Welcome to "Article 6, Section 3...(the written version!)

Please Note: Until now, the Independence Caucus has posted the video version of each Article as soon as the Video Presentation of each article is completed.

However, as of 8/12/08, because the backlog of your requests for more information continues to grow faster than we can produce the videos, the Steering Committee has decided to post the balance of the "12 Articles" in their original written form.

We will remove this written version and replace it with the video version as quickly as we can get it produced.
Article 6, Section 3:
Welcome back to the 12 Articles of the Independence Caucus.

This is Article 6, Section 3: “Winning the Budget Games - The conclusion to implementing Budget Policies that eliminate Federal Funding of “Big Money” Special Interest Groups.”

In the first sections of Article 6 we explored the 1st and 2nd principles of a “Fixed Pie” Budget process. Now we conclude this Budget Article by taking a look at the final principles:

Principle #3: Both Houses and the President should work on ONE budget throughout the entire process.

Keep your eye on this ball:  The main reason we want the Government to work on one budget throughout the entire budget process is to eliminate the “Conference” games that Congress plays to reward their Special Interest campaign donors.

Think about it: If three parties are expected to negotiate a detailed agreement on a complex subject within a nine-month period, does it make any sense at all to keep all 3 parties separated until the end of the ninth months?

Doesn’t it make even less sense for one side to spend a great deal of time working out the smallest details of its offer without first having forged the basic structure of an agreement with the other two sides?

Yet, this is exactly the method that both houses of Congress and the President currently use to create the federal budget.

The President begins the process in February by presenting his proposed budget. The House and the Senate then spend the next eight months preparing two different budget proposals in the form of 13 detailed, annual appropriations bills.
Without any agreed-upon budgetary framework, these budgets look nothing like each other.

At this point, Congress enters into “Conference”: A Last-minute negotiation over the details of thousands of spending proposals that have to get hammered into one final budget.

The inevitable results are rushed compromises that are completed well past the fiscal year deadline, with thousands of last minute earmarks slipped in.

At this point--with the original deadlines for completion missed — individual members of Congress are left with the choice of either voting virtually sight unseen in favor of the entire mess…or voting against it and risking a government shut down. The President's options are also limited to either signing or vetoing the entire appropriations bill exactly as it was thrown together during “Conference”.

I don’t think you could devise a more absurd system of budgeting trillions of dollars if you tried.

We need some common sense here. Mandating that all parties work on ONE single budget would bring common sense back to our budget process.

Consider how this common sense process would work:
----------------------------------------------------------------------
1st, a “Fixed Pie Budget” with frozen spending levels from the previous deficit year eliminates the need to create a new budget from scratch every year. Thus, when the President presents his proposed budget in February, it will always have the previous years frozen budget as its base.

From this base, each new spending item of the Presidents proposal would have to be presented IN TANDEM with a corresponding 102% worth of CUTS of existing earmarks or programs.

2nd, the House and Senate would then vote “Yes” or “No” on each of theses tandem items proposed by the President. As provided for by the Constitution, any of the Presidents tandem proposals that are approved by a majority of both chambers would become part of the new budget.

By the same token, any proposed tandems that are not approved by both Chambers would not be included.

No matter how many of the Presidents tandem items are approved or not approved, the overall size of the frozen budget would not increase, and there would always be just ONE budget in existence.

3rd, after the Presidents tandem proposals are voted on, over the next 8 months members of both the House and the Senate could propose any number of new spending proposals or earmarks, but always IN TANDEM with the corresponding 102% CUTS of existing earmarks or programs, and always voted on as individual items that require approval from both chambers before being included in the new budget.

Once again, no matter how many of the new Congressional tandem items are approved or not approved, the overall size of the frozen budget still would not increase, and at all times there would always be just ONE budget in existence.

More importantly, because each tandem item would have to be voted on and approved individually, Congress would be forced to prioritize and weigh the merits of all spending proposals.

Most importantly, every individual member would be on the public record with their votes that reflect their choices and priorities. There will never again be a time when a Congressman can use the excuse of having to vote for an undesirable spending item in order to pass the “entire budget”, or use the excuse of having to accept undesirable items in order to pass other desirable items.

It would be the ultimate in transparency and accountability to the general voting public.
   
Are there any Democrats, Republicans, Liberals, or Conservatives anywhere that couldn’t get behind such a common sense approach to Federal Budgeting? 


Principle #4: Budget Rules and Processes must include a Strong Enforcement Provision.

Budget Restraints are intended to force Congress to make some uncomfortable trade-offs in order to preserve the nation's long-term economic health. However, members of Congress typically avoid these difficult choices with virtually no repercussions. Even modest congressional budget restraints are routinely overridden.

Currently in the House a simple majority by a voice vote can over-ride measures that are supposed to keep the budget in line, so existing measures are NEVER followed and because this is done only by voice vote…(“The “ayes” have it!”)…no one is ever held accountable for over-riding them.

It’s only slightly better in the Senate where a three-fifths vote allows Senators to take the easy path of bypassing restraints.

The Independence Caucus respectfully suggests one simple change to strengthen Budget rules:
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Every step of the entire budget process should require a ROLL CALL “super-majority” to be over-ridden: 

* That’s it. The “Fixed-Pie” budget Procedures could only be suspended in times of emergency by a 2/3 supermajority roll call vote in both houses of Congress.

* Suspension would be for the current budgeting year only, and a new 2/3 supermajority vote for suspension would be required for any subsequent years.

* Suspension must be voted on by Roll Call, where every members vote is on record.



Well there you have it. Over the course of all three sections of Article 6, we have reviewed the 4 principles of the “Fixed Pie Budget”:

Principle #1: The Overall Budget Should be a “Fixed-Pie” with Spending Capped via Pre-Set Levels

Principle #2: The Annual Budget Should Present a Full Picture of Future Obligations

Principle #3: Both Houses of Congress and the President Should Work on ONE Budget Throughout the Entire Budget Process

Principle #4: Budget Rules and Processes Must Include a Strong Enforcement Provision.


No matter which political party you belong to or identify with….These 4 simple principles make sense, don’t they?


Coming up in Article 7, we will shift our focus and begin looking at our Federal Tax Policies.

(We'll see you there!)