Balanced Budget Amendment the answer? Boozman says yes, Pryor no (Part 11)(Conspirator Part 11)

Mark Levin interviews Senator Hatch 1/27/2011 about the balanced budget amendment. Mark is very excited about the balanced budget amendment being proposed by Senator Orin Hatch and John Cornyn and he discusses the amendment with Senator Hatch. Senator Hatch explains the bill it’s ramifications and limitations. Senator Hatch actually worked on this bill with renowned economist Milton Friedman. This ammendment is the first big step in saving our country.

Photo detail

Steve Brawner in his article “Safer roads and balanced budgets,” Arkansas News Bureau, April 13, 2011, noted:

The disagreement is over the solutions — on what spending to cut; what taxes to raise (basically none ever, according to Boozman); whether or not to enact a balanced budget amendment (Boozman says yes; Pryor no); and on what policies would promote the kind of economic growth that would make this a little easier.

Steve Brawner in his article “Senators differ on constitutional change,” Arkansas News Bureau, April 20, 2011 noted:

In the next few weeks, the government will reach its $14.3 trillion debt ceiling, the maximum amount it can borrow by law. There will be a big argument about whether or not to raise it. Elected officials will posture. A few concessions will be made here and there. And then Congress will vote to raise the ceiling. The United States government cannot default on its obligations.

The real argument is over what to do about the debt itself. One genuine point of contention between Arkansas’ two senators, Republican John Boozman and Democrat Mark Pryor, is whether to amend the Constitution to require a balanced budget. Boozman supports the idea, made it a centerpiece of his 2010 campaign, and endorsed it in his recent maiden speech, his first address on the Senate floor. Pryor opposes it.

Enacting a balanced budget amendment is not a new idea. In 1995, a proposed amendment passed the House and almost passed the Senate, failing by one vote. The next step would have been ratification by 38 states

Orrin Hatch on proposed Balanced Budget Amendment

 

Mark Levin had Orrin Hatch on his radio show to talk about the newly proposed Balanced Budget Amendment by himself and John Cornyn. Levin fully supports it and says that it is fundamental to putting us on the right fiscal path. Hatch describes what this newly proposed amendment will actually do:

  1. Its mandates that total budgetary outlays for any fiscal year not exceed total revenues unless you have a two thirds vote to overturn it.
  2. It caps federal spending at 20% of GDP.
  3. It requires the President to submit a balanced budget to Congress every fiscal year.
  4. It prohibits revenue raising measures (like increasing taxes) that are not approved by two thirds of both the House and Senate.
  5. Provisions can be waived if there is a formal declaration of war or if the US is engaged in a military conflict constituting a threat to national security or if two thirds of both the House and the Senate approve.

There are Republican Senators who want to cap spending at around 17% or 18% but Hatch argues that it likely won’t pass if it’s that low. He believes 20% is a reasonable number that will appeal to the 20 or so Democrats needed to get this through the Senate and into the House. Once it passes there it will go to the states where it will need a three-fourths majority, but Hatch is very optimistic that now is the time for this amendment to pass. He’s been working on getting it passed for over three decades.

Noting the spending cap in the amendment, Mark Levin added this via email:

I would prefer the GDP level set at 17%. But 20% is better than 25% and the other provisions of the amendment are very important as well. I believe we really need to get behind this.

UPDATE: Corrected to say three-fourths instead of two-thirds. Thanks to commenter Irishspy for the correction.

Clip of the new movie of Robert Redford.

Starring: James McAvoy, Robin Wright, Kevin Kline, Evan Rachel Wood, Justin Long, Alexis Bledel, Tom Wilkinson, Danny Huston, Toby Kebbel

The film “The Conspirator” is an excellent film and I have been studying up on Mary Surratt ever since then: (Part B)

undefined

The carte-de-visite (left) entitled Morning, Noon, and Night was taken from a mantel at the Surratt boardinghouse during the police search of the premises. On the back of the carte-de-visite, Anna Surratt had hidden a photograph of John Wilkes Booth. An anonymous donor graciously contributed the image of Morning, Noon, and Night to this website.

Mary Surratt claimed total innocence. She said she knew nothing of Booth’s plans, and that her trips to Surrattsville had to do with collecting some money she was owed by a man named John Nothey.

One thing that looked suspicious about Mrs. Surratt was that she claimed she had never seen Lewis Powell before when he appeared at her boardinghouse on April 17. He had been there many times before the assassination. Was she lying, or was this due to poor eyesight?

Mrs. Surratt was tried along with seven men. Her attorneys, Frederick A. Aiken and John W. Clampitt, were inexperienced. In jail Lewis Powell maintained Mrs. Surratt was 100% innocent. However, she was convicted mostly due to the testimony of John Lloyd and Louis Weichmann. These men drew great criticism for their testimony. Nearing age 60 and dying, on June 2, 1902, Weichmann allegedly called to his sisters, asked them to get pen and paper, and told them to write “This is to certify that every word I gave in evidence at the assassination trial was absolutely true; and now I am about to die and with love I recommend myself to all truth-loving people.” However, this statement has never been produced and must presumed to be lost. Also, John Lloyd stuck to his damaging testimony at the 1867 trial of John Surratt.

In court Mrs. Surratt was dressed in black, with her head covered in a black bonnet. Her face was mostly hidden behind a veil. The jury voted the death penalty for her but added a recommendation for mercy due to her “sex and age.” The recommendation was that the penalty be changed to life in prison. (** see below **)

Sketch of Mary Surratt during the trial. The sketch appeared on the cover of an 1865
pamphlet titled Trial of the Assassins and Conspirators for the Murder of Abraham Lincoln
Post a comment or leave a trackback: Trackback URL.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

%d bloggers like this: