|To our members,|
Yesterday (07/13), we sent a message concerning the Balanced Budget Amendment that has been proposed as an Amendment to the US Constitution. We asked you to read the proposed Amendment; then decide whether to encourage your Representatives to vote for or against it.
In response to the message of yesterday, we received the following message from Paula Schaff, President of the Punta Gorda Tea Party. The information contained in her email was obtained during a Leadership Conference with Tea Party Patriots. We feel it is important to share this message with you:
"FYI - We were privy to this e-mail also. (Referring to the information contained in yesterday's email from Citizens in Action that was posted on Tea Party Nation. Insert mine). It stunned us and was sent to a number of people to see if they could ascertain if it was correct in its assumptions. The one group that responded back was Tea Party Patriots the other night. They forwarded this to Mark Levin. He actually came on the conference call to discuss this with him and ask questions.
I will paraphrase some of his responses. He read the Balanced Budget plan and says it doesn't do anything BUT limit spending and the amount taxes can be increased. It really is not a balanced budget. It doesn't do anything to eliminate or transfer the enumerated powers of any of the three branches. He said we can not do everything in one constitutional amendment and likened this to the founders dealing with slavery. The issue kept coming up, but couldn't be dealt with. This amendment will not stop the unconstitutional spending. We have to elect people who will not spend the money in an unconstitutional way. He says it will take a generation to undo the damage; that we are the new founding fathers and mothers. But, he says much of our government makes decisions outside of Congress (like the EPA). He supports this amendment - while not perfect - it does limit the growth of the government. Mark says the system is so broken that if we don't succeed, America will collapse.
What we are doing is very crucial and he takes hope from us - every day. He was asked why he supported Cut, Cap and Balance when it supported raising the debt ceiling. He said there would be no vote on the BB Amendment, debt ceiling.......but if we could get heavy duty slashing of the budget and some sort of cap on spending, it would be worthwhile. He expressed other things he'd like to see done. While he is not happy with the Republican leadership - he could not support a third party because the system is designed against it.
Later, after the Q&A, we had two gentlemen on the call who repect Mark very much, but said they could not vote for the BBA because they had been doing nothing but studying it for the last couple of weeks - 24/7 - and would like to debate Mark on the merits. They felt it would do harm and therefore we would be better off not voting to support it.
Don't know if this is helpful or not - but it was good of Mark to take the time to explain. We (Punta Gorda Tea Party) had decided not to support it because there were several areas where by super majority they could spend as much as they wanted. It never mentioned what avenue would be used to assure that the 18% of GDP figure (too high) - was adhered to after the emergency, war, whatever was over. We are against raising the debt ceiling for the same reason. In fact, we have written our Congress people to tell them we want the debt ceiling decreased."
Paula Schaff, President
Punta Gorda Tea Party
Since sending the message from CIA yesterday, we have learned (from GOP Whip Kevin McCarthy) that the House is scheduling a vote on the proposed Balanced Budget Amendment next week!
As it stands now, the Constitution LIMITS the amount of spending of Congress; as well as preventing taxation. The out-of-control spending we have witnessed by Congress in the past years has been clearly unconstitutional!
While we agree a Balanced Budget Amendment is needed, as worded, the proposed Balanced Budget Amendment will, in essence, grant Congress UNLIMITED spending AND taxation simply by a majority vote!
At this time, we encourage you to contact your Senators AND your House Representative and urge them to vote AGAINST the proposed Balanced Budget Amendment as worded! Please explain to them that the frequent use of the word UNLESS must be removed from the proposed Amendment before We the People can agree to its adaption. In addition, we would like clarification of HOW the GDP figure of 18% was determined and what measure will be taken to assure that the GDP figure would be adhered to after and emergency (war, for example) was over.
Please read the text of the proposed Amendment below. Please note the usage of the word UNLESS and how it affects spending and taxation!
H.J.RES.2 -- Proposing a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution of the United States. (Introduced in House - IH)
HJ 2 IH112th CONGRESS 1st Session H. J. RES. 2
Proposing a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution of the United States.IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
January 5, 2011
Mr. GOODLATTE (for himself, Mr. HENSARLING, Mr. SMITH of Texas, Mr. COFFMAN of Colorado, Mr. ADERHOLT, Mr. AKIN, Mr. ALEXANDER, Mrs. BACHMANN, Mr. BACHUS, Mr. BARTON of Texas, Mrs. BIGGERT, Mr. BILBRAY, Mr. BILIRAKIS, Mr. BISHOP of Utah, Mr. BONNER, Mr. BOREN, Mr. BOUSTANY, Mr. BRADY of Texas, Mr. BROOKS, Mr. BROUN of Georgia, Mr. BUCHANAN, Mr. BURGESS, Mr. BURTON of Indiana, Mr. CAMPBELL, Mr. CARTER, Mr. CASSIDY, Mr. CHAFFETZ, Mr. COBLE, Mr. COLE, Mr. CONAWAY, Mr. CRAWFORD, Mr. CULBERSON, Mr. DAVIS of Kentucky, Mr. DENT, Mr. DIAZ-BALART, Mr. DUNCAN of Tennessee, Mrs. EMERSON, Mr. FLEMING, Mr. FLORES, Mr. FORBES, Mr. FORTENBERRY, Mr. FRANKS of Arizona, Mr. GALLEGLY, Mr. GARDNER, Mr. GARRETT, Mr. GERLACH, Mr. GOHMERT, Mr. GRIFFITH of Virginia, Mr. HALL, Mr. HARPER, Mr. HELLER, Mr. HERGER, Mr. HULTGREN, Mr. HURT, Mr. ISSA, Mr. SAM JOHNSON of Texas, Mr. JONES, Mr. JORDAN, Mr. KING of Iowa, Mr. KINGSTON, Mr. LAMBORN, Mr. LANCE, Mr. LATTA, Mr. LOBIONDO, Mr. LUCAS, Mr. LUETKEMEYER, Mrs. LUMMIS, Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California, Mr. MACK, Mr. MANZULLO, Mr. MARINO, Mr. MATHESON, Mr. MCCAUL, Mr. MCCLINTOCK, Mr. MCHENRY, Mr. MCKEON, Mr. MCKINLEY, Mrs. MCMORRIS RODGERS, Mr. MILLER of Florida, Mrs. MILLER of Michigan, Mr. MURPHY of Pennsylvania, Mrs. MYRICK, Mr. NEUGEBAUER, Mr. NUGENT, Mr. OLSON, Mr. PENCE, Mr. PETERSON, Mr. PLATTS, Mr. POE of Texas, Mr. POSEY, Mr. PRICE of Georgia, Mr. REED, Mr. REHBERG, Mr. REICHERT, Mr. RIBBLE, Mr. RIGELL, Mrs. ROBY, Mr. ROE of Tennessee, Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky, Mr. ROSKAM, Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN, Mr. ROSS of Florida, Mr. ROYCE, Mr. SCALISE, Mr. SCHILLING, Mr. AUSTIN SCOTT of Georgia, Mr. SENSENBRENNER, Mr. SESSIONS, Mr. SHIMKUS, Mr. SHUSTER, Mr. SIMPSON, Mr. SMITH of Nebraska, Mr. SULLIVAN, Mr. THOMPSON of Pennsylvania, Mr. TURNER, Mr. UPTON, Mr. WESTMORELAND, Mr. WILSON of South Carolina, Mr. WITTMAN, Mr. WOLF, Mr. YOUNG of Alaska, Mr. GARY G. MILLER of California, Mr. MEEHAN, Mrs. BLACKBURN, Mr. CALVERT, Mr. FARENTHOLD, Mr. GRAVES of Missouri, Mr. HUNTER, Mr. LEWIS of California, Mr. PEARCE, Mr. PITTS, Mr. POMPEO, Mr. SCHOCK, Ms. GRANGER, Mr. WALDEN, Mr. CUELLAR, Mr. BARTLETT, and Mr. CHABOT) introduced the following joint resolution; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary
Proposing a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution of the United States.
Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled (two-thirds of each House concurring therein), That the following article is proposed as an amendment to the Constitution of the United States, which shall be valid to all intents and purposes as part of the Constitution when ratified by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several States within seven years after the date of its submission for ratification:
`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 rollcall 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 rollcall 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 rollcall 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 which 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, 2016.'.
Please contact your Representatives today and encourage them to vote AGAINST the H.R. 2--the Balanced Budget Amendment!
Contacting the Congress
Don't forget--Twitter-ing is the fastest way to reach your members of Congress! Click the link below, scroll about half-way down the page and, on the left side, type in your zip code to find your Representatives Twitter contact information.
Contacting Congress on Twitter
Take action now!
Then forward this email to your contacts.