Another first for the administration | Eastern North Carolina Now

    Publisher's Note: Jim Bispo's weekly column appears in the Beaufort Observer.

    When the government shutdown was averted with the agreement on the Continuing Resolution, we heard claims of another "first" for the current administration; a reduction in spending. I don't know if it's true or not; nor do I know if the agreement reached represents a real reduction in spending or is simply a reduction in the amount requested in the latest budget submission by the Prez. What I have heard reported is that somehow after the smoke and mirrors disappeared, the real savings turned from $38,000,000,000 to $352,000,000. Did the Reps get outfoxed again?? And are the getting snookered again by allowing the Dems to refer to the tax increase they so earnestly want to impose on those making more than $250K in the context of the Bush Tax cuts instead of the Obama tax increase on the so called wealthy?? But that's another issue for another day. This column is about "firsts".

    Our Constitution, despite the amount of abuse it has suffered lately, still provides the legal principles by which our country is governed. As we read Article V of the Constitution, we find a means for amending it. Actually, we find two ways to amend the Constitution. According to Article V "The Congress, whenever two-thirds of both houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose amendments to this constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several states, shall call a Convention for proposing amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid .... when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several states ...."

    So, there are two ways in which the Constitution can be amended; at the call of two thirds of each house of the U.S. congress; or at the call of two thirds of the Legislatures of the several states. A convention called by the states has apparently never happened. Therein lies yet an opportunity for another "first" for this administration. So how about it folks??

    According to the National Conference of State Legislatures, "All the states except Vermont have a legal requirement of a balanced budget. Some are constitutional, some are statutory, and some have been derived by judicial decision from constitutional provisions about state indebtedness that do not, on their face, call for a balanced budget." More detail can be viewed at : http://www.ncsl.org/default.aspx?tabid=12660 .

    According to the National Conference of State Legislatures, "There are three general kinds of state balanced budget requirements:

   The governor's proposed budget must be balanced (43 states and Puerto Rico).

    The budget the legislature passes must be balanced (39 states and Puerto Rico).

    The budget must be balanced at the end of a fiscal year or biennium, so that no deficit can be carried forward (37 states and Puerto Rico)."

   The first of the above would seem to leave a lot of room for" mischief"; the second offers a bit less opportunity for mischief, but does not seem to provide much motivation to comply with the budget as approved by the legislature. The third of the approaches seems to fit the bill for a requirement that is clear and unambiguous.

    Virtually all states are faced with the requirement to operate within a balanced. budget.. It would seem to follow that the most, if not all, states would be amenable to the imposition of such a requirement at the national level.

    So what are the chances of such a requirement being imposed by the U.S. Congress?? Somewhere between slim and none would seem to be a fairly reasonable guess. Why would they want to restrict their ability to demonstrate grandiose benevolence to their supporters?? Short answer: They wouldn't!!

    On the other hand, at the state level, they are already bound to at least a degree of sanity. It would seem to be a much more acceptable proposition to propose that the Feds be bound by the same sort of restrictions as are the states.

    It would certainly seem that now is the time to pursue yet another first for our community organizer's administration. If you look at the information found at: http://www.ncsl.org/documents/statevote/2010_Legis_and_State_post.pdf you will find a chart that seems to indicate a fairly large number of state legislatures that are controlled by the group that would be likely to vote in favor of a balanced budget amendment to the Federal Constitution.

    All we need to keep in mind is that three fourths of fifty is thirty seven and a half which means that with the concurrence of thirty eight state legislatures we could establish the requirement for a balanced budget at the national level. That would make paying down our debt a much more realistic possibility.

    CNNMoney.com reports that between fourteen and nineteen cents out of every dollar of income will soon be required simply to cover interest on our debt. Just think, if we were clear of that debt - with no other changes - our budget could be reduced by somewhere between fourteen and nineteen percent. And with such a budget reduction, one would certainly anticipate a commensurate reduction in the taxes which we must pay. For more information go to: http://money.cnn.com/2011/02/02/news/economy/interest_national_debt/index.htm

    So how about it?? How about a balanced budget amendment?? And, if a balanced budget amendment turns out to not be doable, how about an amendment to the effect that the debt ceiling cannot be raised beyond some specified percentage (X % - cumulative) of the GDP except by an affirmative vote of 2/3rds of each house of congress and further that it cannot be raised beyond that figure by any more than an additional percentage (Y % - cumulative) without an affirmative vote of 3/4ths of each house of congress - where X and Y are both fairly small numbers..

    Regardless, whatever we do, it will certainly be another first for the administration. These are the kinds of "firsts", we should be more than willing to give to the anointed one's administration.

    D'ya think??