by Navy Capt. (Ret) Peter O’Brien
I have a good friend, a very smart good friend, who suggests that we as a nation are unlikely to amend the Constitution simply because too large a block of folks, people on the far left, no longer agree with, or in large part obey, the Constitution. I pray he is wrong and that the majority of Americans wish to keep our Constitution.
At the same time, some people are calling for a Constitutional Convention, a meeting of people from all over the country, to draft a new constitution. That sounds like it might be a good idea, except the actual process of producing a constitution seems, to me at least, to be a daunting one, an unnecessary one, and perhaps a risky one.
It is worth remembering that the Convention held in Philadelphia 237 years ago might well have yielded nothing at all if George Washington had not been presiding over, and scowling at, the 55 would-be statesmen. Could we gather a dozen folks (what would be the right number) from each state and territory, and would they come up with something better than what we have now?
And why should we? We all have a sense of what needs to be debated; let’s focus on those items.
Some issues, such as the electoral college, come and go with the political season. Prior to Clinton’s loss to Trump in 2016, the bulk of the Democratic Party was quite pleased with the idea that a mere handful of states ensured any Democratic candidate a substantive lead in electoral votes no matter what happened. Changing that system because of one or two statistical aberrations seems to be a bad idea.
I won’t attempt to cover every issue, and in the quest for keeping this somewhat brief, I will plunge ahead. I’ll begin this with the obvious admission that there is no claim for these proposed amendments to be perfect. But I offer them up to begin a discussion. This is our government, our country. It is, more than perhaps any country in history, a country defined not by geography but by ideas, and those ideas are embodied in the Constitution. The United States is, in a very reals sense, the Constitution, and vice versa. More to the point, it is our country, our Constitution.
And while there are many people who would throw out the baby with the bathwater, I think there are far more who think our Constitution has it basically right, but that there might be some fine tuning that needs be done. It is to them that this is directed.
As for the ideas I will present here over the next few weeks, I ask only that you think about them. None of this is definitive. Rather, it is starting point. We need to fix a few points, and to fix them we first need to discuss them. The words below, and in the next several weeks are my attempt to simply stimulate a discussion. I have written a good deal more on each proposed amendment, but I won’t bore you with my ramblings (yet).
I would also add that there are a host of issues that should never be be addressed by amendment, they should be addressed by either laws – if they are a function of short term fixes that simply need to happen (I‘ll give an exam of what I mean in a moment) or they are cultural and need to be addressed through social pressures – A case of the latter is the need to reaffirm the role of families in caring for the weak and infirm, rather than shifting the role to the state. Instead of passing laws, we need to move families front and center in addressing the long term care of the old, the weak, the ill. Families, first, then other means. Not other means – which invariably means the state – first.
As for a problem that could – and should – be solved by law, I would suggest the idea that we force Congress back into the habit of actually passing real budgets, on time. One simple suggestion: if Congress fails to pass a full, by title, budget on time, the pay of every Congressman, and every staffer, will be dropped by 10% the next year. Do it two years in a row, 20%. Etc. My thinking is that staffers would see the looming pay cuts and damned near throttle their bosses and make sure budgets passed on time…
Would Congress pass such a law? If the voters insisted. After all, they do work for us.
My scheme here is to offer an amendment then offer a very brief defense.
A Proposal: Limits to Federal Spending
- The Government of the United States shall have a budget no greater than 12.5 percent of the previous year’s gross personal income.
- The Government of the United States shall not spend – inclusive of all federal outlays – more than it collects, except during declared emergencies.
- In the event of a national emergency, as declared by the President and agreed to by a super majority (2/3rds) of both houses of Congress, this spending limit may be exceeded. The emergency must be reconfirmed every 12 months by the President and by a vote of 2/3rds of both houses of Congress.
- Following any declared emergency the Government must return spending to no greater than 12.5% within two years and eliminate any incurred debt within five years.
- This spending limit will be met within 3 years of the approval of this amendment.
There is little room for debate that there needs to be some limit to the federal government’s ability to tax and to spend. Limits on taxation are necessary in order to both ensure a stable business environment in which jobs can be created, the people can find employment and the nation as a whole grow rich; as well as to limit, at least to a certain extent, the ability of the federal government to intrude into every sector of the economy; though it should be noted that the economists who have recommended tax rats in the 12.5% range note that this would, over time, yield the maximum amount of federal tax revenue – the US government would have more money to spend.
But that money would allow not only the elimination of debt, but also the proper funding of the various currently unfunded (Social Security, et al) liabilities.
And while this would limit spending, in emergencies the federal government could raise debt. How exactly Gross Personal Income was defined would be left to Congress and the Executive.ReplyReply allForward
