McDonnell shows his own “States Rights” flavor
By JR Hoeft | Thursday, February 10th, 2011 | PolicyI guess he was tired of Ken Cuccinelli (healthcare lawsuit) and Bill Howell (amendment to give states the right to repeal federal law) getting all the love on federalism.
Today, Governor Bob McDonnell, with the help of Del. Ben Cline, sent a resolution to the House of Delegates expressing his interest in calling an Article V Constitutional Convention for the purpose of proposing a balanced budget amendment.
McDonnell says:
“Over the last two years, the federal government has added approximately $3.37 trillion to the national debt, making the total national debt an unsustainable $14 trillion. It is critical that Washington gets its fiscal house in order and reduces spending to ensure the future prosperity and security of our great nation. The irresponsible rate of spending in Washington will place an undue burden on our children and grandchildren who will pay the price for the reckless actions being taken at the federal level. At the state level, we balance our budgets and it is time for Washington to do the same. Here in Virginia we cut $6 billion out of our last two budgets and reduced spending to 2006 levels, ending the fiscal year with a $403 million surplus. It’s time for Washington to follow the lead of the states and operate within a balanced budget, every year. Our call for a balanced budget amendment is a commonsense measure to keep the federal government in check and rein in out of control spending in Washington.”
Cline adds:
“The growing federal deficit is one of the greatest challenges that faces our country. Families must make tough decisions every day to balance their checkbooks, and states like Virginia have balanced budgets every year—the federal government should be no different. The resolution I am introducing today requesting a constitutional convention on a balanced budget amendment is a step in the right direction toward reining in federal government spending and tackling the federal debt. A balanced budget amendment in the U.S. Constitution will set us on a path toward fiscal responsibility in Washington.”
The resolution, which will get a number when it gets there:
“HOUSE JOINT RESOLUTION NO.__
WHEREAS, this nation has become deeply in debt as its expenditures have exceeded available revenues so that the total federal public debt now exceeds $14 trillion and continues to increase; and
WHEREAS, the federal budget fails to reflect actual spending because of the exclusion of special outlays that are neither included in the budget nor subject to the legal public debt limit; and
WHEREAS, knowledgeable planning requires that the budget reflect all federal spending and that the budget be in balance; and
WHEREAS, attempts to curtail federal spending, confine expenditures to available revenues, and reduce the annual deficit have met with only limited success; and
WHEREAS, the requirement to balance the budget will promote responsibility at the federal level, provide checks against unnecessary and costly appropriations, and reinforce efforts to bring about fiscal integrity; and
WHEREAS, the Constitution of the Commonwealth provides for a balanced budget, and this provision has reinforced the inherent fiscal common sense of spending only funds available and has contributed to the Commonwealth’s outstanding reputation for sound fiscal management and policy; and
WHEREAS, efforts in Congress to amend the Constitution of the United States to add a balanced budget requirement have not been successful; and
WHEREAS, in the event of congressional inaction, Article V of the Constitution of the United States grants to the states the right to initiate constitutional change through application by the legislatures of two-thirds of the several states to the Congress, calling for a constitutional convention; and
WHEREAS, the Congress is required by Article V to call such a convention upon receipt of such applications; now, therefore, be it
RESOLVED by the House of Delegates, the Senate concurring, That the Congress of the United States be urged to adopt legislation requiring a balanced federal budget; and, be it
RESOLVED FURTHER, That pursuant to Article V of the Constitution of the United States, the General Assembly of Virginia does hereby make application to the Congress of the United States to call a convention for the sole and exclusive purpose of proposing to the several states a constitutional amendment to add an article to provide for a balanced budget requirement. The proposed article should contain substantially the following provisions:
“Section 1. Total outlays for any fiscal year shall not exceed total receipts for that fiscal year, unless three-fifths of the whole number of each House of Congress shall provide by law for a specific excess of outlays over receipts by a roll call vote.
Section 2. The limit on the debt of the United States held by the public shall not be increased, unless three-fifths of the whole number of each House shall provide by law for such an increase by a roll call vote.
Section 3. Prior to each fiscal year, the President shall transmit to the Congress a proposed budget for the United States Government for that fiscal year in which total outlays do not exceed total receipts.
Section 4. No bill to increase revenue shall become law unless approved by a majority of the whole number of each House by a roll call vote.
Section 5. The Congress may waive the provisions of this article for any fiscal year in which a declaration of war is in effect. The provisions of this article may be waived for any fiscal year in which the United States is engaged in military conflict that causes an imminent and serious military threat to national security and is so declared by a joint resolution, adopted by a majority of the whole number of each House, which becomes law.
Section 6. The Congress shall enforce and implement this article by appropriate legislation, which may rely on estimates of outlays and receipts.
Section 7. Total receipts shall include all receipts of the United States Government except those derived from borrowing. Total outlays shall include all outlays of the United States Government except for those for repayment of debt principal.
Section 8. This article shall take effect beginning with the later of the second fiscal year beginning after its ratification or the first fiscal year beginning after December 31, 2013.”; and, be it
RESOLVED FURTHER, That unless rescinded by the General Assembly of Virginia, this application shall constitute a continuing application for such convention pursuant to Article V of the Constitution of the United States until the legislatures of two-thirds of the states shall have made like applications and such convention shall have been called by the Congress of the United States; and, be it
RESOLVED FURTHER, That since this method of proposing an amendment has never been completed to the point of calling a convention and since the exercise of the power is a matter of basic sovereign rights and the interpretation thereof is primarily in the sovereign government making such exercise and since the power to use such right in full also carries the power to use such right in part, the General Assembly interprets Article V to mean that if two-thirds of the states make application for a convention to propose a substantially similar amendment to the Constitution for ratification with a limitation that such amendment be the only matter before it, that such convention would have power to propose only the specified amendment and would be limited to such proposal and would not have power to propose other amendments on different propositions; and, be it
RESOLVED FINALLY, That the Clerk of the House of Delegates transmit copies of this resolution to the President of the United States, the Speaker of the United States House of Representatives, the President of the United States Senate, the members of the Virginia Congressional Delegation, and the legislatures of each of the several states, attesting the adoption of this resolution by the General Assembly of Virginia.”
Is Rep. Bob Goodlatte smiling?
Tags:
Contribute for Conservatism!
Share this post
About the author
Conservative to the core; liberal with his opinion! J.R. has been involved in politics for over a decade and has worked on several campaigns in Hampton Roads. He has served on the Executive Committee of the Republican Party of Chesapeake and the Central Committee of the Republican Party of Virginia. He is also the director of “Blogs United” in Virginia. E-mail J.R.. Follow J.R. on Twitter.
Comments
36 Responses to "McDonnell shows his own “States Rights” flavor"
That would be the same resolution he voted to rescind back in 2004, right? (HJ 194, 2004 Regular Session)
The problem with a Constitutional Convention is that once it is called there is no limit in the Constitution as to what amendments it can propose. Despite the wording of this resolution, a Constitutional Convention would be free to propose amendments ranging from prohibiting abortion to limiting the Second Amendment to organized militias. It could propose amendments repealing the income tax or one that sets Congressional term limits. No one wants to open that can of worms and it is the main reason that an Article V Constitutional Convention has never been called in the history of the Republic.
Such a resolution, however, can be useful in pressuring Congress to propose a specific amendment that the states want. The proposed 17th Amendment died in the Senate in numerous Congresses until an overwhelming majority of the state legislatures indicated that they were ready to call a Constitutional Convention. The Senate relented and passed the 17th Amendment for states’ ratification.
@HisRoc
While the resolutions that come out of a constitutional convention could not be restricted, they still would require ratification by 3/4 of the states.
Timothy,
That goes without saying. But I think that you missed my point. You might be too young to remember all the brouhaha of the 70′s and early 80′s over the Equal Rights Amendment. Over the course of the ten years that it was considered for ratification, untold treasure, legislative time, and editorial ink was squandered on that monument to feminism on steroids. The arguments against the amendment were almost as nonsensical as the arguments for ratifying it, yet we politically exhausted ourselves bickering over it until it finally expired. And it turned out to be a Constitutional remedy that was in search of a problem.
Do you really want to put half a dozen or more equally contentious amendments out there for the state legislatures to spend ten years arguing back and forth on?
There is an old saying in management science: if it ain’t broke then don’t fix it. This country has survived a civil war, a great depression, and the transition from a third-world agrarian economy to a superpower without a Constitutional Convention. We can fix a few trillion dollars in debt without one just as easily.
Really, really, really, really bad idea. You’d think that the Governor would be opposed to balanced budget amendments given the problems the Virginia balanced budget rule causes us every year.
[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Bearing Drift, MS. MS said: McDonnell shows his own “States Rights” flavor | Bearing Drift … http://bit.ly/gbVRg5 – Freedom [...]
Brian,
You mean like forcing the state to stay disciplined and spend only within its means? Right….terrible problem.
You’re definitely earning your label this week as moderate. I’m calling Lowell to have him rescind your “right wing nut” credentials.
J.R.,
If you call Lowell, will you get more then his answering machine or voice mail? I’m a Democrat and he has shown little but disdain for me, so I could only imagine what he must think of you.
I tend to agree with Brian S. WWII was fought with significant amounts of borrowed money, so yes, sometimes it is necessary for the government to go into the red. What I heard of exceptions for “emergencies” is a loophole so big I could get my tractor trailer through it.
In my mind this is nothing more then a political stunt by our Governor to get some of that love you were talking about.
This resolution is garbage.
As the previous commenter said, you can’t call a single-purpose convention.
So this is either on an improper legal foundation or a gimmick that he knows can’t happen.
Maybe we need an amendment to allow conventions to be called for specific amendments…
I admit it is not very realistic, but sometimes I think we should have a convention to consider a Bill of Socialism on one side and a Bill of Federalism from the other and send them out to the states and have a few years of contentious debate. It may be a foolish path, but I would rather get the direction “we the people” want our nation to take included in the Constitution, than allowing courts and lawyers and legislative games decide.
Jerry Z,
Sounds like you are in favor of spinning our wheels. Neither side is going to get the support necessary to get anything passed.
Are you in favor of drama over substance?
Since the governor, as a former member of the legislature, is a competent head counter and he knows this won’t get out of the State Senate, it’s about sending a message, not calling a constitutional convention.
The governor may be polishing up his Tea Party credentials, meaning he may be more interested in being on someone’s 2012 ticket than he’s let on so far.
“In my mind this is nothing more then a political stunt by our Governor to get some of that love you were talking about.”
“…a gimmick that he knows can’t happen.”
You know, I was telling someone the other day how I kind of like this Governor even though I tend to lean to the left. I considered him to be moderate and liked how he stayed away from this sort of crap (unlike the Cooch). Ah well, guess I was wrong. Really diappointing.
A national balanced budget? How can that be in a sovereign nation that has the power to confiscate not only your useless pennies but the gold in your jewelry cabinet?
To begin this trip into a Wonderland maze, we would first have to modify Article 1 of the Constitution. What rights should Congress have? Or the President? If we modify one clause, why not others? Since we are already in the neighborhood.
What about the ‘public debt’ clause of the 14th Amendment? A grand debate to the relevancy of this clause is sure to ensue. Don’t forget that Republicans want to modify the citizenship clauses of the 14th to eliminate anchor babies. Opening the door through public debt discussions could easily gravitate to other issues.
And who knows what other paths would be followed in the quest for balance. Democratic states could trade their convention approval votes to advance their own ‘living’ constitutional objectives. Lobbyists would crowd the state capitals, pushing their money and agendas.
The only ones who wouldn’t have a voice in this process would be the citizens the Constitution was supposed to protect.
JR, the problem with the balanced budget at the state level is that it doesn’t always force cuts. Often, it means we come up with creative ways to game the books to make the budget look balanced.
I am a firm believer in fiscal discipline – which to me means making the right decisions on spending without having your back to the wall.
Doing the right thing kind of loses its value when you’re forced to do it by law. I want legislators who are willing to show a little self restraint, rather than creativity in breaking the spirit of the law if not its letter.
Brian: You’re right.
Also, the Virginia budget has to balance on only two days. The day it’s adopted –that’s pretty easy you just estimate revenues to be whatever you need them to be. And the the end of the fiscal year — trickier, but doable. You push a sales tax collection from the next Fiscal Year into this one, or push a payday back or “find” money in the non-general fund agencies (the cash balances that they always run because they are self-supporting from fees). There’s a structural imbalance in the budget we just roll from year to year. Also, all Virginia’s debt is basically off-budget, in the capital improvement budget. But hey, if saying we’ve got a balanced budget makes people feel better…
Can you imagine the depth of the depression we would be in right now if in fact a balanced budget amendment had passed and was in effect in 2008? Or the condition of the Commonwealth’s budget if the Feds had not backed us up? This is simply grandstanding and feeding red meat to the base, yet to me, it is a sign that McDonnell is simply an ambitious politician with little regard for the legitimate role of a public executive in shaping public opinion.
Mike,
Actually, quite a few reputable economists believe that the Stimulus Bill has prolonged this recession rather than preventing a depression, similar to the new studies that show that the New Deal prolonged the Great Depression.
Do the math: by the Obama Administration’s own calculations, the Stimulus Bill “saved or created” about 3.5 million jobs. At $787 Billion, we could have paid 3.5 million people $200,000 each just to stay home until the economy improved.
Government cannot create wealth. Reducing taxes and reducing government debt creates wealth.
Actually that simplistic formula is not only wrong, but could create major issues for our nation going forward. Fact is, our economy has grown exponentially after periods of significant public investment. The G.I. bill created a skilled and disciplined workforce and the interstate highway system empowered a true national economy.
Fact is, we prosper when the public and private sectors each fulfill their appropriate functions. For example, our prosperity in Virginia is threatened by our failure to maintain and sustain our transportation infrastructure by failing to face up to funding requirements.
Mike,
We are probably not that far apart on our positions. I agree that simply giving money away is not public investment and that when government spending is focused on the appropriate functions of government then it benefits the economy. Abe Lincoln, for example, became a Whig because he favored government spending on infrastructure such as roads, canals, and railroads that would stimulate growth and economic activity. The Democrats of his day were much like the Libertarians of today and opposed any and all government participation in the “free market.”
However, what you refer to as a “simplistic formula” is anything but that. It is a glaring revelation that the Stimulus Bill was NOT focused on the appropriate functions of government but was a naked hand-out of cash. The proof is in the pudding. Focused government spending, like the G.I. Bill and the Interstate Highway Act, creates economic growth by stimulating the private sector. The Stimulus Bill failed miserably to do so. That was the point of my simplistic formula–when government spending produces less economic activity than welfare would, then it is wrong and misguided.
Thank you for your cogent explanation. I am willing to examine the evidence of the effect of the Stimulus when the experts have examined it in it entirety and have rendered their opinions. My gut feeling, from the performance of the commercial real estate industry, is that it kept people working, kept buildings occupied, kept jobs in place, and kept dollars flowing in the economy until our natural mechanism for growth gradually took over. Of course, there was a cost, yet had we ignored the effects, I am convinced we would have entered depression. Hopefully, we some space and time, we will have an evaluation and an explanation.
I’m convinced TARP prevented a depression.
But stimulus money went unspent for far too long to have the impact Mike and others assign too it.
BK: Wow. You and I totally agree on these two statements.
I’d add that the stimulus probably needed to be bigger, as well as pushed out faster and better targeted to have had the intended impact. (I had to stick in something you’d disagree with. It was getting scary).
We’re still probably better off now than if we hadn’t done it at all, but we’d have gotten a better result with a better constructed stimulus package.
Mike, Brian.. Tarp prolonged a downturn. The Tarp funds were not limited to troubled assets and the reorganizations that should have taken place were delayed or did not take place at all..
Money found its resting place in the wrong pockets.. About 50-80 Billion would have done the job with troubled real estate and the rest was a huge Bullshit Bingo Boondoggle. Nice huh.
James: Well, that’s easy to say now, from the comfort of having not gone into a Depression. We’d have had runs on banks and have been in a lot worse shape then we eventually were.
Look, let’s give George W. Bush credit, the last Republican president who looked down the barrel of that particular gun made exactly the wrong choice and tanked the country’s economy for ten years.
A carefully written balanced budget amendment would be good for our nation. There are good debts, and bad debts. Good debts are like mortgages that you have the money to repay or a firm investing to expand capital so it will grow. Bad debts are like a short term loan to buy a motorcycle or buying a new flat screen TV with no money down and a very high interest rate.
With an economy as big as ours, we need to have the capability to borrow money for specific purposes that our representatives can agree on. I do not like the idea of spending bills being able to get through congress with a simple majority vote. The 3/5 clause requires Congress to come to terms across party lines.
With that in mind, a convention raises problems of it’s own, but that doesn’t mean we should dismiss the idea. A blanket ban on any debts would undoubtedly be as awful as Brian S says, but we must rein in excessive spending. I am glad to see this move on the heels of the IMF’s reconsidering the idea to move away from the dollar as the world reserve, as found here: http://www.imf.org/external/np/pp/eng/2011/010711.pdf
What makes you guys think we have avoided a depression? Because the government BS statistics say so?
Hey the employment rate went down. Yippee! Except it went down because more people gave up looking for jobs. Oops.
We got government spending under control. Bet that’s why there is a big debate on expanding the debt limit.
Not that it matters anymore, because the federal reserve is now the largest holder of our debt. Ever wonder how that works? Is the fed a loan shark? Or the collection agency servicing the ultimate payers of that debt? US!
Anyway, the good news is China is not the debt problem it was last year. That’s because they have been busy trading our paper for gold and silver. Think they might know something we don’t?
The stock market has been going up. Yeah, because Ben prints free money for the wall street crooks to play with. Average hold time for a stock after buy and hold J6P bailed out of the market? About 3 milliseconds. POMO, high frequency trading stimulus wall street can count on.
The recession has to be over. Cisco was all over the news not long ago touting their company’s results. All the economic guru’s said at the time that tech was leading us out of recession. So this past week’s little glitch must be an isolated incident. Things are guaranteed to be better next quarter, honest. Snow! That’s it, snow got into the routers and froze up the internet, forcing companies to hold off buying more IT stuff. Except CIO’s are reportedly buying like new gear at fire sale auction prices from failed companies. Who to believe. Is it the cloud? Or a budget rending fog bank?
Foreclosures are going down. No wait! They were going down because the banks were holding off filings due to lawsuits against the bankster crooks. Now that various politicians and the legal system have been bought out, it’s back to business as usual.
Government: Trustworthy, Helpful.
Big government saved us. We Republicans salute you. Bah! Time for a new party and crooks in jail.
Darrell, you live in Chesapeake. Of COURSE you’re depressed.
Steve, we agree because you’re actually right this time. Good work!
Turbo, you’re clueless again, like when you thought a 53-42-4 race was neck and neck.
Even if more money went into TARP that needed to do, it doesn’t mean that it didn’t work.
Even if your sound bites are true, I’d take a prolonged recession over a depression any day of the week.
Depressed? I’m not depressed. But you will be soon enough as public debt exceeds 100 percent of annual GDP later this year and grows to 200% over the next few years. Meanwhile the Republican cost cutters are touting a spending cut of …. less than 1 percent. No wonder the tea party is in a tizzy and TARP supporters were panned at CPAC.
CPAC….cough
Darrell,
The definition of a recession has nothing to do with corporate spending, government debt, unemployment, or home foreclosures. A recession is defined by two consecutive quarters of negative GDP grow. The recession ends when there is a quarter in which GDP growth is positive. Under that definition, the last recession began in December 2007 and ended in June 2009.
All those other economic indicators are symptomatic of a recession, but do not define it. For example, since the 1990-91 recession we have come to understand the phenomenon of the “jobless recovery.” Job growth is now understood to be a lagging economic indicator. As for home foreclosures, one of the triggers of the 07-09 recession was the housing bubble. Home prices skyrocketed between 2002 and 2007. It is going to take at least as long for the correction to be completed. Home prices were still at unsustainable levels when the recession ended, but even at those levels too many mortgage holders were still underwater. Thus, even short sales are difficult to accomplish in getting mortgage relief.
With Government Spending being a component of GDP, a $1.5 trillion deficit and Ben Bernanke’s printing press, it seems our GDP could be manipulated quite a bit. With Fannie and Freddie’s open checkbook, they could dump a lot of money into gross investments portion of the GDP. GDP could be manipulated like the unemployment rate.
To call a Constitutional Convention would be the end of our Republic as we know it. This convention would include liberal states like New York and California who would advocate government control over individual liberties. We should definitely not have a Constitutional Convention at this time.
Once I had a job making 50 grand a year. Then I lost it. No problem though, I had a credit card, and an unemployment check covered the minimum payment when I quit paying the house. Man I was buying all kinds of stuff. So much that I ran out of room in the spare bedroom. And now that food and gas are going up, well gee, I’m really on a buying tear now. I bet those Fed bean counters are just loving my contribution to the GDP. The politicians are right. Spending other people’s money IS fun. And when they won’t give you anymore, just walk away or resign.
Definitions are as valid as statistics to these people. “Well uh, the Winter seasonally adjusted numbers didn’t work out, so we adjusted them to account for snow.” And two years from now some EPA nut will pull the same data to prove climate change.
JJ,
Government spending is a component of the GDP only to the extent that government purchases goods and services. The non-discretionary budget, primarily entitlement programs such as Social Security and interest on debt is not a component of GDP.
The Federal government component of GDP is about 8% of the $15T total GDP of the US economy, with about 60% of that Defense-related. State and local governments combined account for about 12% of GDP. It would be very difficult if not impossible for the Federal government to produce a 3% growth in GDP artificially. That is why economists will tell you that government can’t create wealth, only positive economic activity that far exceeds the spending power of the government can create wealth.
HR,
As the government’s budget was $3T of a $15T GDP, its influence throughout the whole calculation is like liberals within politics. They only account for 20% but they do a lot of damage. From a literal standpoint, you’re completely correct except for the impact those other factors discussed by Darrell have on our ailing economy.
To me, this is an accounting gimmick as with the healthcare CBO calculations or determining U3 unemployment rate. The government tentacles have reached into our economy and had a lasting effect. They have stifled it in some areas such as oil, healthcare and propped up bad business practices in the auto industry, factious numbers in the investment arena (Wall Street), and prompted housing debacle just a few issues influencing these GDP numbers.
It doesn’t help have the Bureau of Economic Analysis and the Federal Reserve Board’s prepare these calculations. It doesn’t scream objective. I understand and respect the point that household consumption + firm’s private investment spending + government purchases + net export = GDP, but there are more involved than just mathematical equation and the impact regulations and government involvement are having an overwhelming influence on this figure.
Even though our economy is easily the largest in the world…we do not know the true impact of our GDP unless government can remove its forceful hand. I understand your point and concede to it but the intangible influence also has an enormous impact. Honestly, I believe all this uncertainty is holding back our economy but our politicians have decided that we do not need the ups and down of a true economy…so they’ll just keep it down so it can be controlled.
The politicians have decided nothing. All you had to do was see their blood drained faces the day this all started to realize we have entered a new frontier. A politician’s purpose now is to keep the game going, approving whatever the money changers demand. The banks that were too big to fail and required extra-constitutional access to the treasury are now orders of magnitude larger as they take over the less privileged. No jail, no rules, no limits. But hey, the recession is over.
Leave your response
The comments section is for meaningful discussion. Readers are reminded to post comments that are germane to the article and write in a common language that steers clear of personal attacks and/or vulgarities.
Please take a moment to review our comment policy.