Why has President-elect Trump not proposed a rule of law to extinguish a year's end federal deficit?

[johnwk]

.
Like Rome, our politicians babble on and on, while beating their chests and complaining about our enormous national debt, which is now at a staggering $222 TRILLION _ including unfunded debt liabilities (3rd-rail budget items) but not one Republican, Democrat or Independent, who has participated in bringing us to our suicidal and present financial state of affairs __ has proposed a structural mechanism under our rule of law, which requires a year’s end deficit that has been funded by borrowing to be immediately extinguished the following year by specific tax-raising legislation to extinguish that deficit, which would prevent a deficit being permanently added to our national debt.

Did our Founders intend to allow any year end deficiencies funded by borrowing to accumulate from year to year, and, etc.? Of course not, as a number of our State Ratification documents of our Constitution confirm, e.g, see the Ratification of the Constitution by the State of Massachusetts; February 6, 1788:

”Fourthly, That Congress do not lay direct Taxes but when the Monies arising from the Impost & Excise are insufficient for the publick exigencies nor then until Congress shall have first made a requisition upon the States to assess levy & pay their respective proportions of such Requisition agreeably to the Census fixed in the said Constitution; in such way & manner as the Legislature of the States shall think best, & in such case if any State shall neglect or refuse to pay its proportion pursuant to such requisition then Congress may assess & levy such State’s proportion together with interest thereon at the rate of Six per cent per annum from the time of payment prescribed in such requisition…”

And there you have it, our Founder’s remedy__ currently promoted as The Fair Share Balanced Budget Amendment ___ a remedy which requires, upon the creation of a federal deficit funded by borrowing, that each state’s Congressional Delegation is to return to their own state with a bill in hand for their State to pay out of its own treasury an apportioned share to extinguish that deficit, at which time a shocking moment of real accountability is created, and particular so when the people of each state and their State Legislature and Governor, quickly learn, there is no free lunch coming from Washington.

For those interested in the first time this apportioned direct tax was used and each state’s share of the tax including its particulars, see: Chap. LXXV. An Act to lay and collect a direct tax within the United States, July 14, 1798

As Thomas Jefferson cautiously warned, "In matters of power let no more be heard of confidence in men, but bind him down from mischief by the chains of the Constitution. ... Thomas Jefferson’s Fair Copy of the Kentucky Resolutions of 1798

When will one of our members of Congress, or even President-elect Trump, propose a structural mechanism under rule of law, requiring an annual deficit to be extinguish the following year?

 

[StillBallin75]

The man wants to lift the debt ceiling. Whatever he wants is the opposite of what you're trying to propose here.

 

[Airyaman]

.
Like Rome, our politicians babble on and on, while beating their chests and complaining about our enormous national debt, which is now at a staggering $222 TRILLION _ including unfunded debt liabilities (3rd-rail budget items) but not one Republican, Democrat or Independent, who has participated in bringing us to our suicidal and present financial state of affairs __ has proposed a structural mechanism under our rule of law, which requires a year’s end deficit that has been funded by borrowing to be immediately extinguished the following year by specific tax-raising legislation to extinguish that deficit, which would prevent a deficit being permanently added to our national debt.

Did our Founders intend to allow any year end deficiencies funded by borrowing to accumulate from year to year, and, etc.? Of course not, as a number of our State Ratification documents of our Constitution confirm, e.g, see the Ratification of the Constitution by the State of Massachusetts; February 6, 1788:

”Fourthly, That Congress do not lay direct Taxes but when the Monies arising from the Impost & Excise are insufficient for the publick exigencies nor then until Congress shall have first made a requisition upon the States to assess levy & pay their respective proportions of such Requisition agreeably to the Census fixed in the said Constitution; in such way & manner as the Legislature of the States shall think best, & in such case if any State shall neglect or refuse to pay its proportion pursuant to such requisition then Congress may assess & levy such State’s proportion together with interest thereon at the rate of Six per cent per annum from the time of payment prescribed in such requisition…”

And there you have it, our Founder’s remedy__ currently promoted as The Fair Share Balanced Budget Amendment ___ a remedy which requires, upon the creation of a federal deficit funded by borrowing, that each state’s Congressional Delegation is to return to their own state with a bill in hand for their State to pay out of its own treasury an apportioned share to extinguish that deficit, at which time a shocking moment of real accountability is created, and particular so when the people of each state and their State Legislature and Governor, quickly learn, there is no free lunch coming from Washington.

For those interested in the first time this apportioned direct tax was used and each state’s share of the tax including its particulars, see: Chap. LXXV. An Act to lay and collect a direct tax within the United States, July 14, 1798

As Thomas Jefferson cautiously warned, "In matters of power let no more be heard of confidence in men, but bind him down from mischief by the chains of the Constitution. ... Thomas Jefferson’s Fair Copy of the Kentucky Resolutions of 1798

When will one of our members of Congress, or even President-elect Trump, propose a structural mechanism under rule of law, requiring an annual deficit to be extinguish the following year?

The "king of debt" doesn't care about any budgets. He's going to run up the debt like a drunk with an open tab.

 

[Loulit01]

The only thing that will work is a balanced budget amendment. It's been tried before.

 

[mrjurrs]

.
Like Rome, our politicians babble on and on, while beating their chests and complaining about our enormous national debt, which is now at a staggering $222 TRILLION _ including unfunded debt liabilities (3rd-rail budget items) but not one Republican, Democrat or Independent, who has participated in bringing us to our suicidal and present financial state of affairs __ has proposed a structural mechanism under our rule of law, which requires a year’s end deficit that has been funded by borrowing to be immediately extinguished the following year by specific tax-raising legislation to extinguish that deficit, which would prevent a deficit being permanently added to our national debt.

Did our Founders intend to allow any year end deficiencies funded by borrowing to accumulate from year to year, and, etc.? Of course not, as a number of our State Ratification documents of our Constitution confirm, e.g, see the Ratification of the Constitution by the State of Massachusetts; February 6, 1788:

”Fourthly, That Congress do not lay direct Taxes but when the Monies arising from the Impost & Excise are insufficient for the publick exigencies nor then until Congress shall have first made a requisition upon the States to assess levy & pay their respective proportions of such Requisition agreeably to the Census fixed in the said Constitution; in such way & manner as the Legislature of the States shall think best, & in such case if any State shall neglect or refuse to pay its proportion pursuant to such requisition then Congress may assess & levy such State’s proportion together with interest thereon at the rate of Six per cent per annum from the time of payment prescribed in such requisition…”

And there you have it, our Founder’s remedy__ currently promoted as The Fair Share Balanced Budget Amendment ___ a remedy which requires, upon the creation of a federal deficit funded by borrowing, that each state’s Congressional Delegation is to return to their own state with a bill in hand for their State to pay out of its own treasury an apportioned share to extinguish that deficit, at which time a shocking moment of real accountability is created, and particular so when the people of each state and their State Legislature and Governor, quickly learn, there is no free lunch coming from Washington.

For those interested in the first time this apportioned direct tax was used and each state’s share of the tax including its particulars, see: Chap. LXXV. An Act to lay and collect a direct tax within the United States, July 14, 1798

As Thomas Jefferson cautiously warned, "In matters of power let no more be heard of confidence in men, but bind him down from mischief by the chains of the Constitution. ... Thomas Jefferson’s Fair Copy of the Kentucky Resolutions of 1798

When will one of our members of Congress, or even President-elect Trump, propose a structural mechanism under rule of law, requiring an annual deficit to be extinguish the following year?

Because it's DOA in Congress.

 

[johnwk]

The only thing that will work is a balanced budget amendment. It's been tried before.

I agree. And not one of our so-called "conservative" Congressional leaders, nor President-elect Trump, have offered a structural mechanism to deal with an annual deficit, such as the proposed Fair Share Balanced Budget Amendment.


Fair Share Balanced Budget Amendment



“SECTION 1. The Sixteenth Amendment is hereby repealed and Congress is henceforth forbidden to lay any tax or burden calculated from profits, gains, sales, interest, salaries, wages, tips, inheritances or any other lawfully realized money.


NOTE: these words would return us to our Constitution’s original tax plan as our Founders’ intended it to operate! They would also end the experiment with allowing Congress to lay and collect taxes calculated from lawfully earned "incomes" which now oppresses America‘s economic engine and robs the bread which working people have earned when selling the property each has in their own labor, not to mention the amendment would end federal taxation being used as a political weapon to harass and attack political opponents!

"SECTION 2. Congress ought not raise money by borrowing, but when the money arising from imposts duties and excise taxes are insufficient to meet the public exigencies, and Congress has raised money by borrowing during the course of a fiscal year, Congress shall then lay a direct tax at the beginning of the next fiscal year for an amount sufficient to extinguish the preceding fiscal year's deficit, and apply the revenue so raised to extinguishing said deficit."


NOTE: Congress is to raise its primary revenue from imposts and duties, [taxes at our water’s edge], and may also lay miscellaneous internal excise taxes on specifically chosen articles of consumption [preferably articles of luxury]. But if Congress borrows and spends more than is brought in from imposts, duties and miscellaneous excise taxes during the course of a fiscal year, then, and only then, is the direct apportioned tax to be laid in order to balance the budget on an annual basis.


"SECTION 3. When Congress is required to lay a direct tax in accordance with Section 1 of this Article, the Secretary of the United States Treasury shall, in a timely manner, calculate each State's apportioned share of the total sum being raised by the agreed upon apportionment formula found in our Constitution, and then provide the various State Congressional Delegations with a Bill notifying their State’s Executive and Legislature of its share of the total tax being collected as done on July 14th, 1798 LINK scroll to page 62, and a final date by which said tax shall be paid into the United States Treasury."

NOTE: our founder’s fair share formula to extinguish an annual deficit would be:

States’ population

---------------------------- X SUM TO BE RAISED = STATE’S FAIR SHARE OF DIRECT TAX

Total U.S. Population


The above formula, as intended by our founding fathers, is to ensure that each state’s share towards extinguishing an annual deficit is proportionately equal to its representation in Congress, i.e., representation with a proportional financial obligation! And if the tax is laid directly upon the people by Congress, then every taxpayer across the United States would pay the exact same amount!


Note also that each State’s number or Representatives, under our Constitution is likewise determined by the rule of apportionment:


State`s Pop.

------------------- X House size (435) = State`s No. of Representatives
U.S. Pop.


"SECTION 4. Each State shall be free to assume and pay its quota of the direct tax into the United States Treasury by a final date set by Congress, but if any State shall refuse or neglect to pay its quota, then Congress shall send forth its officers to assess and levy such State's proportion against the real property within the State with interest thereon at the rate of ((?)) per cent per annum, and against the individual owners of the taxable property. Provision shall be made for a 15% discount for those States paying their share by ((?))of the fiscal year in which the tax is laid, and a 10% discount for States paying by the final date set by Congress, such discount being to defray the States' cost of collection."


NOTE: This section respects the Tenth Amendment and allows each state to raise its share in its own chosen way in a time period set by Congress, but also allows the federal government to enter a state and collect the tax if a state is delinquent in meeting its obligation.


"SECTION 5. This Amendment to the Constitution, when ratified by the required number of States, shall take effect no later than (?) years after the required number of States have ratified it.

- - - - - - -

 

[johnwk]

Rep. Arrington introduced H. J. RES. 113, a phony balanced budget amendment

.
.
The tricksters are at it again. During the 1980s and early 90's when Newt Gingrich was Speaker of the House who is currently a popular guest on Fox News, so-called "conservatives" proposed a number of balance budget amendments, none of which actually prevented Congress from adding to our national debt money borrowed during the course of a previous fiscal year.

Well, here we are again, House Budget Committee Chair Jodey Arrington along with Representatives Yakym, Estes, Burchett, Ellzey, Duncan, and Huizenga, have submitted H. J. RES. 113 "Proposing a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution of the United States".

"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:
—
1.Total expenditures for a year shall not exceed the average annual revenue collected in the three prior years, adjusted in proportion to changes in population and inflation. Total expenditures shall include all expenditures of the United States except those for payment of debt, and revenue shall include all revenue of the United States except that derived from borrowing.

2.Congress may by a roll call vote of two-thirds of each House declare an emergency and provide by law for specific expenditures in excess of the limit in section 1. The declaration shall specify reasons for the emergency designation and may authorize expenditures in excess of the limit in section 1 for up to one year.

3.Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

4.This article shall take effect in the first year beginning at least 90 days following ratification, except that expenditures may exceed the limit in section 1 by the following portion of the prior year’s expenditures exceeding that limit (excepting emergency expenditures provided for by section 2): nine-tenths in the first year, eight-ninths in the second, seven-eighths in the third, six-sevenths in the fourth, five-sixths in the fifth, four-fifths in the sixth, three-fourths in the seventh, two-thirds in the eighth, and one-half in the ninth."

As you can see, unlike the Fair Share Balanced Budget Amendment which actually prevents Congress from effectively adding to our national debt, the above tricksters propose a cleverly worded amendment which would actually make it constitutional for Congress to not balance the annual budget, nor would it prevent Congress from continuing to add to our national debt.

Neither Musk nor Vivek has, to the best of my knowledge, proposed a structural rule of law by which an annual deficit is extinguished. And the lack of such a rule, as recent history has proven, is the cause of our national debt having increased year after year to today's staggering $222 TRILLION, which includes unfunded debt liabilities.

DOGE needs to address the problem, and not the symptoms of Congress's reckless spending and borrowing.

JWK

"In matters of power let no more be heard of confidence in men, but bind him down from mischief by the chains of the Constitution. ... Thomas Jefferson’s Fair Copy of the Kentucky Resolutions of 1798

 

[Ishm]

While I like the idea of not running deficits, the reality is that the US can not achieve that on an ongoing basis without massive economic damage. As most other countries can't either. Instead of focussing on balancing the budget every year, the focus should be on the true measure of economic sustainability which is the debt to GDP ratio. If your GDP is growing faster than your debt to the point where you are reducing the debt to GDP ratio, the deficit you are running doesn't matter because the burden of servicing your debt is reducing. Why is this important? Imagine that the govt identifies an opportunity to develop or grow a significant industry that will in a couple of years add significantly to the GDP. To grow that industry they need to borrow and invest. So increasing the deficit, but increasing GDP even more. This is what happens in a normal business scenario, and an annual balanced budget requirement would eliminate that possibility.

The other important point is that a single year is far to short of a period to be focussed on. We all know that at times the govt needs to stimulate the economy and run deficits to avoid becoming entrenched in deep recessions for long periods. One of the noticeable failings of US govts however is that they don't focus on returning money to the treasury when the economy is in good shape and when we should be looking to run surpluses instead of deficits. Instead we either spend more or introduce tax cuts that just increase the deficit. That isn't how we should behave. When times are good it is time to take a little more out of the economy and into govt revenue so we can improve our debt position. Unfortunately, the average American voter has been trained to expect ever more from their govt and doesn't give a damn about the ever growing burden of debt management because the govt just keeps borrowing more to cover up the problem and protect the voters from the true cost of their over consumption. The first party to truly tell voters the cost of their debt management plans won't get voted into office, and they know this. Hence, prospective govts lie about debt management, and most voters end up with a badly misinformed view of what is really required.

 

[rahl]

.
Like Rome, our politicians babble on and on, while beating their chests and complaining about our enormous national debt, which is now at a staggering $222 TRILLION _ including unfunded debt liabilities (3rd-rail budget items) but not one Republican, Democrat or Independent, who has participated in bringing us to our suicidal and present financial state of affairs __ has proposed a structural mechanism under our rule of law, which requires a year’s end deficit that has been funded by borrowing to be immediately extinguished the following year by specific tax-raising legislation to extinguish that deficit, which would prevent a deficit being permanently added to our national debt.

Did our Founders intend to allow any year end deficiencies funded by borrowing to accumulate from year to year, and, etc.? Of course not, as a number of our State Ratification documents of our Constitution confirm, e.g, see the Ratification of the Constitution by the State of Massachusetts; February 6, 1788:

”Fourthly, That Congress do not lay direct Taxes but when the Monies arising from the Impost & Excise are insufficient for the publick exigencies nor then until Congress shall have first made a requisition upon the States to assess levy & pay their respective proportions of such Requisition agreeably to the Census fixed in the said Constitution; in such way & manner as the Legislature of the States shall think best, & in such case if any State shall neglect or refuse to pay its proportion pursuant to such requisition then Congress may assess & levy such State’s proportion together with interest thereon at the rate of Six per cent per annum from the time of payment prescribed in such requisition…”

And there you have it, our Founder’s remedy__ currently promoted as The Fair Share Balanced Budget Amendment ___ a remedy which requires, upon the creation of a federal deficit funded by borrowing, that each state’s Congressional Delegation is to return to their own state with a bill in hand for their State to pay out of its own treasury an apportioned share to extinguish that deficit, at which time a shocking moment of real accountability is created, and particular so when the people of each state and their State Legislature and Governor, quickly learn, there is no free lunch coming from Washington.

For those interested in the first time this apportioned direct tax was used and each state’s share of the tax including its particulars, see: Chap. LXXV. An Act to lay and collect a direct tax within the United States, July 14, 1798

As Thomas Jefferson cautiously warned, "In matters of power let no more be heard of confidence in men, but bind him down from mischief by the chains of the Constitution. ... Thomas Jefferson’s Fair Copy of the Kentucky Resolutions of 1798

When will one of our members of Congress, or even President-elect Trump, propose a structural mechanism under rule of law, requiring an annual deficit to be extinguish the following year?

Republicans have no interest what so ever in lowering deficits or debt. It’s why they explode both every time they are in power, while at the same time slashing revenue.

 

[The Stars Tremble]

Expecting the states to pay is cowardly, and if "apportioned" means according to population not state product, it would disproportionately harm the poorest states.

 

[johnwk]

Expecting the states to pay is cowardly, and if "apportioned" means according to population not state product, it would disproportionately harm the poorest states.

So, you don't support the constitutional guarantee of apportionment with regard to direct taxation. How about the rule of apportionment with regard to each state's representation in Congress? Do you support apportionment in that regard? And if so, why one and not the other? What is wrong with Representation with a proportional financial obligation, as our Constitutional commands?

 

[CaughtInThe]

Because Republicans are big spenders.

 

[johnwk]

Because Republicans are big spenders.

Perhaps someday your will realize it is Congress which is a big spender and cannot or will not work to end reckless spending an borrowing.

 

[TomFitz]

Expecting the states to pay is cowardly, and if "apportioned" means according to population not state product, it would disproportionately harm the poorest states.

This is not how government financing works. This discussion is silly,

 

[johnwk]

DOGE team, Musk and Vivek Ramaswamy, ignore dealing with largest government waste: an ever-increasing national debt.

We are now paying over $1 TRILLION to pay interest on the national debt ($36 TRILLION), and that figure will continue to rise unless the DOGE team nails down a way to stop Congress from effectively adding to the national debt which in turn increases money spent to service the national debt.

One way to stop Congress from effectively adding to the national debt is to require Congress to immediately extinguish a current year’s borrowing to fund Congress’s spending, by laying and collecting a direct apportioned tax among the States the following year to pay off the preceding debt caused by borrowing, which effectively stops Congress from adding to the national debt.

I was under the impression Trump has a problem with low IQ people and yet, the DOGE team seems to be unable to focus on the root cause of the national debt increasing year, after year, after year, and the allowance is nothing more than not requiring Congress to extinguish a current year’s deficit caused by borrowing, by laying and collecting a specific tax to pay off the money borrowed and spent the preceding year, and is exactly what our Founders intended as confirmed by various state ratification documents of our Constitution, e.g. see the Ratification of the Constitution by the State of Massachusetts; February 6, 1788:

”Fourthly, That Congress do not lay direct Taxes but when the Monies arising from the Impost & Excise are insufficient for the publick exigencies nor then until Congress shall have first made a requisition upon the States to assess levy & pay their respective proportions of such Requisition agreeably to the Census fixed in the said Constitution; in such way & manner as the Legislature of the States shall think best, & in such case if any State shall neglect or refuse to pay its proportion pursuant to such requisition then Congress may assess & levy such State’s proportion together with interest thereon at the rate of Six per cent per annum from the time of payment prescribed in such requisition…”

So, what’s up with Trump’s premier and much heralded (among so called "conservative" circles) DOGE team picks who seem mentally deficient in being able to focus in on and addressing the real cause of an ever increasing of our national debt, and solving that problem, which our Founders already provided a solution to?

JWK

"In matters of power let no more be heard of confidence in men, but bind him down from mischief by the chains of the Constitution. ... Thomas Jefferson’s Fair Copy of the Kentucky Resolutions of 1798

 

[johnwk]

QUESTION:

Has Elon Musk or Vivek Ramaswamy ever commented on adopting a balanced budget amendment? I can't seem to find any such quotes. Just curious if either has.

 

[Safiel]

So, you don't support the constitutional guarantee of apportionment with regard to direct taxation. How about the rule of apportionment with regard to each state's representation in Congress? Do you support apportionment in that regard? And if so, why one and not the other? What is wrong with Representation with a proportional financial obligation, as our Constitutional commands?

The Constitution does not command that Congress use apportioned direct taxation. It merely commands that direct taxation, when used, be apportioned.

From 1789 to present, probably 99% of federal taxation has been indirect taxation, not subject to apportionment.

Tariffs, tonnages, excises, income taxes and the other various transactional taxes. All indirect and not subject to apportionment. Congress wants more revenue, it can simply raise the rates of existing taxation.

The apportionment requirement was actually included to PREVENT direct taxation of slaves and of the land on which slave plantations existed. Because slaves existed almost exclusively in the south, it would have been impossible to impose an apportioned tax on the head of each slave. Since most agricultural land was in the south, it would likewise have been impossible to apportion such a tax. Of course, direct taxation could have been used to extinguish slavery, had the apportionment requirement not existed.

Congress is not going to enact a direct tax. The States do not want to be the Federal Government's "bitch" in collecting Federal taxes and any Congressman who tried would likely face severe State level political repercussions. The Federal Government should collect it's own ****ing taxes and we already pay the IRS to do just that.

Reducing the debt somewhat is laudable

But it will have to occur by decreases in spending and increases in indirect taxation, not an implausible direct taxation scheme.

 

[johnwk]

The Constitution does not command that Congress use apportioned direct taxation. It merely commands that direct taxation, when used, be apportioned.

And? Why post the obvious to me?

And you never answered my question:

How about the rule of apportionment with regard to each state's representation in Congress? Do you support apportionment in that regard? And if so, why one and not the other? What is wrong with Representation with a proportional financial obligation, as our Constitutional commands?

 

[Pedestrian]

But this is capitalism blogroids and they are here to make some f*cking money...at all costs.

Debt is a huge profit center, what could be better for the capitalist than partying on trillion$ of our children's money long before they even make it ?

America will finally see when in the future your kids will make $1,500/week and...take home $500.

[They] aren't paying it back...you and your kids and their kids and their...will pay it.

 

[johnwk]

But this is capitalism blogroids and they are here to make some f*cking money...at all costs.

Debt is a huge profit center, what could be better for the capitalist than partying on trillion$ of our children's money long before they even make it ?

America will finally see when in the future your kids will make $1,500/week and...take home $500.

[They] aren't paying it back...you and your kids and their kids and their...will pay it.

I'm not exactly sure what you mean by that, but one thing is certain . . . our children and grandchildren will pay the price for our inacations

JWK

When violent hate America demonstrations occur in the U.S. (as they now are) and terrorist attacks begin on American soil, let us not forget it was the current Democrat Party Leadership who encouraged and invited millions upon millions of poverty-stricken, poorly educated, low-skilled, diseased, disabled, criminal, un-vetted terrorist and religious fanatic foreign nationals, into our country.