budget rose by over a third during his administration.

An alternative model for conservatives is Calvin Coolidge. President from 1923 to 1929, Coolidge sustained a budget surplus and left office with a smaller budget than the one he inherited. Over the same period, America experienced a proliferation of jobs, a dramatic increase in the standard of living, higher wages, and three to four percent annual economic growth. And the key to this was Coolidge’s penchant for saying “no.” If Reagan was the Great Communicator, Coolidge was the Great Refrainer.

Enter Coolidge
Following World War I, the federal debt stood ten times higher than before the war, and it was widely understood that the debt burden would become unbearable if interest rates rose. At the same time, the top income tax rate was over 70 percent, veterans were having trouble finding work, prices had risen while wages lagged, and workers in Seattle, New York, and Boston were talking revolution and taking to the streets. The Woodrow Wilson administration had nationalized the railroads for a time at the end of the war, and had encouraged stock exchanges to shut down for a time, and Progressives were now pushing for state or even federal control of water power and electricity. The business outlook was grim, and one of the biggest underlying problems was the lack of an orderly budgeting process: Congress brought proposals to the White House willy-nilly, and they were customarily approved.

The Republican Party’s response in the 1920 election was to campaign for smaller government and for a return to what its presidential candidate, Warren Harding, dubbed “normalcy”—a curtailing of government interference in the economy to create a predictable environment in which business could confidently operate. Calvin Coolidge, a Massachusetts governor who had gained a national reputation by facing down a Boston police strike—“There is no right to strike against the public safety by anybody, anywhere, any time,” he had declared—was chosen to be Harding’s running mate. And following their victory, Harding’s inaugural address set a different tone from that of the outgoing Wilson administration (and from that of the Obama administration today): “No altered system,” Harding said, “will work a miracle. Any wild experiment will only add to the confusion. Our best assurance lies in efficient administration of our proven system.”

One of Harding’s first steps was to shepherd through Congress the Budget and Accounting Act of 1921, under which the executive branch gained authority over and took responsibility for the budget, even to the point of being able to impound money after it was budgeted. This legislation also gave the executive branch a special budget bureau—the forerunner to today’s Office of Management and Budget—over which Harding named a flamboyant Brigadier General, Charles Dawes, as director. Together they proceeded to summon department staff and their bosses to semiannual meetings at Continental Hall, where Dawes cajoled and shamed them into making spending cuts. In addition, Harding pushed through a tax cut, lowering the top rate to 58 percent; and in a move toward privatization, he proposed to sell off naval petroleum reserves in Wyoming to private companies.

Unfortunately, some of the men Harding appointed to key jobs proved susceptible to favoritism or bribery, and his administration soon became embroiled in scandal. In one instance, the cause of privatization sustained damage when it became clear that secret deals had taken place in the leasing of oil reserves at Teapot Dome. Then in the summer of 1923, during a trip out West to get away from the scandals and prepare for a new presidential campaign, Harding died suddenly.

Enter Coolidge, whose personality was at first deemed a negative—his face, Alice Roosevelt Longworth said, “looked as though he had been weaned on a pickle.” But canny political leaders, including Supreme Court Justice and former President William Howard Taft, quickly came to respect the new president. Secretary of State Charles Evans Hughes, after visiting the White House a few times that August, noted that whereas Harding had never been alone, Coolidge often was; that whereas Harding was partial to group decisions, Coolidge made decisions himself; and most important, that whereas Harding’s customary answer was “yes,” Coolidge’s was “no.”

The former governor of Massachusetts was in his element when it came to budgeting. Within 24 hours of arriving back in Washington after Harding’s death, he met with his own budget director, Herbert Lord, and together they went on offense, announcing deepened cuts in two politically sensitive areas: spending on veterans and District of Columbia public works. In his public statements, Coolidge made clear he would have scant patience with anyone who didn’t go along: “We must have no carelessness in our dealings with public property or the expenditure of public money. Such a condition is characteristic of undeveloped people, or of a decadent generation.”

If Harding’s budget meetings had been rough, Coolidge’s were rougher. Lord first advertised a “Two Percent Club,” for executive branch staffers who managed to save two percent in their budgets. Then a “One Percent Club,” for those who had achieved two or more already. And finally a “Woodpecker Club,” for department heads who kept chipping away. Coolidge did not even find it beneath his pay grade to look at the use of pencils in the government: “I don’t know if I ever indicated to the conference that the cost of lead pencils to the government per year is about $125,000,” he instructed the press in 1926. “I am for economy, and after that I am for more economy,” he told voters.

Coolidge in Command
“It is much more important to kill bad bills than to pass good ones,” Coolidge had once advised his father. And indeed, while Harding had vetoed only six bills, Coolidge vetoed 50—including farming subsidies, even though he came from farming country. (“Farmers never had made much money,” he told a guest, and he didn’t see there was much the government could rightly do about it.) He also vetoed veterans’ pensions and government entry into the utilities sector.

Thanks to A.F. Branco at Legal Insurrection.com for his great cartoon

The Purpose of Tax Cuts

In short, Coolidge didn’t favor tax cuts as a means to increase revenue or to buy off Democrats. He favored them because they took government, the people’s servant, out of the way of the people. And this sense of government as servant extended to his own office.

Senator Selden Spencer once took a walk with Coolidge around the White House grounds. To cheer the President up, Spencer pointed to the White House and asked playfully, “Who lives there?” “Nobody,” Coolidge replied. “They just come and go.”

But as unpopular as he was in Washington, Coolidge proved enormously popular with voters. In 1924, the Progressive Party ran on a platform of government ownership of public power and a return to government ownership of railroads. Many thought the Progressive Party might split the Republican vote as it had in 1912, handing the presidency to the Democrats. As it happened, Progressive candidate Robert LaFollette indeed claimed more than 16 percent of the vote.

Yet Coolidge won with an absolute majority, gaining more votes than the Progressive and the Democrat combined. And in 1928, when Coolidge decided not to run for reelection despite the urging of party leaders who looked on his reelection as a sure bet, Herbert Hoover successfully ran on a pledge to continue Coolidge’s policies.

Unfortunately, Hoover didn’t live up to his pledge. Critics often confuse Hoover’s policies with Coolidge’s and complain that the latter did not prevent the Great Depression. That is an argument I take up at length in my previous book, The Forgotten Man, and is a topic for another day. Here let me just say that the Great Depression was as great and as long in duration as it was because, as economist Benjamin Anderson put it, the government under both Hoover and Franklin Roosevelt, unlike under Coolidge, chose to “play God.”

Lessons from Coolidge

Beyond the inspiration of Coolidge’s example of principle and consistency, what are the lessons of his story that are relevant to our current situation? One certainly has to do with the mechanism of budgeting: The Budget and Accounting Act of 1921 provided a means for Harding and Coolidge to control the budget and the nation’s debt, and at the same time gave the people the ability to hold someone responsible. That law was gutted in the 1970s, when it became collateral damage in the anti-executive fervor following Watergate. The law that replaced it tilted budget authority back to Congress and has led to over-spending and lack of responsibility.

A second lesson concerns how we look at tax rates. When tax rates are set and judged according to how much revenue they bring in due to the Laffer Curve—which is how most of today’s tax cutters present them, thereby agreeing with tax hikers that the goal of tax policy is to increase revenue—tax policy can become a mechanism to expand government. The goals of legitimate government—American freedom and prosperity—are left by the wayside.

Thus the best case for lower taxes is the moral case—and as Coolidge well understood, a moral tax policy demands tough budgeting.

Finally, a lesson about politics. The popularity of Harding and Coolidge, and the success of their policies—especially Coolidge’s—following a long period of Progressive ascendancy, should give today’s conservatives hope. Coolidge in the 1920s, like Grover Cleveland in the previous century, distinguished government austerity from private-sector austerity, combined a policy of deficit cuts with one of tax cuts, and made a moral case for saying “no.” A political leader who does the same today is likely to find an electorate more inclined to respond “yes” than he or she expects.

Coolidge and Moral Economy, complete article

Advertisements

Election 2016 Warning: Deny Trump Support and invite 40 year Government Tyranny in America

Election 2016 Warning:

Deny Trump Support and invite 40 year Government Tyranny in America

warning

RNC Chair: Folks Not Supporting Trump Are ‘Screwing Around With The Next 40 Years’

Pam Key

keyThis is it. We have the House, we have the Senate, we need to win the White House. This is our chance to actually govern in this town and change things for the better. And for some people to take a pass, it is unfathomable why people would have that attitude.” ~Reince Preibus

judicialtyrannyCartoon-hillary-verdict-Screw-UThursday on the “The Mike Gallagher Show,” Republican National Committee chairman Reince Priebus said considering the Supreme Court picks the next president is likely to have, some Republicans “are screwing around with the next 40 years,” by not supporting presumptive Republican nominee Donald Trump.

Priebus said, “It’s important for those folks to understand that support for someone else, or nobody, is support for Hillary Clinton and Sonia Sotomayor and a lot more of them on the Supreme Court…So they’re not just screwing around with the next four years. Some of these folks are screwing around with the next 40 years. So govwasteabounds.if you actually believe in this stuff and you actually want to have a conservative Supreme Court, and you think it matters, and you want someone to actually sign a budget bill that balances the thing hopefully within the next ten years for God sakes, then you’re gonna need a Republican in the White House. Otherwise we’re just wasting everyone’s time and money.”

He added, “Well some folks say ‘I don’t know if I’m on board yet.’ Well then what are you doing? You’re just wasting your time. You’re wasting everybody’s money. You’re just wasting your breath.

quote-ben-franklin-tyrannyThis is it. We have the House we have the Senate we need to win the White House. This is our chance to actually govern in this town and change things for the better. And for some people to take a pass, it is unfathomable why people would have that attitude.”

Moral Repair Plan: Marriage, Children, and Constitution

Dinner Topics for Thursday

We like to follow up yesterday’s Abuse Report with some solutions, which we call the Moral Repair Plan.

keyStrong families, guided by a loving mother and father, serve as the fundamental institution for nurturing children, instilling faith, and transmitting to future generations the moral strengths and values that are important to civilization and crucial to eternal salvation.

marriage1. Christian Church Instructs Leaders on Same-Sex Marriage

On December 20, 2013, a federal district judge in Salt Lake City issued an order legalizing same-sex marriage in Utah, striking down century-old state laws and a state constitutional amendment that defined marriage exclusively as between a man and a woman. The United States Supreme Court has put that ruling on hold pending consideration of the issue by an appellate court. During the interval between the district court ruling and the Supreme Court stay, numerous same-sex marriages were performed in Utah. Legal proceedings and legislative action in some other states and countries have given civil recognition to same-sex marriage relationships.

As we face this and other issues of our time, we encourage all to bear in mind our Heavenly Father’s purposes in creating the earth and providing for our mortal birth and experience here as His children. “God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them. And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth” (Genesis 1:27–28). “Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh” (Genesis 2:24).

Marriage between a man and a woman was instituted by God and is central to His plan for His children and for the well-being of society. Strong families, guided by a loving mother and father, serve as the fundamental institution for nurturing children, instilling faith, and transmitting to future generations the moral strengths and values that are important to civilization and crucial to eternal salvation.

Changes in the civil law do not, indeed cannot, change the moral law that God has established.

God expects us to uphold and keep His commandments regardless of divergent opinions or trends in society. His law of chastity is clear: sexual relations are proper only between a man and a woman who are legally and lawfully wedded as husband and wife.

We urge you to review and teach Church members the doctrine contained in “The Family: A Proclamation to the World.”

Just as those who promote same-sex marriage are entitled to civility, the same is true for those who oppose it. The Church insists on its leaders’ and members’ constitutionally protected right to express and advocate religious convictions on marriage, family, and morality free from retaliation or retribution. The Church is also entitled to maintain its standards of moral conduct and good standing for members.

Consistent with our fundamental beliefs, Church officers will not employ their ecclesiastical authority to perform marriages between two people of the same sex, and the Church does not permit its meetinghouses or other properties to be used for ceremonies, receptions, or other activities associated with same-sex marriages. Nevertheless, all visitors are welcome to our chapels and premises so long as they respect our standards of conduct while there.

While these matters will continue to evolve, we affirm that those who avail themselves of laws or court rulings authorizing same-sex marriage should not be treated disrespectfully. The gospel of Jesus Christ teaches us to love and treat all people with kindness and civility—even when we disagree.

As members of the Church, we are responsible to teach the gospel of Jesus Christ and to illuminate the great blessings that flow from heeding God’s commandments as well as the inevitable consequences of ignoring them. We invite you to pray that people everywhere will have their hearts softened to the truths of the gospel, and that wisdom will be granted to those who are called upon to decide issues critical to society’s future.

http://www.mormonnewsroom.org/article/church-instructs-leaders-on-same-sex-marriage

children2. Marriage is about the welfare of children

Joseph Farah

Why has nearly every culture in the world, since the beginning, had the good sense to recognize and foster marriages between one man and one woman?

There are several reasons:

  • Jews and Christians believe it is a God thing. Genesis tells us that God created Adam and Eve as a model for the family structure. Jesus affirmed this in Matthew 19:4-6, when He said: “Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female, And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh? Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.”
  • Marriage between one man and one woman works.It is an institution that is tried and tested. It forms the cornerstone of a self-governing society and economy. There is no other model you can point to in the history of the world that more naturally meets the needs of people, civilizes a society and reduces violence and oppression.
  • Lastly, and quite apart from the divisive spiritual and economic issues that divide people, there’s the issue of child-rearing. There simply is no good alternative to raising children outside of the one-man, one-woman family. It protects children. It provides male and female role models for them. It’s simple common sense.

Nevertheless, there are powerful cultural and legal forces working overtime in Western societies to relegate the ideal institution of marriage to the ash heap of history.

Things are moving quickly now, but the process for dismantling marriage has been under way for some time.

It began in earnest with a structural change in laws that made divorce easy. The concept was called “no-fault divorce.” If a man or a woman wanted a divorce for any reason, it would be granted. Divorce had always been around, but there were laws that discouraged it, made it difficult, required “grounds.” That all changed in the 1960s and 1970s. And divorce skyrocketed.

The result was a dramatic increase in poverty mostly for women and children. The state would have to step in with programs to provide the “safety net” the family structure previously offered. (Few recognize, even to this day, how the government was empowered through this act of counterfeit compassion.)

History

Then came “the women’s liberation movement.” The feminists insisted that marriage was, by design and nature, an oppressive, paternalistic institution. The slogan “marriage equals rape” comes to mind. Women were discouraged from thinking about marriage as a natural desire and goal for their lives.

Then came “the gay liberation movement.” We were told that what people do in the privacy of their own bedrooms was nobody else’s business – certainly not the government’s. Homosexuality was “normal,” whereas it had previously been seen as a pathology or, worse yet, a sin. Not only was it normal, it was genetic – and impossible to reverse. From there, people’s sexual proclivities and habits became everyone’s business – especially the government’s. Laws against homosexual behavior were struck down by courts.

And then came, just as Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia had warned in the 2003 Lawrence v. Texas case overruling anti-sodomy laws, something new under the sun – “same-sex marriage.” When Scalia wrote his dissent in the Lawrence case, suggesting it would lead directly to homosexual marriage, polygamy and incest, there was raucous scoffing and ridicule from the progressives. Because, at that time, not even the most radical homosexual activists had dreamed up such ideas.

Where are we today?

  • Same-sex marriage has been legalized in 18 states and the District of Columbia.
  • Those who still cling to the notion that homosexuality is sin are prosecuted for their “bigotry” for simply refusing to participate in such ceremonies as photographers, cake makers or officiators.
  • Last month, Utah District Judge Clark Waddoups effectively ruled in favor of polygamy in the case of Kody Brown and his concubines, who appear in the reality TV show “Sister Wives.”

It’s worth pointing out that Utah was only permitted to become a state in 1896 when it officially renounced polygamy.

Technically, however, polygamy is still illegal. But it’s only a matter of semantics now. If a man can persuade several women to shack up with him and have children, it’s OK – as long as he doesn’t refer to those women as his wives. You can still only have one woman as a wife, but you can cohabitate with as many as you like. Presumably the same applies to a woman who chooses to have a brood of men living with her.

But how long do you suppose this situation will last?

If “same-sex marriage” is about freedom of choice, why would that choice be limited to couples? Where did the notion of marriage as an institution between couples come from? Did it not originate with the same “archaic” religious principles that have been blown to smithereens by “same-sex marriage” laws and court rulings?

Lastly, and perhaps most importantly, what of the children?

Does anyone consider the effect this kind of social experimentation will have on the unfortunate kids who are being treated like guinea pigs?

There is a better way. It’s found in Genesis 2:24. It’s found in Matthew 19:4-6. It’s found in Mark 10:7. It’s found in our consciences if only we would listen.
Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2014/01/marriage-is-about-the-welfare-of-children/#CjX1BVZx8Pt06cSf.99

3)  Stop Government Debt; Balance the Budget

nationaldebtStates are working to oppose national tyranny, using the Constitution. Emphatically, this is NOT a Constitutional Convention, NOT to re-write it, but to legally compel Congress to do its job—to control and rein in the maniacal spending of the dictator in the White House by passing a single amendment requiring a balanced budget. This is totally constitutional—the only thing that is constitutional. The Supreme Court, the President, and Congress have abandoned the Constitution many years ago.

Government Debt vs. Budget Balance, American Citizen

4)  Prepare for Future, Survival

Saving food and other supplies for a “rainy day” makes good sense, reduces worries about the future.

Government Debt vs. Budget Balance, American Citizen

Dinner Topics

keyDear Readers, this is not a topic for one day. It is so important, let’s keep it foremost in our daily learning.  For me, like many of us, money topics are not my forte. However, thanks to the Tea Party Constitutional Symposium, I have learned much about the importance of a free market economy in a way everyone can understand. I have tried to present the information in a clear and understandable way. I hope this is useful to you. The Constitution provides for the people to take back their country from the jaws of tyranny by implementing amendments via the states. The most effective way to make a difference is to focus on one amendment at a time. This post shows why a Balanced Budget is the most important place to start.  Our greatest weapon against the evils of tyranny is TRUTH, so we must educate ourselves, because government schools will no longer  provide the truth. Please visit the website links and learn all you can and teach your families. Our very survival depends on it. ~C.A. Davidson

 Balanced Budget key to Liberty for American Citizen in the Future

Notes from Tea Party Article V Symposium Part 2

States are working to oppose national tyranny, using the Constitution. Emphatically, this is NOT a Constitutional Convention, NOT to re-write it, but to legally compel Congress to do its job—to control and rein in the maniacal spending of the dictator in the White House by passing a single amendment requiring a balanced budget. This is totally constitutional—the only thing that is constitutional. The Supreme Court, the President, and Congress have abandoned the Constitution many years ago.

About Proposed Amendments

Term Limits

Starting around 1896, when the Progressives began entrenching career bureaucrats in their Administrative State, politicians stayed in office for increased number of years. Today the average term of elected officials is about 20 years.

The argument against term limits is that the bureaucrats are entrenched no matter which party is in power, and if they don’t like a certain elected official who opposes bureaucratic tyranny, they simply wait until the opposing official is out of office.

constitution2The best way to get the Congress back into the hands of the people is to repeal the 17th Amendment.

This would return the selection of Senators back to state legislators, thereby returning power to the states, and giving the people of the states more voice in the federal government. Currently, U.S. Senators, once they are elected by their state, and once they arrive inside the corrupt Capitol Beltway, they are no longer accountable to the states. They simply become another cog in the giant, crushing wheel of the federal leviathan.

Where we really need a term limits amendment is for the judges. With the Supreme Court justices in office for life, we have seen the tyrannical horrors they are capable of, and this only the beginning.

In his book, The Liberty Amendments, author Mark Levin provides powerful history and logic to support a term limits amendment, starting with the Supreme Court justices.

Priority: Balanced Budget Amendment

The Federal Government is spending $6.8 million per minute.

If we don’t control spending America will be bankrupt in 5 years, and nothing else will matter. The recent Paul Ryan budget authorized the spending of one trillion dollars per year.

National Debt Timeline

trilliondollars<– 1 Trillion Dollars

2000—$5 Trillion

2008—$10 Trillion

2013—$17 Trillion

If we had ratified a Balanced Budget Amendment in 1985 when Ronald Reagan requested it, our national debt would be less than $1 Trillion today.

2013

nationaldebt<—National Debt

Outgo: $17 Trillion

Income (tax revenue): $2.5 Trillion

Interest: $420 Billion (Interest kept artificially low by Federal Reserve)

Balanced Budget Objective ABC

Abolish the IRS

Balance the Budget

Constitutional Restraints

Definitions:

Bankruptcy in the United States

1. 100 million people without benefits

2. Economy will collapse

3. President will instate martial law to curb unrest

4. Our liberty will vanish

debt-ceiling-obama-cartoons“Quantitative Easing”

This is a fancy name for PRINTING MONEY. The government prints $85 million per month and adds it to the currency circulation. This causes INFLATION.

INFLATION

The media may tell you that inflation is caused by high prices. This is not true. That is like saying that “wet streets cause rain.” Inflation is caused by dumping unearned dollars into the economy. This paper money, not backed by anything of real value, like gold or silver, causes the real value of goods to go down, even though the prices go up.

Businesses do not—cannot—cause inflation by raising prices.

They only raise prices so they can cover the expense of operations.

Only the government can cause inflation, because only the government can print money. Inflation is like a hidden tax that everyone has to pay.

constitutionBalanced Budget Amendment

Why is it a priority? Because if we go bankrupt, we will no longer be free to do anything—buy, sell, speak, or do.

Freedom requires a stable economy, and a stable economy requires freedom. Capitalism provides the most freedom to the people.

capitalismUnder capitalism, the rich become powerful; under socialism, the powerful become rich. ~Rush Limbaugh

Out of 50 individual states, 49 have a balanced budget requirement. Why shouldn’t the Federal Government have a balanced budget requirement?

About Government Spending

treewbranchesTree Analogy

Compare government spending to a weed in Washington DC that grew into a tree. That tree has a lot of branches: IRS, Entitlements, Welfare, Department of Education, Environmental Protection Agency, and other countless bureaucracies.  Which one should we cut out?

The answer is to go after the whole trunk—that is, cut off the spending, dry up the funds that feed all these tyrannical bureaucratic branches.

Bus Analogy

dangerCompare the economy to a bus. Congress is driving—going at 65-70 miles per hour, and you are riding. You come to a sign that says “Bridge Out Ahead.” Wouldn’t you think that the driver would slow down and stop? No, instead, Congress is stepping on the gas, speeding up to 75 or 80, spending more and more and more.

This is why the Balanced Budget Amendment has 3 parts:

1. The Federal Government can spend no more than it takes in.

2. Raising taxes requires a super-majority. Tax limitations must be built in.

3. Borrowing must be phased out over 5 years.

Path to a Balanced Budget Amendment

The plan is to implement it in 3 years.

If Congress refuses to obey the Constitution and bring forward the amendment demanded by the people, the states could sue to force Congress to act. We have many allies in Congress, and the public pressure on Congress would be powerful.

November 20, 2013—Ohio passed a Balanced Budget resolution, 63-29

75% of the American people support it. Article V requires 2/3 of the states to pass the amendment. We have 20 out of the required 34 currently working toward the amendment.

To see the progress, and to learn what you can do, visit

IamAmerican.org

Compact for America’s “Article V 2.0” Turn-Key Approach is Our Best Shot

Compact for America—the States regain Control

Using an agreement among the states called an “interstate compact,” the Compact for America invokes Article V of the United States Constitution to advance one or more specific constitutional amendments. An interstate compact provides the vehicle to advance constitutional amendments because it transforms the otherwise cumbersome state-initiated amendment process under Article V into a “turn-key” operation.

The Compact for America empowers the states to agree in advance to all elements of the amendment process that states control under Article V in a single enactment that can be passed in a single session. The Compact does require congressional consent to work, but such consent is achieved by simple majority passage of a congressional resolution, which consolidates everything Congress must do in the Article V process in a single enactment and in a single session. Specifically, the Compact and the counterpart congressional resolution include:

 An agenda limited to the consideration of the proposed amendment (specified in the Compact);

In short, the Compact for America consolidates everything Congress and the States do in the Article V process into just two overarching pieces of legislation—one congressional resolution and one interstate compact joined by thirty-eight states. It thereby dramatically cuts the time and resources needed to achieve a state-originated constitutional amendment. The Compact transforms the state-originated amendment process, which otherwise requires more than 100 state and congressional enactments across five or more legislative sessions, into something that can get done in a single legislative session for each member state and Congress. Rather than a legislative quest that will take ten to twenty years, the Compact can generate a constitutional amendment in as little as one year.

The Compact’s “Article V 2.0” turn-key approach also eliminates any possibility of a “runaway convention.” It compels all member state delegates to follow convention rules that limit the convention agenda to an up or down vote on the amendment it proposes and to return home if those rules fail to hold. It prohibits member states from expanding the scope of the convention, violating the convention rules, or ratifying anything other than the contemplated amendment. The Compact is like a ballot measure directed to state legislators, governors and Congress.

That’s why Compact for America has garnered support from Congressmen David Schweikert (AZ), Paul Gosar (AZ), Lamar Smith (TX), John Culberson (TX), State Legislators Adam Kwasman (AZ), Yvette Herrell (NM), Tommy Williams (TX), Lieutenant Governor David Dewhurst (TX), the Republican Liberty Caucus, Ohioans for the Liberty Amendments, States United Balanced Budget Initiative, Idaho Freedom Foundation, Kansas Policy Institute, Pelican Institute for Public Policy (LA), Wyoming Liberty Group, Hon. Judge Harold DeMoss (U.S. Court of Appeals for 5th Circuit), Kevin Gutzman, Ph.D., J.D. (Western CT State University Professor of History), Ilya Shapiro, J.D. (Cato Institute), Nick Dranias, J.D., Sven Larson, Ph.D. (Wyoming Liberty Group Economist), Byron Schlomach, Ph.D., Kyle McAlister (Questor Pipeline Company), Ron Hicks (HerdX, Inc.), Robert C. Reinarz (R.C. Reinarz & Company), Mark McKinnon (Maverick Media), and John McLaughlin (McLaughlin & Associates).

Compact for America is also what the People want. According to McLaughlin & Associates, popular support for a compact to advance constitutional amendments exceeds opposition by more than two to one.

President Obama: Terrorism-Yes; Budget-No

Breakthrough? Obama ‘willing to negotiate’

But only with murderers and tyrants, not GOPobamaangry

Garth Kant

World Net Daily

WASHINGTON – President Obama is willing to negotiate with the Syrian dictator he wanted to bomb for gassing his own people.

He is willing to negotiate with the president of Iran and the Taliban.

But, Obama said, “Absolutely, I will not negotiate” with Republicans.

Rep. Steve Stockman, R-Texas, finds that outrageous, and there is fury in his voice.

“This is something fundamentally wrong with this president,” he told WND.

iobamadictator“The president is willing to negotiate with this man, who gassed his own people,” said Stockman, pointing to a picture of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad giving a Nazi-like salute.

“He can negotiate with the head of Iran, who wants to eliminate all of Israel.”

The president even negotiated with the Taliban and apparently got very little in return, Stockman pointed out.

But Obama refuses to negotiate on the budget with House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, “who’s the leader of our House, who is nothing more than a working-class guy who got elected to Congress.”

The straight-shooting Texan made sure to mention he had even once worked against Boehner “and didn’t want to see him as speaker,” but showed an obvious admiration for the man “known for his compassionate heart.”

“Yet, this is the man he (Obama) refuses to negotiate with, and this is the man he calls a terrorist with a bomb strapped to him,” he said. “What we have right here, is the president has things backward. He is abdicating his responsibilities.”

Stockman said Obama is saying he’s more frightened of the speaker than he is of the terrorists and the war mongers in the world.

“It’s an embarrassment that he won’t negotiate with John Boehner.”

Stockman reflected, “I may disagree with his policies sometimes, but one thing you can say about John Boehner is he has a big heart. He’s a gracious guy and it is wrong of this administration to vilify him and make outrageous and outlandish comments about him.

“The president owes him an apology.”

Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2013/10/breakthrough-obama-willing-to-negotiate/#Rg6J9IyxBVFtCiCy.99