Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : American Presidential Politics and foreign affairs -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: TimF who wrote (41607)	3/8/2010 5:08:46 PM
From: Peter Dierks	1 Recommendation Respond to of 71588

Stop the orgy in CongressRate this story A constitutional amendment could limit spending By THE WASHINGTON TIMES When government grows, prosperity shrinks. So does freedom. With those powerfully simple truths in mind, Rep. Jeb Hensarling, Texas Republican, and Rep. Mike Pence, chairman of the House Republican Conference, on March 3 introduced one of the most intriguing constitutional amendment proposals in years. Their Spending Limit Amendment merits great attention and with a few tweaks will deserve enthusiastic support. Except in times of declared war or when two-thirds of each house of Congress decides otherwise, the amendment would limit "total annual outlays" of the federal government (except repayment of principle of the national debt) to "one-fifth of economic output" of the country. Mr. Pence and Mr. Hensarling, along with original co-sponsor Rep. John Campbell, California Republican, note that federal spending of 20 percent of gross domestic product (GDP) has been the historical average since World War II, and spending didn't breach 23 percent in a single year for more than four decades. Under the current spending explosion, however, outlays have risen from exactly 20 percent to a near-astronomical 24.7 percent in just two years, with the trend line heading toward 40 percent over the next two decades. By foisting mind-boggling amounts of debt onto generations yet unborn, this spending is so unsustainable as to be immoral. It's also completely counterproductive in the short term. "You cannot have unlimited government and unlimited opportunity," Mr. Hensarling said Thursday on a media conference call. He's right. So was Mr. Pence when he repeatedly emphasized that limited government and minimal debt are essential elements to national security. That's because domestic spending sprees crowd out available resources for security and because overspending often puts us in hock to foreign governments that buy our debt. The fact is that when 1995's new Republican Congress began rescinding (taking back) federal spending that already had been approved and then held the line on spending for the next three years while also reforming welfare, the economy boomed. Spending was 21 percent of GDP in 1994, and it was held in succeeding years to percentages of 20.7, 20.3, 19.6, 19.2, 18.7 and 18.4. As spending discipline increased, GDP grew during that period at a steady and superb clip of an average 4 percent per year, and the national unemployment rate improved steadily from 6.1 percent to 4 percent. One drawback is that the amendment as drafted leaves it to Congress to pass "enabling legislation" to put the limit into practice. For example, the amendment does not explain how "one-fifth of economic output" is to be measured. Mr. Hensarling suggests using the average GDP for the previous five years. But lawmakers could instead define it as some sort of "projected" GDP for the coming year and then fudge the projections to give themselves more wiggle room. To avoid that, the amendment should define its goals with more specificity. Nitpicking aside, the amendment makes a ton of sense. Members of Congress who won't sign onto it ought to be held to account. washingtontimes.com

To: TimF who wrote (41607)	3/11/2010 11:39:13 PM
From: Peter Dierks	2 Recommendations Respond to of 71588

March 11, 2010 Enhancing Democracy by Banning Speech By Steve Chapman Imagine how life will be now that giant corporations may spend as much as they want on political campaigns, as the Supreme Court recently decreed. All they will have to do to get their way is ask members of Congress: Do you want our money helping you -- or your opponent? Given the sums available to Big Business, most politicians will be desperate to please. So you might think. But consider a state where corporations are already allowed to spend as much as they want on elections: Illinois. Here, companies have established beyond doubt that this prerogative, when combined with $2, will get them a ride on the bus. Illinois is something short of a corporate paradise. It ranks 30th among the states in its friendliness toward business. The Tax Foundation, which did the survey, complains of excessive sales, property and unemployment insurance taxes. Illinois is one of a minority of states requiring employers to pay more than the federal minimum wage. It is notorious for heavy workers' compensation costs. It puts no limits on the punitive damages a company can be assessed. All this evidence should dispel the fear that future congressional debates will pit the senator from Exxon Mobil against her distinguished colleague from Bank of America. It turns out that where corporate expenditures are allowed, corporations a) don't do much or b) don't get much for what they do. But many people in Washington have no time to waste examining the real world. As soon as the court decision came down in January, ruling that the corporate spending ban violated free-speech rights, they demanded action to undo this unconscionable wrong. President Barack Obama used one of his weekly radio addresses to promise "a forceful, bipartisan response" to "repair the damage that has been done." Democrats in Congress have heeded the call. Some have proposed legislation that would require CEOs to appear in all TV spots, mandate identification of corporations buying ads and outlaw spending by foreign companies, government contractors and bailout recipients. These may or may not pass muster with the Supreme Court. If the new regulations are intended less to enlighten voters than to punish corporations that engage in spending, the justices will probably give them the hook. The ban on foreign corporations is hard to justify if you believe -- as the court does -- that the First Amendment protects not only the right to speak but the right to hear. Nor is it obvious that Congress can use bailout funding as an excuse to strip a company of a constitutional right. But even if the sponsors could get their bill passed and upheld in court, it wouldn't affect the basic liberty of U.S. corporations to participate in election debates -- which is what really cheeses the critics. Overruling the decision would require a constitutional amendment. Drastic as that may sound, some people are for it. Democratic Sens. Christopher Dodd of Connecticut and Tom Udall of New Mexico have introduced an amendment to give the federal government and the states unlimited power to regulate campaign fundraising and expenditures. Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass., has endorsed the idea. When politicians start trying to amend the Constitution, it usually means they have gone off the rails. The campaign finance amendment is the liberal equivalent of the flag-burning amendment once pushed by conservatives, which barely missed getting through Congress. Both amendments responded to a Supreme Court decision that offended some people on a visceral level. Both were solutions to a problem that had yet to materialize in any significant way. Both also represent an attempt to narrow the scope of a fundamental liberty. They would create a large, unsightly exception to the First Amendment. The leftish group Public Citizen, in a moment of creative inspiration, asserted that the measure would "restore the First Amendment." Yes, it would "restore" the First Amendment, which protects free speech, by silencing some voices on matters of importance in a democracy. As the court put it, "The First Amendment prohibits Congress from fining or jailing citizens, or associations of citizens, for engaging in political speech." If the amendment were to win ratification, Congress would be free to tell some people: "Shut up, or go to jail." That's the difference between a corporation and a government. A corporation can spend millions trying to influence your choices. A government, granted sufficient power, can just take them away. schapman@tribune.com realclearpolitics.com