LDS Freedom Forum

So is The Utah Compact. It too is a seductive piece of political propaganda.

Arm Yourself with Facts about Compact for America (Part 1 of 2)
John Birch Society Leadership Strikes Out with Half-Baked Analysis of CFA’s Balanced Budget Amendment

Members of the John Birch Society have been ordered by their leadership to oppose the Compact for America in a recent article written by Joe Wolverton. No reasonable person would accept these marching orders if armed with all of the facts. Here’s why each of Joe Wolverton’s criticisms of the CFA’s BBA are meritless:

The Compact for America is our best hope for ratifying a powerful Balanced Budget Amendment that could save our future and help restore our Republic.

Debt is the problem. More than any other policy, unlimited debt spending is the source and enabler of an overreaching federal government. Cut the spigot of limitless debt spending and you will create a structure that forces a debate over the legitimate functions of the federal government that will otherwise be easily evaded. Nullification in any of its forms is a purely defensive maneuver and cannot limit federal debt spending.

CFA’s BBA cannot be gamed. The CFA’s BBA is uniquely effective because it requires total expenditures, broadly defined, never to exceed total receipts, defined narrowly to include tax receipts or their equivalent and to exclude proceeds from debt financing, trillion dollar coins, etc. This definition of “balance” cannot be gamed because its effectiveness is not dependent on budget estimates that can be cooked; likewise, cash or accrual accounting gimmicks such as delays in paying amounts due or floating checks cannot alter its hard and fast requirement of a perfect balance between spending and receipts at all times. The only exception from the BBA’s strict requirement that spending not exceed receipts is that any gap must be financed exclusively by good faith and fair credit debt, i.e. treasury bonds, which is subject to a hard constitutional limit that can only be increased with the approval of a majority of state legislatures. Far from being a deviation from the principles of a balanced budget amendment, we have discovered that there is no way to have a truly non-gameable definition of a balanced budget without this sort of debt cushion to handle volatility and mismatches from day to day between revenues and spending. A revolving line of credit, so to speak, is the price of a definition of a balanced budget that cannot be gamed. Enforcing a balanced budget that channels any borrowing exception to transparent bonding, which is subject to a hard constitutional limit on the amount of credit available, is far better than the status quo of limitless borrowing coupled to budgetary gamesmanship.

State approval restores the Constitution. By requiring state approval of any increase in the federal debt above a hard constitutional debt limit, the CFA’s BBA gives the states back a portion of the original power they had to check and balance Washington before the 17th Amendment. It should not be forgotten that before the 17th Amendment, states controlled the U.S. Senate, giving them authority not only over debt spending but all federal policies. Returning the states to a role in making federal policy is hardly “tinkering,” as claimed by Wolverton. It moves the Constitution dramatically closer to its original design, while targeting the state's engagement in federal policy to a clear problem area.
 
State approval will help fix the debt. State approval of increases in the federal debt
decentralizes power and encourages a truly nationwide debate over debt policy. This will limit abusive increases in the federal debt more so than leaving debt policy in the hands of Congress, the President, and the concentrated interests that dominate Washington. Moreover, the CFA’s BBA prohibits quid pro quo trades of state approval for federal spending or tax increases. Any attempt to do so jeopardizes the approval process and could render the approved increase in debt void. This will be a powerful incentive for states not to abuse their newfound role in debt policy, contrary to Wolverton’s analysis.

Presidential impoundment is a balanced enforcement measure. Giving the President the power to impound spending to enforce a debt limit, subject to override within 30 days by Congress proposing alternative cuts, is far less power than the line item veto that is already common in most states. It does not radically shift power to the President because the power to impound spending is implicated only if the nation continues to borrow money up to the BBA’s debt limit. Congress is fully in charge of whether the President ever has the power to impound anything because Congress still controls the appropriations process in the first place. This is why the CFA’s BBA strikes the right balance.

Fixing the debt is good public policy. There is no trade-off between holding the line on taxation and enforcing a BBA because debt is taxation. It is taxation in the form of inflation because debt increases the money supply, generating a price level that is necessarily higher than it would otherwise be. Debt is also taxation for future generations who are stuck with the bill for our current spending—assuming the debt is repaid. Limiting debt therefore limits taxation. At worst, a BBA forces a choice between taxes today or taxes tomorrow. And if we have to choose, it is better to choose taxes today instead of taxes tomorrow because there is no effective political check on shifting the costs of our policies to non-voting future generations. This is why the BBA’s hard debt limit is good public policy.

CFA’s BBA will generate better tax policy. Tax policy with the CFA’s BBA in place would be far better than under the status quo. The requirement of supermajority approval for general tax increases, with simple majority approval retained for completely junking the income tax code in favor of a sales tax, or eliminating exemptions, deductions and credits, is a powerful force for reforming our tax code. It forces nearly any attempt to raise taxes to do so either in a more voluntary manner through a sales tax, or more fairly through a flatter income tax; both of which are more conducive to economic growth. This is why the CFA’s BBA is far better than the status quo of class warfare tax increases under the current regime.

CFA’s BBA is a spending limit. Finally, the CFA’s BBA is a spending limit as much as a debt limit because spending cannot exceed tax receipts or the equivalent, and cannot be funded by proceeds of borrowing (above a hard debt limit), much less by simply minting new trillion dollar coins or printing money. The status quo affords no such protection from such limitless spending.

The Compact for America Initiative is a safe and effective means of restoring our Nation and protecting our Liberty. For good reason, the People are demanding the Compact for America’s Balanced Budget Amendment. They need your leadership. Learn more at http://www.compactforamerica.org" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Arm Yourself with Facts about Compact for America (Part 2 of 2)
John Birch Society Leadership Strikes Out with Half-Baked Analysis of CFA’s Sixteen Safeguards

Members of the John Birch Society have been ordered by their leadership to oppose the Compact for America in a recent article written by Joe Wolverton. No reasonable person would accept these marching orders if armed with all of the facts.

The Compact for America is our best hope for ratifying a powerful Balanced Budget Amendment that could save our future and help restore our Republic.

JBS leadership has failed to give a full or fair accounting or analysis of the Compact for America’s sixteen safeguards. In fact, the Compact fully structures, codifies and regulates the state-initiated constitutional amendment process under Article V of the U.S. Constitution to ensure the process efficiently and exclusively advances a specific BBA proposal.

Safeguard #1: Overwhelming Political Will. The Compact for America ensures the convention for proposing the BBA will be organized only if 38 states join the compact, only if Congress calls the convention in accordance with the Compact, and only if the convention is organized within one year of the passage of the Congressional resolution. This ensures that nothing happens until a supermajority of states and a majority of federal representatives line up and manifest overwhelming, contemporaneous political will behind its rules and limited BBA agenda in advance. Deviating from the Compact would be political suicide for anyone who tried.

Safeguard #2: Convention Processes and Logistics are Fully Codified and Regulated. The Compact specifies the convention location, agenda, committee structure, and rules; codifying them to ensure the Initiative advances solely the BBA it specifies.

Safeguard #3: The CFA is Constitutionally-Protected Binding State and Federal Law. Because the convention is not organized until Congress calls it in accordance with the Compact, the Compact’s rules and limited agenda will obtain the status of both state and federal law, the obligation of which is guaranteed under the Constitution's Contracts Clause under current U.S. Supreme Court precedent. Any deviation from the Compact will be, on its face, illegal and unconstitutional unless proponents of the deviation succeed in overturning decades and centuries-old legal precedent.

Safeguard #4: Political Ambition of Aspiring Governors. The Compact designates sitting governors as sole delegates for member states and requires governor-delegates who attend the convention to take a temporary leave of absence from their gubernatorial office while at the convention, leaving their likely political rivals in charge of the state and able to direct efforts to enforce the Compact as needed.

Safeguard #5: Convention Cannot Proceed Unless Agenda Limited to BBA. The Compact designates and instructs member state delegates from 38+ states to vote into place its rules and limited BBA agenda for the convention as the first order of business or else to return home without participating in the convention.

Safeguard #6: Nullification of Unauthorized Delegate and Member State Actions. The Compact deems void ab initio any action by any member state delegate or member state at the convention that deviates from its rules and agenda.

Safeguard #7: Automatic Recall of Rogue Delegates. The Compact automatically terminates and recalls any member state delegate who deviates from its rules and agenda.

Safeguard #8: Automatic Disqualification of Rogue States. The Compact disqualifies the vote of any member state whose delegates deviate from its rules and agenda.

Safeguard #9: State Legislatures Can Recall Rogue Delegates. The Compact empowers state legislatures to recall delegates for good cause.

Safeguard #10: Time Limited Convention. The Compact limits the convention to a single 24 hour session.

Safeguard #11: Prohibition on Advancing Unauthorized Proposals. The Compact prohibits every member state and all of its residents from materially advancing any unauthorized proposal.

Safeguard #12: Nullification of Unauthorized Convention Proposals. The Compact deems void ab initio any convention activity or proposal that deviates from its limited agenda and rules.

Safeguard #13: Prohibition on Ratification of Unauthorized Proposals. The Compact bars every member state from ratifying any convention proposal other than the BBA it specifies.

Safeguard #14: Mandatory Compact Enforcement by State Attorney Generals. The Compact empowers and requires attorneys general in all 38+ member states to secure an injunction to enforce its terms if the Compact is violated. Governor-delegates who violate the Compact serve up a political opportunity for these aspiring governors on a silver platter.

Safeguard #15: Best Venue Selected for Compact Litigation. The Compact requires all litigation to take place in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit or in Texas state courts.

Safeguard #16: Commission Intervention. The Compact empowers an interstate commission populated by the states to relocate the convention if it deviates from the Compact. All member state governor-delegates will know that allowing the convention to deviate from the Compact would entail a risk of the convention simply being relocated elsewhere and, based on past precedent of interstate conventions, able to accomplish its agenda with participation from a simple majority quorum of states voting as states.

From any vantage point, the Compact for America Initiative is a safe and effective means of restoring our Nation and protecting our Liberty. Learn more at http://www.compactforamerica.org" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

States Must Take the Wheel to Avoid the Next Fiscal Cliff

Now that Washington has kicked the can yet again instead of fixing the debt, isn’t it time for the States and the People to amend the Constitution to enforce a balanced budget? Unlike any prudent household, Washington simply refuses to balance its budget.

• Washington has become so addicted to borrowing money that the outstanding national debt exceeds $16.4 trillion.

• Our outstanding national debt now exceeds 100% of Gross Domestic Product, a figure not seen since World War II.

• The 2012 federal fiscal year operating deficit will likely exceed $1.5 trillion.

• For the fourth fiscal year running, Congress has failed to pass an annual federal budget under which to operate our country.

The solution to our national debt problem will not be found in Washington. The country faces an overconcentration of power to incur debt that is too easily leveraged by special interests to enrich themselves at the expense of current and future generations. No matter which party is in control, Congress has been borrowing trillions of dollars from future generations, whose voices cannot be heard, to shower money on special interests who dominate Washington.

The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over again under the same circumstances and expecting different results. For decades, Americans have tried to reform the political class in Washington by replacing one candidate with another or one party’s dominance with that of another. The problems facing our country have only continued to grow. Washington will never control its addiction to debt. It is time for the People, acting through their state representatives, to intervene and save our future.

The Compact for America makes it possible to fix the debt. Using an agreement among the states, the Compact for America invokes Article V of the United States Constitution to advance a Balanced Budget Amendment. The proposed BBA would require a majority of State legislatures to approve any increase above an initial debt limit. In other words, state legislatures would provide oversight and intervention as the nation’s board of directors when it comes to requested increases in the federal debt.

This BBA is designed to force Washington to balance its budget or prepare a budget to make the case for more debt long before the midnight hour arrives. It would require the President to start designating spending cuts when spending exceeds 98% of the debt limit. Congress must then override those cuts within 30 days with alternatives if they disagree. In short, the proposed BBA would force both the executive and legislative branches to put their cards on the table face-up long before hitting a hard debt limit, protecting our country’s credit rating from being held hostage to a game of political chicken.

The CFA’s BBA also recognizes that our national debt is primarily a spending problem. It requires any new or increased income or sales tax to secure two-thirds approval of both houses of Congress. But the amendment allows for simple majority approval of increases in tax revenue that result from ditching the income tax code in favor of a sales tax or reducing or eliminating tax exemptions, deductions and credits. Any new tax burden would only result from making our tax code flatter, fairer and far more conducive to economic growth—which is the best way to prevent both debt spending and tax increases.

With the states serving as an active board of directors for our wayward federal executive and legislative branch “CEOs,” the Compact for America’s BBA would powerfully check and balance Washington’s debt addicts.

Some may question whether the states should have a voice in the national debt debate; but the states should have a voice for the same reason that the U.S. Constitution originally gave state legislatures control over the U.S. Senate. A centralized authority should not have a free hand in determining—or mortgaging—the future of every community in the nation. Moreover, if the case can be made to a majority of state legislatures that the federal government should borrow more money, then the BBA will allow such borrowing. The state debt approval requirement creates flexibility for the federal government to finance justifiable wars and to address genuine crises without easily exploited loopholes.

An interstate compact provides the vehicle for this crucial reform because it transforms the state origination of a Balanced Budget Amendment into a “turn-key” operation that will cut the time and resources needed by more than 60%. It does this by consolidating all of the state legislation involved in the Article V amendment process—from the application to Congress, to delegate appointments and instructions, to the selection of the convention location and rules, to the ultimate ratification of the BBA. By fully defining and regulating the Article V process, the Compact also eliminates any possibility of a “runaway convention.”

• It compels all member state delegates to follow convention rules that limit the convention agenda to an up or down vote on the BBA and to return home if those rules fail to hold.

• It prohibits member states from expanding the scope of the convention, violating the convention rules, or ratifying anything other than a BBA.

In short, the Compact for America is just the sort of powerful, yet pragmatic reform that could only be originated outside of Washington. It is also what the People want. According to the political polling firm of McLaughlin & Associates:

• Support for an interstate compact to advance constitutional amendments exceeds opposition by more than two to one.

• 61% agree that a majority of state legislatures should be required to approve any increase in the federal debt

• 71% agree that Congress should cut spending before raising taxes.

• 86% agree that Congress should be required to balance its budget.

For good reason, the People are demanding the Compact for America’s reforms. They need your leadership.

NickDranias wrote:The Compact for America is our best hope for ratifying a powerful Balanced Budget Amendment that could save our future and help restore our Republic.

That one sentence reveals to me that this is NOT a good idea. The Constitution has been ignored for years, which has lead to the mess we are in now, a "balanced budget" amendment isn't going to fix anything.

NickDranias wrote:By fully defining and regulating the Article V process, the Compact also eliminates any possibility of a “runaway convention.”

Again, the Constitution was ignored and got us to the point we are at now... and you think you're going to eliminate any chance of a "runaway convention"... and fix the situation by amending a document that so many politicians already ignore and violate?

W. Cleon Skousen and others recognized the dangers in a modern Con-Con (Constitutional Convention):

I agree that a constitutional convention could very easily run amuck, but aren't we forgetting something? We don't have to accept the results of a convention, do we? I mean, they could come up with a new constitution that says they don't need ratification and they can now just run the country, but will the people let them? Will the generals just hand over their armies or the state legislatures just roll over and play dead?

The initial constitution took months to ratify because the men who drafted it had to go to the people and convince them to accept it. The government belongs to the people. It always has and always will. The government only gets away with what we let it. So will the people of America just let go of their Constitution and let another one take its place without a fight? I personally don't think so.

Called to Serve wrote:I agree that a constitutional convention could very easily run amuck, but aren't we forgetting something? We don't have to accept the results of a convention, do we? ... The government only gets away with what we let it. So will the people of America just let go of their Constitution and let another one take its place without a fight? I personally don't think so.

Exactly... but the problem is some of us here represent the 3% of Americans that actually vote based on principles, whereas the overwhelming majority of American's are choosing iniquity - and will likely fall for the propaganda that would convince them the changes are a good thing.

So, yes, the title of this thread is fitting "Compact for America is rotten to the core".

That's true. I was thinking more along the lines of a complete overhaul, like they did before, and it seems far fetched to me that people would allow our entire constitution to be replaced, despite their ignorance, though I suppose that if the changes were subtle enough, people would probably accept them, or just not care.

Seriously, though, a constitutional convention is the least of my worries. The feds don't seem to need one at this point.

Honestly I don't think the majority would care if there was a complete overhaul of the Constitution as long as it includes lots of "free" handouts. The fact that most people don't care about the principles of Freedom that the Constitution was based on is why we have the Republicans and Democrats in power today.

yup.....and so is Congress, the Feds, the courts, etc.

BrianM wrote:Honestly I don't think the majority would care if there was a complete overhaul of the Constitution as long as it includes lots of "free" handouts. The fact that most people don't care about the principles of Freedom that the Constitution was based on is why we have the Republicans and Democrats in power today.

exactly right. :ymapplause:

"Some will say that this introduction is nothing more than a melodramatic doomsday scenario that could never happen."

Not at all. That is exactly what Hamilton and the Federalists did at the constitutional convention. The delegates had specific instructions from their states to do nothing more that amend the Articles of Confederation. Instead of doing that, they threw out their instructions, made up their own rules, and conducted secret negotiations to establish a new constitution, which, some may argue, has given us our centralized government - Hamilton's dream come true. The mystery is why the delegates agreed. They should have refused, gone back home, and reported the skullduggery to their governors and the people.

No a chance would I ever support a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution. That would be pure financial suicide. Since the traitors in DC are unable to control spending the only outcome of a balanced budget amendment is a raising of taxes to bring about a balanced budget. What is needed is the following...

1: State legislatures accross the nation passing a state law that prevents any employer from witholding federal income tax from the wages of any employee.
2: The state financial controller submits to the feds a request for budgeted costs to satisfy Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution for the forthcoming year. This budget to be reviewed by the controller to validate expenditures are indeed in accordance with the Constitution.
3: An authorization to employers permitting the deduction from wages and salaries the individuals portion of these costs on an apportioned basis, notwithstanding the 16th amendment.
4: The state controller submits such deductions on a monthly basis to teh federal government.

We already have a Constitution and focusing on a balanced budget amendment simply detracts from the real issue i.e. starving the pigs in Washington D.C.

I also think many people are way more worried about getting their handouts than preserving the Constitution, but still, I think there is enough nostalgia surrounding the Constitution and the foundation of our country that people wouldn't just easily give up on it, at least not if that's what they thought they were doing. I'm pretty sure that most Americans have a favorite "right" listed in the Bill of Rights and many don't even understand that they are just amendments to the constitution.

It seems to me that a constitutional convention would be too obvious and unnecessary. If you told people that you were going to take away the constitution and their supposed guaranteed rights in the constitution, then they would sit up and take notice. So much better the way it's being done now where rights are just taken away little by little and no one notices.