A New Look At “Balanced Budget Amendment”

I had a friend of mine that is currently a state senator here in the AZ stop by the house yesterday. He asked to put a campaign sign up in my yard. We were sitting on the front porch talking and I asked him if he ever remembered how we actually met about five years ago. He said he didn’t.

I was working with a group called COS, which stood for Convention of States. They were primarily interested in holding a Constitutional Convention forcing the federal government to adopt a balanced budget amendment. I was all for that. On the surface it sounded like a great thing to do. My friend, the state senator, was the majority whip in the state house at the time. I was trying to enlist his vote as the issue was up in the house and I was trying to get Arizona to pass it.

He told me when we were sitting on the front porch he was against the balanced budget amendment. I couldn’t understand why any fiscal conservative wouldn’t want that. And he hit me between the eyes. His reason actually was pretty good. He felt that if we passed a balanced budget amendment, it wouldn’t necessarily reign in spending, that would go on unabated, but it would give those in DC the right to raise taxes to the moon to balance the budget.

I hadn’t thought of that. And then I read in McClatchy’s website that Congress is actually considering making churches pay taxes. It became crystal clear. The bear needs food and will do anything to get it.

The churches aren’t going to be made to pay all of the taxes all businesses pay. But they are going to have to pay 21% tax on the benefits they give their employees. And this is in an election year.

Traditionally, churches and non-profits don’t have to pay certain taxes, though they still do pay a slew of them. But for Congress to be considering this…especially during an election year when the GOP is looking at losing the House of Representatives, is extraordinary. It defies logic except to say that once in office, those elected start looking for more and more income to use.

And I guess that’s human nature. I sit on the Board of Directors of a company out here and yes, I will admit, as fiscally conservative as I am, I have voted more than once to increase the fees our members have to pay in order to balance our budget. Oh, we’ve cut spending several times, and the staff and management has done an exemplary job at controlling costs and spending, but in the end, the fees have to go up. Now, we haven’t raised them in a year, and the Board was very vocal that they didn’t want to raise them next year either. But it just goes to prove my point.

Everybody in DC has an agenda. That’s 535 different agendas that need to be considered. And that costs a ton of cash. The balanced budget idea is a good one, but it needs to be tweaked. Instead of saying Congress needs to stay within a balanced budget, it should also say that Congress cannot raise taxes to balance the budget. All balancing must come from spending cuts. THAT is something I’d be in favor of.

Carry on world…you’re dismissed!


One thought on “A New Look At “Balanced Budget Amendment”

  1. I hadn’t thought about that! Thanks for pointing it out. When you’re raised to pay your bills you don’t think that way. DAH!

    > WordPress.com

    Liked by 1 person

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s