Mind you, this is the same guy who supported Trump’s tax cuts for the uber-rich, which added billions to the deficit, I think. (I am not an economist.) Seems to me Republicans only care about some of these things when a Democrat is in the White House, in any event.
It’s amazing what comes out when you use a really good laxative.
What the hell, if enough Republicans get elected to ram through an amendment like this, why not go the whole nine yards and just ram through a amendment to eliminate the Democratic party, eliminate elections, and install themselves for life? What’s to stop them?
It still requires approval of 3/4 of the states.
Okay, but my hypothetical still holds. If enough Republicans get elected, wherever they need to be, to ram through the Lindsay amendment, they can ram through anything more draconian than that too.
There is a counter-argument, though: Historically, state governments are in tension with the Federal government, each being in a chronic power struggle with the other. This is a very intentional feature, not a bug. So what’s good for one may be resisted by the other, even among anti-democrats all of the same party.
Setting aside the hypocrisy, it’s a terrible idea. That is, unless you want to see the economy collapse.
You can always tell when a Democrat is in the White House: Republicans start pretending to care about government spending again.
And you can also tell when the earth is revolving around the sun: Republicans favor giving rich people a tax cut.
And when there are no more taxes to cut, they’ll start demanding welfare payments.
Proposing (or backing) a constitutional amendment is pure performance. Every politician with half a brain* knows that no remotely controversial amendment stands a chance in hell of getting ratified, so it’s just another way to say some stuff he knows his constituents will like even if they have no inkling of how such measures would play out in the real world.
(*I know I’m probably giving Graham too much credit here.)
What’s stopping them would be having to balance the budget.
This is a bad idea, but it’s an old idea and one that’s much less likely to be enacted today than it was in 1995, when it came within one vote in the Senate of being sent to the states.
Definitely agreed.
In the past 50 years, we’ve seen only two amendments passed and implemented:
- The 26th Amendment lowered the voting age to 18
- The 27th Amendment affected when salary increases for Congress would be implemented
Neither of those are (or were) particularly hot-button issues for large numbers of Americans.
Balanced budget amendments have been floating around for decades. The closest we got was in 1995, when an amendment passed the House and came one vote shy in the Senate. (It still would have needed to be approved by 3/4 of the states). I notice though that Graham is calling for amendment via an Article V convention, which would allow 2/3 of the states to force Congress to call a convention to propose amendments. This process has never been utilized.
It has never been utilized because nobody knows what the hell else might come out of it in addition to whatever amendment’s being discussed at the moment, and everybody with any sense on all sides is terrified that what else might come out of it would be something, or multiple things, that they very much don’t want to have happen.
Nothing, and in fact since the method recommended by Graham opens up a free for all on the entire constitution, this proposal would be a good way to get a foot in the door to pass all those other things you posited come to pass (Except for the niggling problem that there a zero chance in hell that this will get that far).
Jesus. How about Lindsay Graham show us precisely what would be in his balanced budget. Every dollar of revenue, every dollar of spending. If Republicans are so much in favor of balanced budgets, why don’t they ever propose one? I suppose we’ll see their specifics about the same time as we see their replacement for the ACA.
Unlike the ACA, though, I’m sure they actually do have plans for a balanced budget. They just know it’d be politically unpopular (to say the least).
You know what that looks like. Cut SS, Medicare, Medicaid, arts and sciences. They’ll be glad to tell you exactly how they’d like to balance the budget.
Yup. The “balanced Budgets” favored by Republicans invariably involve reduction in taxation of the wealthy and cuts in the social safety net.