Will the 2023 Republican controlled House follow our Constitution and extinguish annual deficits?

When framing our Constitution our wise founding fathers intentionally commanded that “All Bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives. . .” and “The House of Representatives shall be composed of Members chosen every second Year by the People of the several States…”, making House Members accountable to the people on a short and regular basis.

Our wise founding fathers also provided a specific way to extinguish annual deficits should imposts, duties and excise taxes be found insufficient to meet Congress’ expenditures. That chosen method is the laying and collecting of a direct tax apportioned among the states which equals an annual deficit.

So, will the twenty holdouts who now refuse to support McCarthy as Speaker, allegedly because they want and end to reckless spending and borrowing and fidelity to our Constitution, ask for McCarthy’s written assurance to allow an introduction of a balanced budget amendment, and specifically, the Fair Share Balanced Budget Amendment, which reads and is explained as follows?

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 The Sixteenth Amendment is hereby repealed and Congress is henceforth forbidden to lay any tax or burden calculated from sales, profits, gains, interest, salaries, wages, tips, inheritances or any other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

NOTE: these words would return us to our founding father’s original tax plan as they 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 they 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. 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 dividing its total population size by the total population of the united states and multiplying that figure by the total being raised by Congress, 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 and a final date by which said tax shall be paid into the United States Treasury.”

In reference to the above Section see: FIRST DIRECT TAX LAID BY CONGRESS, 1798

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

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 everybody taxpayer across the United States pays the exact same amount!

Note also that each State’s number or Representatives, under our Constitution is 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 of a direct tax 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.

What are some of the advantages of the Fair Share Balanced Budget Amendment?

First of all, the Fair Share Balanced Budget Amendment (FSBBA) would actually accomplish what the ringleaders of the fairtax suggest their tax would accomplish but doesn’t.

The FSBBA would actually end every tax calculated from legally realized sales, gains, profits, income, etc., and thus puts an end to the countless miseries inflicted upon American citizens by the IRS, including the IRS being used as a political weapon.

The FSBBA also provides a method to extinguish an annual deficit should Congress spend more than is brought in from imposts, duties and excise taxes during the course of a fiscal year.

The FSBBA also puts an end to unequal taxation when and if the federal government decides to tax the people directly.

Keep in mind that internal taxes are mainly limited to excise taxes on consumption [preferably article of luxury] and since each article is to be specifically chosen with a specific amount of tax being placed on each article chosen it makes taxing consumption self-regulating, i.e., tax any article to high and it reduces the sale of the article and thus reduces tax revenue. As Hamilton pointed out with regard to this type of tax:

“There is no method of steering clear of this inconvenience, but by authorizing the national government to raise its own revenues in its own way. Imposts, excises, and, in general, all duties upon articles of consumption, may be compared to a fluid, which will, in time, find its level with the means of paying them. The amount to be contributed by each citizen will in a degree be at his own option, and can be regulated by an attention to his resources. The rich may be extravagant, the poor can be frugal; and private oppression may always be avoided by a judicious selection of objects proper for such impositions. If inequalities should arise in some States from duties on particular objects, these will, in all probability, be counter balanced by proportional inequalities in other States, from the duties on other objects. In the course of time and things, an equilibrium, as far as it is attainable in so complicated a subject, will be established everywhere. Or, if inequalities should still exist, they would neither be so great in their degree, so uniform in their operation, nor so odious in their appearance, as those which would necessarily spring from quotas, upon any scale that can possibly be devised.

It is a signal advantage of taxes on articles of consumption that they contain in their own nature a security against excess. They prescribe their own limit; which cannot be exceeded without defeating the end proposed, that is, an extension of the revenue. When applied to this object, the saying is as just as it is witty, that, "in political arithmetic, two and two do not always make four .’’ If duties are too high, they lessen the consumption; the collection is eluded; and the product to the treasury is not so great as when they are confined within proper and moderate bounds. This forms a complete barrier against any material oppression of the citizens by taxes of this class, and is itself a natural limitation of the power of imposing them.” FEDERALIST NO. 21

So, the question is, will the 20 holdouts who claim they want to end reckless spending and borrowing, use this opportunity to get a real balanced budget amendment up for debate?


If, by calling a tax indirect when it is essentially direct, the rule of protection [apportionment] could be frittered away, one of the great landmarks defining the boundary between the nation and the states of which it is composed, would have disappeared, and with it one of the bulwarks of private rights and private property. POLLOCK v. FARMERS’ LOAN & TRUST CO., 157 U.S. 429 (1895) JUSTICE FULLER

Hate to break the news but there will never be balance budget amendment…at least not in our lifetime.


The current $1.6 Trillion deficit happens to be equal to the current $1.6 Trillion discretionary budget.

To balance the Federal Budget, you would literally have to cut discretionary spending to zero.

That includes 100% of the defense budget.

The rest of the Federal Budget are the entitlements and interest and principle payments on the national debt. Stuff that cannot be cut.

We are far too deep in the hole to even contemplate a balanced. It is impossible. It cannot be done.

I do think we should severely control spending and reduce the deficit, but I can read a balance sheet and tell what can be done and what can’t be done.

In any event, the die was cast 110 years ago.

Which brings us to the other reason we cannot balance the budget. The magic money machine must be fed and it feeds on government debt. Too much government debt in a short period and you get the inflation we have recently seen. Not enough government debt or a reduction in government debt and you get deflation.

Even if we were not in the hole so far deep, a balanced budget amendment would not be practical unless the banking system switched from coordinated fractional reserve banking to 100% reserve banking with commodity money, something that is unlikely to happen, short of a catastrophic failure of the existing system.


We don’t have the political will to cut the budget a single penny. Nor even just to freeze it at current spending levels. Nor even to reduce the rate of growth in spending.

No doubt the ultra conservative GOP wing will speak up about the budget. It needs to happen.

In the end there will be no cuts. The vocal members will make a lot of noise about deficits, and maybe their voices will encourage a few others to speak out about the deficits. But that will be the extent of it.



Additionally, the Department of Defense budget, reached $778 billion in 2022 SOURCE which is a fraction of total taxes collected in the year’s first seven months.

1 Like

I miss Kasich

That is total taxes.

Are you talking about the snake whose real objective was to convene a second Constitutional convention ___ an idea which Madison cautioned and warned against?

If kasich was sincere about balancing the federal budget, why did he repeatedly ignore our founder’s method to do so which would make each State’s Congressional delegation return home with a bill in hand for its state’s share to extinguish a deficit created by their reckless spending and borrowing, and defend why they created a deficit?

Why did he ignore our founder’s method which actually creates a very real moment of accountability for each state’s congressional delegation?


, “I have also repeatedly given my opinion that there is no effective way to limit or muzzle the actions of a Constitutional Convention. The Convention could make its own rules and set its own agenda. Congress might try to limit the Convention to one amendment or to one issue, but there is no way to assure that the Convention would obey. After a Convention is convened, it will be too late to stop the Convention if we don’t like the agenda. The meeting in 1787 ignored the limit placed by the Confederation Congress ‘for the sole and express purpose.’ “ Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, Warren Burger, 1988

Nope. The budget is a runaway locomotive.

It cannot be controlled. It cannot be reasoned with.

no, I mean actually writing and passing a balanced federal budget like he helped to do

Oh, I thought you were talking about the phony balanced budget amendment co-sponsored by Kasich which would make it legal for Congress to not balanced the federal budget.

H.J.Res.1 - Proposing an amendment to the Constitution to provide for a balanced budget for the United States Government and for greater accountability in the enactment of tax legislation.

Maybe start by repossessing any US land thus far sold to Chinese interests, as compensation for the damage done to the US and her citizenz by their release of Covid19 on the country, while charging any US citizen who personally authorised the funding of gain of finction reseatch in China.

1 Like

I certainly would have no problem with that. But I’m still wondering if, now that the Republicans are in charge of the House, will they work out a method to deal with annual deficits and end reckless spending and borrowing.


When Federal Reserve Notes were made a legal tender in violation of our Constitution, and a direct un-apportioned tax was imposed upon the people without their consent, America’s free enterprise, free market system was subjugated, and the tools of oppression were made available to some very immoral and nefariously evil people.

Agree. Nothing will change until we hit some catastrophic economic event.

1 Like

Frankly, given what we’ve seen this week, I don’t have much confidence that this House could even walk and chew gum at the same time. I wouldn’t get my hopes very high for anything more complex than that.


Surprise, surprise!

How many people in this forum know that Representative Lauren Boebert___ a House Freedom Caucus member and one of the Gang of Twenty holdouts refusing to vote for McCarty as Speaker of the House ___ introduced a phony Balanced Budget Amendment which would, if adopted, actually make it constitutional for Congress to not balance the budget on an annual basis?

The sad truth is, Boebert’s BBA is the same type of phony weasel-worded proposal which alleged fiscal “conservatives”, including Newt Gingrich, were trying to ram down the American People’s throats during the 1980s-90s when balancing the budget was a major talking point among the Republican Party Leadership. And here we are again today, repeating history with another Republican proposal which would not only ignore our founder’s method to balance the budget on an annual basis, but would actually make it constitutional for Congress to not balance the budget on an annual basis.

Indeed, our founders were spot on with regard to balancing the budget on an annual basis, and disallowing direct taxation to be used in an unjust manner or as a weapon to attack political opponents as is done today.

Here is an example of our founder’s wisdom and clear thinking which is found in seven of the State Ratification documents giving life to our Constitution:

Ratification of the Constitution by the State of New Hampshire; June 21, 1788

“Fourthly That Congress do not lay direct Taxes but when the money arising from Impost, Excise and their other resources are insufficient for the Publick Exigencies; nor then, untill Congress shall have first made a Requisition upon the States, to Assess, Levy, & pay their respective proportions, of such requisitions agreeably to the Census fixed in the said Constitution in such way & manner as the Legislature of the State shall think best and in such Case if any State shall neglect, then Congress may Assess & Levy such States proportion together with the Interest thereon at the rate of six per Cent per Annum from the Time of payment prescribed in such requisition-“

And HERE is the first direct tax to raise $2 MILLION, and each State’s apportioned share of the tax being laid.

The question is. . . Will the 2023 Republican controlled House follow our Constitution and work on a method to actually extinguish annual deficits when and if they arise?


If, by calling a tax indirect when it is essentially direct, the rule of protection [apportionment] could be frittered away, one of the great landmarks defining the boundary between the nation and the states of which it is composed, would have disappeared, and with it one of the bulwarks of private rights and private property. POLLOCK v. FARMERS’ LOAN & TRUST CO., 157 U.S. 429 (1895) JUSTICE FULLER

I won’t disagree with you, but, if our Republican controlled House refuses to deal with deficit spending, our children and grandchildren will pay the devastating price.


We are here today and gone tomorrow, but what is most important is what we do in between and is what our children will inherit and remember us by.

1 Like

Now wait a second.

  1. Only one House member needed to file a motion to “vacate the chair”

  2. Freedom Caucus members having a few seats on the House Rules Committee that will allow those members to leverage certain criteria behind voting for bills.

  3. Voting on a bill setting term limits for members of Congress

  4. Individual votes on each of the 12 appropriations bills and excluding earmarks from such bills

  5. A vote on legislation surrounding border security

  6. 72-hour notice from release of legislation before voting on it

7. A vote on a balanced budget amendment

(D)iehard Libs will never be happy with a Republican House. :wink:


Hakeem Jeffries certainly made some disgusting innuendoes when handing over the gavel:

1 Like