Cut, Cap & Balance — A Review

Last week, the US House of Representatives' Republican majority took a stand against fiscal irresponsibility with the Cut, Cap and Balance Act sponsored by Rep. Jason Chaffetz (R-UT):

1. Cut — We must make discretionary and mandatory spending reductions that would cut the deficit in half next year.
2. Cap — We need statutory, enforceable caps to align federal spending with average revenues at 18% of Gross Domestic Product (GDP), with automatic spending reductions if the caps are breached.
3. Balance — We must send to the states a Balanced Budget Amendment (BBA) with strong protections against federal tax increases and a Spending Limitation Amendment (SLA) that aligns spending with average revenues as described above.

NPR (that's National Propaganda Radio to you insiders) provided commentary, as you would expect, in the form of pure liberal rant:

The logic of CCB itself gives away the potentially disastrous stance of its adherents. Republicans are taking this very hard line not, as is so often asserted, as a way of returning to the GOP's ancient creed of deficit hawkery, abandoned in favor of supply-side free lunch nostrums in the 1980s and beyond. ...

Let's see, the 1980s – isn't that the Republican-run decade during which we added millions of jobs? Yeah, about as many jobs as were lost during the last three Democratic-run years.

Yes, it has indeed become fashionable again for conservatives to deplore the public debts being passed on to future generations, a habit that they generally lost during the administration of George W. Bush.

Not all of us, though the charge is partly justified.

But when you look at the content of the CCB proposal, pledge, or bill, it's obvious the "balance" part of the formula is entirely subordinate to "cut" and "cap," and to another phrase not in the headline: "tax limitation." CCB rules out revenue increases as an element of budget-balancing and erects the kind of super-majority requirement against future revenue increases that has done so much to frustrate budget-balancing in California.

Ah, yes, California – that paragon of fiscal responsibility on which the USA should base its policy – right!

Moreover, it makes huge cuts in spending both a statutory and a constitutional mandate, and only then, with government shrunken and taxes frozen, will it enable a balanced budget.

Less spending + no tax increases = balanced budget. In other words, "we can't spend it if we don't have it." NPR is right, that's an idiotic concept.

The vote was not unanimous; Reps. Michelle Bachman (R-MN) and Ron Paul (R-TX), voted against. They have received considerable notice for this, some of it very harsh. That harshness is totally unwarranted; this vote was a symbolic gesture by the Republican Party. The Democratically-controlled Senate promised to vote it down (another lie, Sen. Harry Reid (D-NV) tabled it, meaning he didn't have the courage to let it come to a vote). Even if it had passed the Senate, the Democrat in the White House promised to veto it, and Speaker Boehner knew it. The two presidential hopefuls likewise made symbolic their nays, and clearly stated their reasoning:

Bachman: While I embrace the principles of Cut, Cap and Balance, the motion does not go far enough in fundamentally restructuring the way Washington spends taxpayer dollars. The principles found in this bill are a step in the right direction toward the fundamental restructuring we need in the way Washington spends taxpayer dollars.
Along with cutting spending, putting in place enforceable spending caps that put us on a path to balance and passing a balanced budget amendment, we must also repeal and defund ObamaCare.
We must remember that ObamaCare is the largest spending and entitlement program in our nation’s history. That means, at a time when we can least afford it, President Obama added to our spending problem by the trillions. Without its repeal, we cannot have real economic reform. (Read more at <bachmann.house.gov>.)

Paul: This bill only serves to sanction the status quo by putting forth a $1 trillion budget deficit and authorizing a $2.4 trillion increase in the debt limit. When I say this bill sanctions the status quo, I mean it quite literally.
First, it purports to eventually balance the budget without cutting military spending, Social Security, or Medicare. This is impossible. These three budget items already cost nearly $1 trillion apiece annually. This means we can cut every other area of federal spending to zero and still have a $3 trillion budget. ...
Second, it further entrenches the ludicrous beltway concept of discretionary vs. nondiscretionary spending. ... All spending must be deemed discretionary and reexamined by Congress each year. To allow otherwise is pure cowardice.
Third, the Act applies the nonsensical narrative about a "Global War on Terror" to justify exceptions to its spending caps. ... Congress will never balance the budget until we reject the concept of endless wars.
Finally ... this Act ignores the real issue: total spending by government ... what we really need is a constitutional amendment to limit taxes and spending, not simply to balance the budget. What we need is a dramatically smaller federal government; if we achieve this a balanced budget will take care of itself. (Read more at <paul.house.gov>)

When I first heard they'd voted against the bill, I was concerned. I respect these people – I like most of what Ron Paul adds to the debate and Michelle Bachmann is my current favorite for the GOP nomination. Now that I see the reason behind their votes, I like their arguments. They are right; Cut, Cap and Balance is a good start. I would not have voted against it, but I hope the next (Republican-controlled) Congress revisits it with an eye to addressing the real fiscal problems facing the Union. Those problems include:

The size of the federal government – in a previous post, I recommended balancing the budget by sunsetting unconstitutional programs and departments. This is still a good idea.

The hypocrisy of Washington insiders – have you heard about the US Senator who's running for re-election claiming he sponsored every balanced budget amendment (BBA) of the last 35 years? This senator also voted for $7 trillion worth of debt ceiling increases, according to one reputable source. Hardly a consistently responsible record (And, for the record, every one of his BBA proposals failed.)

Curiously, Democrats used to understand this concept:

It is a paradoxical truth that tax rates are too high and tax revenues are too low and the soundest way to raise the revenues in the long run is to cut the rates now . . . Cutting taxes now is not to incur a budget deficit, but to achieve the more prosperous, expanding economy which can bring a budget surplus.

That was President John F. Kennedy, during a news conference in November 1962. Two months later, he repeated himself in his budget message to Congress for fiscal year 1964:

Lower rates of taxation will stimulate economic activity and so raise the levels of personal and corporate income as to yield within a few years an increased – not a reduced – flow of revenues to the federal government.

In other words, as I have said many times, the solution is this: Stop electing politicians and start electing statesmen. Abandon the liberalism that 400 years of history prove is a failure and embrace the conservatism that has been the core of American prosperity for over 200 years. It's just that simple.

Thanks for listening, tune in next week for another rant.

An Independence Day Story

Once upon a time, there was a boy named John, who was King of England. Most of you will remember him best as Prince John, the bad guy of Robin Hood legends. His escapades against the bandits of Sherwood Forest would've been sufficient to earn his infamy in history, but John, ever willing to outdo himself, continued (like a certain modern national leader who shall remain nameless) to heap failure on failure until . . . well, let us first set the stage.

In The Adventures of Robin Hood, Prince John (played by Claude Rains) tries to get himself crowned king, and, in the ceremony, he is called "John Lackland." This nickname had been given to him by his father, Henry II, who, years earlier, had made his other sons (including Richard the Lionheart) dukes of French provinces, but intentionally left young John off the list. Undoubtedly, it wasn't a moniker he intended to earn, but earn it he did, when, as King, he went to war with France and lost – both the war and much of the French lands then part of the English realm.

John could've retired gracefully, but graceful doesn't seem to have been his nature. He imposed taxes on "the barons" (a general term for all English nobles) and appealed Pope Innocent III to win back the French lands he couldn't win on his own. His taxes, in the opinion of most English nobles, got totally out of hand, and the Pope's help was paid for with English sovereignty.

You heard correctly, history buffs, King John handed the throne of England to the Pope of Rome, swearing fealty (allegiance) as a vassal (servant) to the Roman Catholic Church. It was, in his mind, totally his right to do this or anything else with the throne, as he believed he ruled vis et voluntas (Latin, force and will) by divine majesty (God's will). In short, a king was above the law – any law except God's – and the Pope defined God's law.

Great plan, with two small flaws: (1) The barons bore no ill-will to the Pope, most were devout Catholics, but the Pope of Rome, as the title might suggest, was in Rome! John Lackland may have been the runt of the Plantagenet litter, but at least he was an English King. (2) His notions on taxes were absurd, but the barons were sure that he could refine the tax laws (and, undoubtedly, a few other laws) with the help of their collective wisdom.

Really noticeable unrest began in 1209, but the lid finally blew off the kettle in 1215, when a large force of barons moved against John. Many of them would've happily tossed him off the throne, but they didn't have a good successor handy, so they let their obnoxious little king keep his job by signing The Great Charter of the Liberties of England, and of the Liberties of the Forest, known to history by its short title, being in Latin, Magna Carta. With a few amendments over the next couple of centuries, the Magna Carta remains part of English law to the present, almost 800 years later.

What, you might ask, is the moral of this story? Well, before we get to that, let's mention just a couple of other chapters in this saga:

In 1399, Henry Bolingbroke overthrew his cousin, Richard II, who was, according to Henry, a tyrant.

In 1642, Parliament rose up against a self-styled absolute monarch, Charles I, in what is now called the English Civil War; Charles lost the war and his head, and a commonwealth was established.

In 1688, Parliament rose up again. The Commonwealth didn't work out, so they called the monarchy back into session. Charles II was followed by another self-styled absolute monarch, James II – "that pimple James," as he was called by Errol Flynn in Captain Blood (an unspoken, but not uncommon, opinion). When it looked like a Catholic dynasty was to be established in the now Protestant England, Parliament called on James' daughter and son-in-law, Princess Mary and Prince William of Orange, who took the throne and agreed to an act of succession that included the English Bill of Rights.

By 1775, Mary's distant cousin twice removed, George III, prince of Hanover in Germany, was on the throne and being as obnoxious to His American realms as King John had been toward Robin Hood and his Merry Men. A new set of barons – in this case, elected leaders in place of hereditary nobles – rose up. But they had the courtesy to declare to His Majesty and world, the causes and necessities of their revolt:

With hearts fortified with these animating reflections, we most solemnly, before God and the world, declare, that, exerting the utmost energy of those powers, which our beneficent Creator hath graciously bestowed upon us, the arms we have been compelled by our enemies to assume, we will, in defiance of every hazard, with unabating firmness and perseverence, employ for the preservation of our liberties; being with one mind resolved to die freemen rather than to live slaves.

George took them at their word, not only by sending thousands of English troops, but by calling on a fellow German, the Count of Hess-Kassel, to send thousands of mercenaries, and crush this nascent fifth revolution and nip it in the proverbial bud. Like John, it just didn't work out the way he hoped. Following a series of small victories, the Colonials issued a scathing accusation justifying their actions on legal, but more importantly, moral and religious grounds:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. —
That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, —
That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.
Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed.

I have no direct evidence that the British Parliament was surprised at this Declaration, but I have the feeling that it was. I don't think they could believe the Colonials would be so bold.

But, in fact, these colonies were English colonies and these Colonials were Englishmen! Parliament should've been surprised if the Colonials had not risen up after so many years of dispute over their government. For over 500 years, Englishmen had repeatedly risen up against their king, when that king could no longer be among the trusted "Guards for their future security."

The lessons we taught at Lexington, Concord, Boston, Saratoga, Ticonderoga, Princeton and Yorktown were learned in the classrooms of Runnymede, Flint Castle, Preston and the Boyne:

But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.—

It was one of the "ancient rights of Englishmen" that bound Norman, Saxon, Angle, Dane, Roman, Pict and Celt together as Englishmen.

It is our right as well, the right of the Germans, Africans, Hispanics, Scandinavians, Polynesians, Asians (and their children) who joined the British as Americans. In too many ways to mention, no less than in 1776, the "Object [of our current administration] evinces a design to reduce [us] under absolute Despotism."

Today we must rise up again and alter our government – not the form, just the people running it. Not by gun and cannon; we have better weapons – the truth, the United States Constitution and the vote.

With these, we can change the course of history. It has been said, "Freedom consists of nothing more than a willingness to take one more bullet than a tyrant is willing or able to fire."

I say, so be it! Take your best shot. We, the People, are ready for you.

Thanks for listening, tune in next week for another rant.