So ALL IT IS DOING is serving as the last gasp, and most cynical of all, roadblocks in front of American getting a constitutional amendment to require balanced federal budgets.
I disagree. The only way it hurts a BBA's chances is by drawing attention to a different idea. That's not a very strong effect, and its not the type of effect that I would describe as a roadblock even if it was strong (maybe "a distraction", or your term "a diversion", but not a roadblock). Also I think that it would increase support for a BBA from libertarians and free-market conservatives (and if you don't get those groups behind it a BBA doesn't have a prayer, OTOH it would weaken support from the left, but the left generally doesn't want a BBA anyway)
Also its not "last gasp" by any means. A BBA is unlikely, and is very unlikely in the short term.
If you want to stop being a part of the roadblock, and yet remain TRUE to your beliefs... then ALL YOU HAVE TO DO IS CALL FOR THE TWO ITEMS TO BE PASSED AS SEPARATE AMENDMENTS!
No.
Being true to my beliefs would be to only have them together or not have the BBA at all. A BBA with no limits on taxation could be a negative rather than a positive. Its esp. likely to be so after such a huge increase of spending that we have already had, and with entitlements having already "programed in" a much larger increase in spending. Without those two points, I probably could support a BBA without a tax limit, but it would be easier to pass a BBA with a tax limit (not a real limit a procedure to make raising taxes more difficult, but "tax limit" is shorter and in this context I figure you know what I man, besides and actual limit might work as a substitute, I'd have to think about that), than it would be to pass a BBA, combined with repeal or radical reduction of entitlements. (It might even be easier to pass a BBA with a tax limit than a BBA without one, I doubt I am the only one who feels this way.)
There is some benefit to considering the ideas separately, because some would want one or the other or not both, but lumping them together wouldn't be a dishonest ploy on my part (or on the part of others who care a lot about limiting tax increases), and wouldn't in any way be against my beliefs. And if they where separate and the BBA was first then (if I actually had a vote, which I won't since they won't be decided by referendum even if they do actually start moving toward possible passage) I would have to vote against it. (But I would vote for it if the tax limitation had already passed.) |
