After Boehner's Debt Ceiling Bill stalled in the House of Representatives last night, Boehner added a Balanced Budget Amendment to garner votes from the Tea Party. Boehner's pre-amendment plan allowed for a temporary debt ceiling raise for six months time to prevent the US from defaulting on its debt. Then the bill called for a second round of possible debt ceiling raising after that time. The bill stalled in the Republican-majority House, primarily because it was not strong enough for many Republicans.
Thus, Boehner scrapped together a budget amendment for the debt ceiling bill to gain enough House Tea Party votes to make it to the Senate. The new budget amendment will need a "Balanced Budget Amendment" to pass through both chambers of congress and sent to the states for ratification before the second debt ceiling increase in six months could be approved and before any debt ceiling increase.
This means that the bill is more fiscally conservative and requires a balanced budget acceptable by the senate and house before the second debt ceiling could be raised.
While this may help get the bill through the House, it weakens its chances in the Democrat-controlled Senate, which has already shown intent to vote down the bill even before the budget amendment. In requiring the amendment Boehner's plan loses momentum and he loses some control in the House.
With the amendment, this bill is not a super conservative and unrealistic attempt by Boehner. In fact it is still not fiscally conservative enough for many Republicans because the bill only requires the Senate to have a mere 50 percent majority and not a 2/3 majority to raise taxes.
All of this squabbling over the debt ceiling and raising taxes does nothing to solve the problem of debt. Unfortunately America's politicians are worrying over how much debt is too much and how much to take from the citizens. The real questions remain: How is the USA going to get money? How is America as a whole going to save money?
If state representatives and senators focused on specific ways to gain prosperity for the country there would be no problem balancing a budget. There would be no need for a budget amendment.
Ways to support local businesses need to be discussed at this large scale. There should be a mass movement to buy American goods. There needs to be a national movement for everyone to save money. The US also needs to focus on gaining strong alliances with other countries to get through this debt.
The face of America needs to change; certain businesses may no longer be practical. America has been the fat wealthy cow for a long time, but it is still not poor by any standards. Take a visit to or research China or India, the so called emerging markets and countries of new wealth. Compare the infrastructure, the freedoms and quality of life for the people. America still trumps them easily, in recession, in crisis, yesterday and today.
Senators and representatives need to stop arguing amongst themselves on this issue because it is not the most pertinent issue. Pick a plan of action and move on. The debt ceiling bill only asks for more time. In slowly creating the plan, American leaders only waste time. Focus on ways to get to work, and put in actual hard work to unite the people and inspire Americans to do the same.
recommend
Facebook
Twitter
bookmark 
print
Comments: 19
A Balanced Budget Amendment does two things, . 1. it allows congress a way out for not doing their job, 2. it prevents the country from having a short term deficit it times of national emegency (World War II would be an example)
Very well said.
One party refuses to see the deficit problem as anything more than a revenue issue and the other thinking that cutting the rate of government spending growth 1-2% will actually do anything about the deficit growth is a clear sign nothing is going to be done about the deficit until it's too late.
You can't have the growth in entitlements we've seen the last 40 years without a realization we're in serious trouble. The Repubs refusing to rein in DoD is almost as bad. But when we reach the European level of indebtedness, we'll see those drastic cuts and NO ONE will be happy.
What, did they all suddenly see the light and change the error of their ways? Not hardly. They are going to kick the can down the road yet again, rolling the dice hoping some economic miracle takes the light off the subject, and keep the same credit card mentality available. Any "deal" made today, will only be blown off by a later Congress tomorrow, and none of them will still be around to be held accountable anyway. It's the same old game, and should stop by law in my mind. Might do wonders on phony campaign promises in order to elected to boot.
I'd like a BBA taken to the states/people to decide, and if the arguments against it valid, then so be it; if not in the long run we'll be better off, and perhaps we won't have these same debates for what... the 78th time?
How hard would it be to immediately pass tax incentive legislation that would credit ALL business (large and small) 75% of Taxes on Wages for ALL New Hires?
For every single NEW job any business creates, the company would be able to reduce their tax burden by 75% of the taxes that new wage earner would pay. Set this as a short - 5 year Job Creation Bill where each year the percentage is reduced by 15%...thus 75% business credit in year # 1; 60% in year # 2; 45% in year # 3; 30% in year # 4; and 15% in year # 5.
It would instantly put American workes back to work and paying taxes. The 75% credit would be off-set by the 100% this NEW job is now contributing and would incentivize the employer to keep the position for an extanded period of time (i.e. at least the 5 years).
Putting Americans back to work cost the government less in unemployment and welfare based programs, increases the "Income" (taxes) the government takes in and strengthens the American Spirit all at the same time.
The MOST IMPORTANT part of this is that the "credit" be allowed by ALL companies - large and small. In order for America to get back on it's feet, we need every business to create as many NEW jobs as possible. This is going to be a recovery of one-job-at-a-time and NO job is insignificant.
What say you, is this feasable? Where are the road-blocks?
Generally I agree with you on corporate tax credits...but in this case if a NEW employee pays an additional $10K in taxes and the employer recieves a 7.5K credit...isn't the US Treasury still to the plus side by $2.5K???
We nned more income (taxes), we need more Americans working - this idea, to me seems to accomplish both plus would cut back in spending on unemployment benefits and perhaps welfare spending as well.
As far as the other corporate tax credits and loopholes - I say close/cut them ALL.
Respectfully
I like the idea of helping businesses, I'm not very familiar with how a business gets taxed but it seems like 75% less would be a bit much though. In your scenario it may look like the gov't would be still be gaining $2,500 but I think that businesses could easily abuse this break without giving the country the actual benefit of increased jobs.
There would have to be strict ways to prevent businesses from firing then hiring a "new" employee and also to prevent them from keeping total labor costs the same while hiring more people (thus creating a new "job" while cutting everyone's pay).
I think entitlements like welfare and unemployment need to be cut. There are productive ways to help the less fortunate, I worked for a program with a $1 M grant which went to employing 250 low-income inner city kids. Things like this get money to the bottom but moreso give the needy job experience and confidence, it also employed staff like me to manage the program. There is no reason to just give out money to someone just because they are poor.
Why don't we take everyone from welfare and unemployment and give them first dibs on new jobs in public works, that would benefit many more people. People abuse disability too, everyone needs to put in effort, there are millions of online based or home based jobs anyone could do. Getting everyone to work is key.