OpenGov - Open Government Brainstorm

Do you have a solution to get them to agree? How do the state laws work?

Good one. And when they try to argue the "exception in time of war" weasel-clause, tell them to finance the war on WAR BONDS. When the people stop buying them, it's time to fold up the tents and come home.

18. Balanced Budget Incentive: During years of non-aggression, the Federal Government Annual Budget must balance. Should the budget become unbalanced under years of non-aggression, then governmental representative pay will be reduced by 5-10% for each year of unbalance. For each year of balanced budget, congress would be eligible for a 3% pay increase. No longer should the power to give congress pay raises reside within congress. This would require the repeal of the twenty-seventh amendment of the United States Constitution, which states “No law, varying the compensation for the services of the Senators and Representatives, shall take effect, until an election of Representatives shall have intervened.” Instead of congress determining its own paycheck; congressional pay raises should be determined by the states or by an assembly of states governors.

• Picture this: Congress enacts the Balanced Budget legislation and sets the current tax code into stone, meaning the current income tax rate is frozen. Then enacts additional tax labeled as “Principal Federal Debt Repayment Act,” this act increases taxes but these new additional percentage increases are paid in a separate income tax column on the 1040 Federal Tax Form. Let’s call this increase 3% increase to the annual federal income tax calculation. All funds derived from this increase will directly pay down the deficit. Foreign confidence in the strength of the dollar increases along with the dollar value. The thought that this tax increase is paying down the debt would be publicly acceptable in the minds of Americans and it would reinforce the idea of a responsible congress. And since it’s a percentage that everyone can easily remember and calculate, it would be a reminder of what the excesses of a fraudulent administration cost them. The proverbial finger can always be point to “the decider,” who started two wars. I have to wonder if dollar devaluation was intentional to allow cheaper repayments of the debt and overtly defraud the rest of the world’s economies which rely on dollar value.

• There has been some talk about going to a global monetary system. Congress has said no to any discussion of going to a global monetary system. The reason congress would object to this system is that it would in its principle require congress to balance the annual budget. It would restrict congress from spending beyond its fiscal means. The annual budget is derived from tax revenues from its constituents, revenues from investments, and debt securities sales. Devaluating via printing of unbacked or marginally backed currency would not be possible with a global monetary system. A global monetary system would eliminate the need for the Federal Reserve Banking system and Federal Reserve Board. I personally view a global monetary system as a direct step in global governance. Wouldn’t it be wonderful if we lived in a world republic where military needs would no longer be a consideration? Currently, nearly half of the annual federal budget is dedicated to military needs. But then again, who would represent us? Corporations and bankers only care about profits; to them everyone else is only a number in a long string of numbers.

please allow me to remind you [all] of the ONE MAJOR problem inherent in the demand for a "balanced budget amendment"... or goal... or policy... or whatever:

the government has infinite power to tax, so to the congress, a "balanced budget" means just one thing: taxes may be raised to match any and all desired spending.

unless all spending laws, entitlements, earmarks and EVERYTHING ELSE has an attached sunset law or some kind of limits or later-re-evaluation process with teeth in it, spending will only increase and taxes will increase to match spending.

a "balanced budget amendment" under any description is meaningless!

ah, but critical thinking died in the '60s, so nobody will see this point.

alas.

Infinite ability to tax was an ability, when our country had a manufacturing base and protective tarrifs to protect it. But now the pie is gone. Until innovation is allowed to compete against the carbon venders, it will be colder and colder in America, litterly. With joblessness reaching hights not seen in several generations, the ability to aford housing and heat them will come into question. In Russia they have high yearly death rates to cold snaps, frozen death. This will be seen in America in a few years. Southern migrations to warmer climates will be a factor. Jobs may not be there in south, but people will still shy away from the cold.

FYI I am American, but I do not let that prevent me from reading and knowing multi prospectives.

Totally agree, however if history is a teacher, government simply ignores a law(s) when convenient. Laws need teeth and accountability. On the other hand laws also need protections to keep personal gain as a motive for unfounded prosecution. Remember the Duke University rape case several years ago. The DA used very "questionable" / illegal tactics for personal political gain (and lost).

SEE: CAFR1 Google it and get involved. You woule be shocked at the surplus that the governments have!

http://CAFR1.com and http://TaxRetirement.com