Contributor Post Created with Sketch. Don’t Embrace Big Federal Government, Support the Compact for a Balanced Budget


Hugging and holding the political status quo is a death embrace with big federal government.

Why is that? Simply put, we no longer enjoy the form of federal government the Founders originally created. This is because the Constitution as it currently exists has three fatal flaws, which will inexorably lead to tyranny unless they are fixed with a constitutional amendment.

The first is the federal government’s unlimited borrowing capacity. This enables unprincipled politicians to promise at no immediate cost anything it takes to get elected. That’s like handing liquor and car keys to a teenager. It guarantees a system crash propelled by mindless spending.

The second is unlimited direct taxation authority courtesy of the 16th Amendment. This empowers unprincipled politicians to make 49% of the nation pay for anything the 51% want; and also to impose complete economic destruction on political enemies and disfavored policy ideas. If this flaw persists, what the IRS did to conservative groups two years ago is just a small taste of what the future holds.

The third is the unlimited concentration of power over national policy making in Washington courtesy of the 17th Amendment. This amendment removed the states from a position of control over the U.S. Senate. It has enabled the federal government to ratify treaties and pass laws, as well as populate the federal judiciary and federal agencies, without any respect for state sovereignty. And it allows a growing distant political class in Washington, D.C. to easily leverage overwhelming national power to crush dissent and policy diversity in the heartland.

These three flaws will cause the federal government to gradually accumulate and centralize all political power over time. Over time, these three flaws will make it impossible for limited government and freedom-oriented elected officials to outcompete elected officials who favor big federal government for votes. Consequently, hugging and holding this fatally flawed system is doomed to produce the opposite of freedom.

Only a constitutional amendment can fix the three fatal flaws of the Constitution as it currently exists. Nothing else will.

But it is mistaken to expect two-thirds of each house of Congress to propose the necessary reform. The numbers did not add up in the 1980s, 1990s, or 2000s, and they just do not add up today. Instead, especially after the last election, there is a much more plausible pathway; that pathway involves organizing three-fourths of the states and simple majorities of Congress behind the necessary reform amendment in a targeted fashion. It means supporting the Compact for a Balanced Budget.

Simply put, the Balanced Budget Amendment advanced by the Compact for a Balanced Budget gives us the best shot of addressing each of the Constitution’s three fatal flaws with fundamental reforms.

To fix the flaw of unlimited federal borrowing capacity, the Amendment imposes an initially-fixed constitutional limit on available borrowing capacity. This limit gives the federal government an additional 5% in borrowing capacity above the outstanding federal debt upon ratification. This 5% cushion allows for a 1 to 2 year transitional period to responsible budgeting and fiscal planning. And there is no doubt the amendment will focus the mind during that transitional period. This is because the debt limit is coupled to a mandatory spending impoundment requirement that kicks-in when 98% of the debt limit is reached. Spending will be limited to available tax and fee cash flow if the debt limit is hit. There is no exception except for the referendum process described below. This one reform guarantees that Washington politicians will immediately lose the ability to promise anything at no immediate cost to get elected.

To fix the flaw of the unlimited centralization of national policy making in Washington, the Amendment empowers a majority of state legislatures to veto any increase in the federal government’s constitutionally-fixed borrowing capacity. To get any additional borrowing capacity above the initial constitutional baseline, simple majorities of Congress will have to refer-out a measure proposing the increase. The proposal will be deemed denied unless it is approved by at least twenty-six state legislatures within 60 days of the referral. With the federal government borrowing nearly half of discretionary spending, this referendum process divides power over national policy making between the states and the federal government in a big way.

Finally, to fix the flaw of unlimited federal taxation authority, the Amendment imposes a tax limit requiring two-thirds of each house of Congress to approve any new or increased income or sales tax. The current constitutional rule allowing for tax increases with simple majorities will be restricted to measures that would completely replace the income tax with a consumption sales tax, eliminate tax loopholes, or impose new or increased tariffs and fees. The reform will divert the pressure for new revenue to the places where special interest pushback will be the strongest, further ensuring that deficits are closed by spending reductions first.

National polling shows that each one of these policy fixes are supported by supermajorities of the American people. The Amendment has been endorsed by Judge Andrew Napolitano, George Will, George Leef of Forbes Magazine and Congressman/Lt. Col. Allen West, among others.

Numerous think tanks have vetted and joined the related educational push, which began at the Goldwater Institute.

With Alaska and Georgia already on board, and at least ten states looking to join the Compact this session, the Compact for a Balanced Budget is an eminently plausible route to the reforms we need to save and restore the Republic.

Indeed, with demographic change threatening the supermajority of states needed to get the job done, the Compact for a Balanced Budget may be our last best shot at preventing the federal tyranny that will otherwise inevitably result from the current Constitution’s three fatal flaws of unlimited debt, unlimited taxation, and unlimited centralization of power in Washington.

There are 4 comments.

Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.
  1. namlliT noD Member
    namlliT noD Joined in the first year of Ricochet Ricochet Charter Member

    I doubt it would be possible to pass a strict balanced budget amendment.

    So I’ll offer an alternate approach: What if members of congress were ineligible to be reelected when the budget wasn’t balanced?

    It’s like saying, “Your job is to balance the budget, and if you don’t you are fired.” If it fails to balance the budget, it turns over congress, so either way it’s a win. And the party that spends less will be at an overall advantage. Emergency spending is possible, but it has a cost.

    • #1
    • January 14, 2015, at 3:27 PM PST
    • Like
  2. 1967mustangman Inactive

    How about a carrot and a stick? In any year that the budget is balance member of congress shall receive double their annual salary. The 50-75 million that would cost would be a small price to pay.

    • #2
    • January 14, 2015, at 4:18 PM PST
    • Like
  3. namlliT noD Member
    namlliT noD Joined in the first year of Ricochet Ricochet Charter Member

    1967mustangman: How about a carrot and a stick? In any year that the budget is balance member of congress shall receive double their annual salary.

    It still effectively says, “If you don’t do your job, we’ll pay you anyway.” And various bribes/gifts/contributions/whatevers could easily offset the bunus.

    A more extreme version, less stick and more carrot but true to the intent of not rewarding people for not doing their job, would be to receive no salary for any year without a balanced budget.

    But there are problems with that… one is running up against minimum wage law. :-) Another is that these guys make $174,000.00 a year, which is a lot, but it’s not a huge amount, and there are many easier ways to earn more than that. So they’re generally not in it for the salary.

    • #3
    • January 15, 2015, at 11:02 AM PST
    • Like
  4. Limestone Cowboy Coolidge
    Limestone Cowboy Joined in the first year of Ricochet Ricochet Charter Member

    Add in repeal of the 17th amendment and I’m in up to the neck.

    • #4
    • January 15, 2015, at 6:18 PM PST
    • Like

Comments are closed because this post is more than six months old. Please write a new post if you would like to continue this conversation.