Speaker Johnson unveils massive deficit spending bill, time for Trump to support Fair Share Balanced Budget Amendment

See: Musk says House GOP shouldn’t pass stopgap funding deal

Tech billionaire and President-elect Trump ally Elon Musk came out against a stopgap deal as he pushes for the government to reduce spending.

If Trump, Musk and Vivek Ramaswamy are really serious about forcing Congress to act fiscally responsible, balance the annual budget and make each State’s Congressional Delegation immediately accountable to those who have elected them when spending exceeds tax revenue, they should come out of their safe space and support the Fair Share Balanced Budget Amendment which follows:

Fair Share Balanced Budget Amendment

“SECTION 1. The Sixteenth Amendment is hereby repealed and Congress is henceforth forbidden to lay any tax or burden calculated from profits, gains, sales, interest, salaries, wages, tips, inheritances or any other lawfully realized money.

NOTE: these words would return us to our Constitution’s original tax plan as our Founders’ intended it to operate! They would also end the experiment with allowing Congress to lay and collect taxes calculated from lawfully earned “incomes” which now oppresses America‘s economic engine and robs the bread which working people have earned when selling the property each has in their own labor, not to mention the amendment would end federal taxation being used as a political weapon to harass and attack political opponents!

“SECTION 2. Congress ought not raise money by borrowing, but when the money arising from imposts duties and excise taxes are insufficient to meet the public exigencies, and Congress has raised money by borrowing during the course of a fiscal year, Congress shall then lay a direct tax at the beginning of the next fiscal year for an amount sufficient to extinguish the preceding fiscal year’s deficit, and apply the revenue so raised to extinguishing said deficit.”

NOTE: Congress is to raise its primary revenue from imposts and duties, [taxes at our water’s edge], and may also lay miscellaneous internal excise taxes on specifically chosen articles of consumption [preferably articles of luxury]. But if Congress borrows and spends more than is brought in from imposts, duties and miscellaneous excise taxes during the course of a fiscal year, then, and only then, is the direct apportioned tax to be laid in order to balance the budget on an annual basis.

“SECTION 3. When Congress is required to lay a direct tax in accordance with Section 1 of this Article, the Secretary of the United States Treasury shall, in a timely manner, calculate each State’s apportioned share of the total sum being raised by the agreed upon apportionment formula found in our Constitution, and then provide the various State Congressional Delegations with a Bill notifying their State’s Executive and Legislature of its share of the total tax being collected as done on July 14th, 1798 LINK scroll to page 62, and a final date by which said tax shall be paid into the United States Treasury.”

NOTE: our founder’s fair share formula to extinguish an annual deficit would be:

States’ population

---------------------------- X SUM TO BE RAISED = STATE’S FAIR SHARE OF DIRECT TAX

Total U.S. Population

The above formula, as intended by our founding fathers, is to ensure that each state’s share towards extinguishing an annual deficit is proportionately equal to its representation in Congress, i.e., representation with a proportional financial obligation! And if the tax is laid directly upon the people by Congress, then every taxpayer across the United States would pay the exact same amount!

Note also that each State’s number or Representatives, under our Constitution is likewise determined by the rule of apportionment:

State`s Pop.

------------------- X House size (435) = State`s No. of Representatives
U.S. Pop.

“SECTION 4. Each State shall be free to assume and pay its quota of the direct tax into the United States Treasury by a final date set by Congress, but if any State shall refuse or neglect to pay its quota, then Congress shall send forth its officers to assess and levy such State’s proportion against the real property within the State with interest thereon at the rate of ((?)) per cent per annum, and against the individual owners of the taxable property. Provision shall be made for a 15% discount for those States paying their share by ((?))of the fiscal year in which the tax is laid, and a 10% discount for States paying by the final date set by Congress, such discount being to defray the States’ cost of collection.”

NOTE: This section respects the Tenth Amendment and allows each state to raise its share in its own chosen way in a time period set by Congress, but also allows the federal government to enter a state and collect the tax if a state is delinquent in meeting its obligation.

"SECTION 5. This Amendment to the Constitution, when ratified by the required number of States, shall take effect no later than (?) years after the required number of States have ratified it.

JWK

"In matters of power let no more be heard of confidence in men, but bind him down from mischief by the chains of the Constitution. … "Thomas Jefferson’s Fair Copy of the Kentucky Resolutions of 1798

1 Like

Saner minds will prevail, and the stopgap funding deal will likely pass. IMHO

On the other hand, The Fair Share Balanced Budget Amendment is pure fantasy.

What is “pure fantasy” is the belief that Congress will act fiscally responsible without a rule forcing it to do so.

What is “pure fantasy” is to close one’s eyes to our federal government’s existing financial state and believe a financial collapse is not in our near future, which can still be averted.

So, tell me, what exactly is your objection, if any, to adopting the Fair Share Balanced Budget Amendment (FSBBA)?

Does it prohibit Congress from raising existing levels of revenue? No!

Does the FSBBA cut any existing spending, or your personal pet federal spending? No.

Does it make each State’s Congressional Delegation return home with a bill in hand for their State to deal with when Congress spends more than is brought in from imposts, duties and excise taxes, which creates a very real moment of accountability? Yes.

Is that your objection if any?

JWK

The fantasy is that two-thirds of both houses will come together and propose the amendment in the first place. But if by some miracle that were to happen, the chances of three fourths of the states ratifying it in our lifetime is virtually zero.

IMHO if you want a House bill to pass quickly put a pay raise in it.

3 Likes

If the co president says it should not pass then by gosh it should not :wink:

2 Likes

It is already in it! Congress critters get a raise if it passes.

Stopgap bill will pass. In the current reality, it has to. From the linked article, a piece of conversation between the Speaker and Elon and Vivek:

“I was communicating with Elon last night. Elon, Vivek and I are on a text chain together, and I was explaining to them the background of this. And then Vivek and I talked last night until almost midnight,” he said on Fox News’s “Fox and Friends.” “And he said, ‘Look, I get it.’ He said, ‘We understand you’re in an impossible position. Everybody knows that.'”

I accept that they have to push this off to the next Congress. But for me, there had better be some real cutting by March. I know they can’t cold-turkey balance the budget, but damn, we had better see some movement toward that.

A lot of credibility is getting placed on DOGE, Congress, Trump, and what happens between now and then.

PS: For the record, DOGE can’t cut a penny. They can only recommend. Congress has to do the cutting.

Now that you described a fantasy you have in mind, will you explain your objection to supporting the FSBBA if you have one, which is what I was inquiring about?

I already stated my objection. It is pure fantasy, as in it has no chance of happening. In my mind there is nothing left to discuss.

So, you do not object on the merits of the FSBBA?

IMHO there will be minimal cuts. And that is because if you try to cut anything large there will be a Congressman from the District where the cut will be effectual who will scream bloody murder.

1 Like

I know its really just me but I think its crazy how Musk and Vivek (primarily Musk) have so much influence for not holding an elected position.

I know DOGE can only make recommendations but that still gives them an incredible amount of access that so far seems to have little or no oversight.

They are going to come across information that is going to help their businesses even if it has no impact on their recommendations.

But I know this is now going off topic.

Would that Congressman scream bloody murder against the cut if he had to return home with a bill for his State and taxpayers therein to pay an apportioned share for its funding?

1 Like

I didn’t bother reading beyond “Fair Share Balanced Budget Amendment”. Basically, a Balanced Budget amendment.

That isn’t a novel idea. I don’t really care about the particulars because it has no chance of getting any traction.

Interesting thought. I think that any Congressman would tell his Constituents that the amount they were paying would be a lot less than what they would pay to place X number of folks on unemployment. And I would bet that he/she could make-up the numbers to support what they say.

If the income tax arrived as a bill each month rather than a paycheck deduction I guarantee there would be some cuts.

3 Likes

To be honest, there is a higher chance of Israelis and Iranians dancing together in the streets in peace than there is of congress actually cutting something.

1 Like

So, you didn’t stop by to discuss the merits of the FSBBA. You stopped by to throw cold water on a remedy to deal with irresponsible, and even suicidal, federal deficit spending.

1 Like

Maybe, maybe not. But I do think each State’s Governor and the State’s Legislature, would not be too happy about having to deplete their own State’s Treasury and send their State’s apportioned share to Washington, D.C., to extinguish a deficit created by Congress.