Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
Compact for America: Using the States to Fix Washington
As we’ve seen during Republican administrations and Democrat administrations, and with Republican congresses and Democrat congresses, Washington, DC refuses to fix its addiction to spending. During “conservative” George W. Bush’s two terms, the debt jumped by $4.9 trillion, and during “progressive” Barack Obama’s term (so far), it has jumped $8.2 trillion.
Looking at our nearly $19 trillion hole and with no end in sight to deficit spending, many limited government fans have decided that any solution to the Beltway can’t come from the Beltway. So, Marco Rubio caused a minor stir last week when he floated an idea that has been circulating in the right-leaning policy community for the past few years: Having the states leverage the power given to them by the Constitution.
“One of the things I’m going to do on my first day in office: I will announce that I am a supporter, and as president I will put the weight of the presidency behind a constitutional convention of the states,” Rubio said, “so we can pass term limits on members of Congress and the Supreme Court and so we can pass a balanced budget amendment.”
In theory, a convention of the states is an excellent idea. And the Constitution allows the states to check and balance the power of the Federal government, just like the White House and Congress were designed to check each others’ power. But many observers are understandably skeptical about calling a convention. Not only would it be exceedingly difficult and time-consuming, it also opens the door to all kinds of changes to our nation’s founding document:
Help me with the math here. To call a convention, you need 34 states to agree; to ratify new amendments at that convention, you need 38 states. Mitt Romney won 24 states in 2012. Even in a best-case scenario in 2016 for the GOP, you’re probably looking at 20 solidly blue states, which means you’re four short of what you need to call the convention and eight short of what you need to actually get things passed. On the one hand, that daunting math should calm fears of liberals going nuts at a convention and repealing the Second Amendment, carving out exceptions to the First, and so on. Even if they can find 30 blue states to support that, they’d still need eight red ones to join them in order to enact the proposals. Not going to happen. The only ideas that stand a chance of passing are procedural reforms that enjoy broad bipartisan support, like term limits for Congress.
On the other hand, apart from term limits, how many other reforms enjoy such sweeping cross-partisan enthusiasm that blue states would not only agree to join a constitutional convention aimed at them but to help conservatives pass them? If you think the left is going to go for a balanced-budget amendment, I fear you’re kidding yourself. The BBA may poll well in the abstract, but wait until the media starts digging into it and Democrats start shrieking about conservatives’ “evil scheme” to destroy Medicare by capping federal expenditures at revenue levels. A balanced-budget amendment is about restraining the power of the federal government to grease special interests by spending beyond its means. Why on earth would the modern Democratic Party agree to something like that?
These criticisms are sound. Thankfully, there’s a far better way for the states to fix Washington’s excesses: the Compact for America. I had the opportunity to visit a conference last month on this effort and learned that it’s a sensible, safe, and effective method to get the DC political class back under the control of We the People.
Nick Dranias, the President and Executive Director of Compact for America, explains how it works:
The Compact for a Balanced Budget is an agreement among the states that advances and ratifies a federal Balanced Budget Amendment in a single state legislative bill. It is activated by a single congressional resolution. In essence, the Compact pre-commits 38 states (the ratification number) to the entire constitutional amendment process in advance, so that a specific, pre-drafted federal Balanced Budget Amendment is voted up or down within 24 hours at the convention it organizes. The Compact’s amendment process is set in motion by a congressional resolution, which can be passed with simple majorities and no presidential signature. The congressional resolution both calls the 24-hour convention contemplated by the Compact and pre-selects legislative ratification, avoiding a second trip to Congress.
The compact’s singular focus on balancing the budget prevents any chance of a “runaway” convention in which lawmakers try to undermine our most precious constitutional rights. And by limiting the consideration time to just 24 hours, it will be a quick up or down vote: Do you stand with the people or with the political class?
The text of the balanced budget amendment itself is brief and to-the-point; no thousand-page omnibus here. The concise text will 1) limit the federal government’s borrowing capacity; 2) require state legislative approval for any increase in federal borrowing capacity; and 3) restrain the federal government’s taxing authority.
The amendment also includes three “release valves” for national emergencies: (1) the ability to pay down the national debt to free up borrowing capacity; (2) a referendum initiated by Congress requesting a simple majority of state legislatures to approve a proposed increase in the debt limit within 60 days; and (3) an impoundment process requiring the President to designate necessary spending delays and reprioritizations when a “red zone” of borrowing capacity is reached, subject to simple majority override by Congress.
Four states have already signed on to the document (Alaska, Georgia, Mississippi, and North Dakota) and others are considering legislation.
It’s good that Sen. Rubio drew attention to the convention process, but it is crucial that it be done in the best way. If Americans want to get Washington spending under control in a smooth, timely, and safe manner, the Compact for America is the best choice.
Published in Economics, Law
Never mind. Just realized “runaway” modified the Compact convention Jon was writing about and not the Article V convention he was opposing.
“It’s good that Sen. Rubio drew attention to the convention process, but it is crucial that it be done in the best way.”
Yeah. Rubio was narrowing it to budget balancing and term limits, but I’m pretty sure the Convention of States is trying to put together a small set of amendments to minimize much more fundamental and far-reaching problems than those two. The Compact will do absolutely nothing about those. Anyone who thinks this country is dangerously close to the precipice should also support the Convention of States effort.
Yes!
I don’t oppose an Article V convention as much as I think it won’t work as well as the Compact. It’s not that a Convention of the States is bad or unconstitutional; much of the arguments against it are nothing more than shrill fear-mongering. But any plan needs to win in the legislatures and in the court of public opinion. A simple plan is a much easier sell.
The Compact’s limited, targeted approach will prove more effective to get the results most conservatives want, in my opinion.
Term limits is a much better answer than a BBA. The BBA has too many “out” clauses if it is at all realistic, or you end up with “PayGo”, which gave us the constant call from PelosiReid to increase taxes.
in 2011 I calculated we would need to reduce SS, Medicare, and Income security, and other health spending by about 240B each and the military by 40B.
That was when we were running merely trillion dollar deficits.
Duane, couldn’t Term Limits lead to the perverse “I need to grease some palms before I get term-limited-out so I’ll have a job to go to after Congress”?
Look at the sequester, which has smaller teeth than a BBA would – folks on the right and the left agree that it has shrunk the growth of government, albeit crudely. It worked. I think a BBA would do even more.
I’m OK with a limited sequester, I’m also OK with GRH. That is, provided that defense does not get short shrift in the process.
My big concern, though, FridayNE, is that the lack of term limits leads to a professional political class of lifers. I reluctantly think that that is worse than any of the alternatives (I understand the fact that John Adams, JQA, Henry Clay, etc. were effectively lifers, but they also served aty a time when there was a lot less money involved and there was a reluctance to run continuous deficits). I also think that it is easier to spot self-dealing with a rep who has only 12 years than with a rep who stays forever.
Thus, I think that term limits is the best of a bad set of choices, necessitated by a problematic system run by flawed human beings. If we could outlaw Christmas tree bills, it would help a lot.
We also need to get rid of the lifetime pensions–make them pay into social security like everyone else, and be done with it–and their special healthcare deals and exceptions as well!! Disgusting. We really are living in a soft tyranny. Just like Julius Caesar extending his term as consul (turning eventually into dictator for life), we are seeing the slow, incremental dissolution of our beloved Republic
We also need to start contemplating and talking about (peaceful) succession of several of the states (the ultimate nullification, also known as revolution, a right we retained in the Declaration of Independence) as an alternative to terms limits and BBA–the libtards and RINOs will presumably find terms limits and a BBA far more palatable than succession of several states, or maybe nit!