Archive for the ‘Texas Politics’ Category

Resolution Concerning Congressional and Legislative Redistricting

Wednesday, February 29th, 2012

A Draft

Whereas the Texas Legislature has been unable to draw districts for Congress and the Legislature in every year following the decennial census since 1971 that met the standards of the 14th Amendment of the Constitution guaranteeing persons the equal protection of the laws;

Whereas the gerrymanders in 1971, 1981, 1991, 2001 and 2011 have abridged the voting privileges of Texas citizens, making the votes of some citizens count for more than others in the legislature;

Whereas Republican Texas Senator Jeff Wentworth of San Antonio has repeatedly introduced bill which would create a bipartisan redistricting commission which would be independent of the pressures of congressmen and legislators;

Whereas Democratic Texas Representative José Rodriguez of El Paso has introduced legislation which would set state standards by which redistricting must comply; and

Whereas the failed efforts to create legal congressional and legislative districts has resulted in expensive law suits and special sessions of the legislature which Texas cannot afford;

Be it resolved that the Texas Democratic Party endorse Senator Wentworth’s proposal to create a redistricting commission consisting of equal numbers of Republicans and Democrats who would select an additional member as its chair, none of whom could be elected officials or party officers, that would be charged with drawing districts for congressional and legislative districts;

Be it resolved that the Texas Democratic Party endorse Representative Rodriquez’ proposal to create specific standards that district maps must meet that would

  • Keep voters together who share common interests such as economic, geographic and racial interests,
  • Keep districts compact so they don’t snake through and around cities, suburbs and towns, and
  • Keep partisan political considerations from determining how districts are drawn, including prohibiting the use of neighborhood voting history; and

Be it resolved that candidates for the Texas legislature be urged to support and campaign on these reforms.

Resolution Concerning Corporate “Personhood”

Thursday, February 16th, 2012

A Draft 

Whereas the United States of America ratified the Fourteenth Amendment of its Constitution guaranteeing every person life, liberty and property; due process of law; and the equal protection of the laws;

Whereas it was clearly the intent of the Congress and Legislatures of the several states to protect actual persons rather than legal fictions;

Whereas the Supreme Court of the United State has misrepresented this amendment in Santa Clara v. Southern Pacific Railroad, 118 U.S. 394 (1886), by holding that the legal fiction of corporations are persons under the Fourteenth Amendment;

Whereas corporations are legal fictions created by law and granted privileges and immunities not available to citizens and persons in the United States;

Whereas a long line of Supreme Court rulings for over a century have been based upon this misinterpretation of the Fourteenth Amendment;

Whereas in the recent Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, 558 U.S. 08-205 (2010) decision, the Court granted to corporations unprecedented First Amendment rights;

Whereas the consequence of Citizens United as resulted in hundreds of millions of corporate dollars into the political process, greatly impairing the voice of citizens and persons in the political process; and

Whereas Citizens United has denied citizens and persons the equal protection of the laws;

Be It Resolved that the Texas Democratic Party adopt a platform that includes a call for an Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America defining “person” as an actual, individual, living human being;

Be It Resolved that the Texas Democratic Party urge the National Democratic Party to adopt an Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America defining “person” as an actual, individual, living human being;

Be It Resolved that the Texas Democratic Party urge all candidates for the United States Congress and the Texas Legislature to support and to work actively for such an Amendment; and

Be It Resolved that the Texas Democratic Party and the National Democratic Party campaign and actively work to outlaw corporate funding of election campaigns and to enact legislation ending the existence of so-called “Super PACs.

New Texas Poll

Thursday, January 26th, 2012
TEXAS POLL AFTER SOUTH CAROLINA
Barack Obama Mitt Romney Newt Gingrich
Approve Disapprove Favorable Unfavorable Favorable Unfavorable
Overall 43% 47% 28% 29% 34% 37%
Republicans 17% 79% 46% 28% 60% 22%
Democrats 80% 14% 11% 63% 13% 63%
Independents 53% 30% 20% 38% 20% 40%

Margin of error: 3.5%. Source: Dallas Morning News 1/26/2012

Maybe Obama has a chance to win Texas’ 38 electoral votes. Given that there is a 4% difference between his approval and disapproval rates, with a 3.5% margin of error — and that translates into a regression toward the mean — it is simply too close too call.

Did Perry Lower Texas Taxes or Raise Texas Taxes?

Tuesday, September 13th, 2011

In last night’s GOP debate, Rick Perry claimed he lowered Texas taxes; Ron Paul claimed his Texas taxes had risen while Perry was governor. Something’s fishy here. They can’t both be right, can they? Well, maybe.

Texas has long relied on ad valorem taxes to fund public schools. These are “local” taxes levied by school districts on property in the district. Because there is no relationship between local property values and children, the state ends up with “property rich districts” and “property poor districts.” In a “property rich district” there may or may not be a significant number of school age children. The same is true of a “property poor district.” What becomes important is the relationship of property values to the numbers of school age children and their particular educational needs. Or, put another way, what is important is what a particular tax rate generates per school age children. In some districts with high property values and few children, a low millage can generate far more dollars per child than a district with low property values and many children.

The system has been repeatedly challenged in federal courts as a violation of the 14th Amendment (equal protection) and in state courts as a violation of the state constitution (an efficient system of public schools). Eventually the Texas Supreme Court held that the reliance on district ad valorem taxes was not “an efficient system of public schools.”

In response the state legislature, always loathe to raise state taxes, devised a system of equalization in which money was taken from “rich school districts” and transferred to “poor school districts.” For obvious reasons, the plan has been called the “Robinhood Plan.” There was political pressure to replace the plan with a system of state-wide taxes to fund public education in Texas or, at the very least, to reduce the reliance on the ad valorem tax.

So Rick Perry came up with an alternative. The local school districts would be forced to reduce their taxes and the business franchise tax would be broadened and increased to provide state money to equalize education throughout the state.  In theory, the new approach was supposed to be “revenue neutral”–the state-wide reductions in school taxes would be balanced with the increased franchise tax revenue. But, as it turned out, that did not happen. There was an overall reduction in education dollars–billions of dollars which, as it turns out accounts for virtually all of the state budget debt that has faced the legislature each biennium ever since.

But there is something about this which isn’t so obvious to the average man on the street. For most Texans, the local school district property tax on their house is the most obvious non-federal tax and it is the biggie. (Never mind the sales tax and excises on gasoline, alcohol, etc. which do not come in one big lump bill.) So they assume that most of the district’s revenue comes from taxes on homes. Wrong. For virtually every district in the state, the big chunk of tax revenue comes from business property, not residential property. It is precisely the lack of major business properties that marks “property poor districts” (along with large numbers of children). So, when the the state cut school property taxes, the biggest winners were not home owners, but businesses. (The most obvious business property tax generators are things like refineries, electrical generation plants, major shopping malls and the like. But even in a rural area, it turns out that the telephone and utilities are the big tax payers because of their infrastructure.

So if one cuts school property taxes, the biggest beneficiaries of the cut are not home-owners, but businesses. Now supposedly the tax break for businesses would be offset by their increased franchise taxes. But what happened is that the increased franchise tax has not offset the reduced property taxes. But it did result in an effective tax cut for businesses considering both property and franchise taxes.

Supposedly the “reform” would provide school districts with increased state funding to compensate for lost property tax revenue. But since it didn’t, the promised state aid was not forthcoming. So, to meet ever increasing state mandates, the cost of education and the desire to maintain local schools, school districts have been raising taxes. The fall of house values and the recession have accelerated the increasing local school taxes AND city, county and other assorted local taxing agencies. In the last session of the legislature, to “balance” a $25 billion dollar deficit, huge cuts were made in state funding for education, health and human services and higher education (including community colleges) and the state’s cut in various city and county revenues have resulted in increased local taxation in Texas.

So Perry is right. He cut some taxes. Ron Paul is right. He is seeing his state and local taxes increase. Meanwhile Exxon executives are laughing all the way to the bank.

 

Texas School Finance “Reform”

Saturday, June 11th, 2011

The “efficient” and “equitable” funding of public schools in Texas has been a contentious issue since the 1980s. In essence, the state provided a Foundation School Program. Under that plan every district was assured a certain basic funding level per average daily attendance. If a basic level of district property taxes raised that amount, then the district was “budget balanced” and did not receive state funding. But if the district property tax did not raise that amount, then the state would make up the difference. Districts could tax above that basic tax rate for “enrichment.”

The problem with this system is that the per student tax base varies wildly through out the state’s districts. In “property rich” district even a 1 mil tax above the basic rate would raise hundreds, even thousands of dollars per student, while in a “property poor” district even the maximum legal rate generated few dollars per student.

This system was challenged repeatedly in state courts (as not meeting the state constitution’s requirement of an “efficient system of public schools”) and in federal courts (as not meeting the federal constitution’s requirement of “equal protection of the laws.” The problem with the system simply was that in some districts property values were extremely low, while in others it was extremely high, and in some districts there were large numbers of students, while in others there were few students. Thus, for example, in the San Antonio area there was Alamo Heights ISD with very expensive homes and relatively few school age children living in them (not to mention that in that affluent neighborhood, many students attended private schools); but there was also Edgewood ISD consisting of barrio homes in western San Antonio which had a low evaluation and many children. Such patterns existed throughout the state.

Eventually, in 2003, under an impending court takeover of the public schools, the legislature adopted an equalization plan which was referred to as the “Robin Hood Plan.” It might be described as a state tax on “rich” school districts. Equalization money was taken from such districts and distributed to “poor” school districts. It also had the unintended consequence of those districts who could legally do so raising the local school property taxes in an attempt to maintain their per student expenditures. Needless to say, it was unpopular with parents and property owners in those districts.

In 2005 the legislature revisited the matter of school districts. What they did was force a reduction in local school taxes, with the lost school revenue being made up by an increased franchise on businesses (with many exemptions and loopholes) which would be equitably distributed among the districts by the state. The only problem is that the franchise taxes never did equal the amount lost through the property tax reduction. Interestingly, the $26 billion dollar deficit faced by the legislature in 2011 was almost exactly the difference between the lowered school district taxes and what the franchise tax failed to raise.

Note that, through all of this the governor was Rick Perry and the legislature was essentially controlled by the Republicans.

I have somewhat misled you about the original situation. While differences in residential property values between districts and density of school aged children are a factor, they are by no means the major factor. For most school districts, the major property value is not residential, but business. In many districts, the big taxpayers are utility companies (just power, phone, cable lines are major factors), commercial properties from the mom and pop store to the fanciest shopping malls, properties with oil and gas and industrial properties (think refineries, electrical generating plants, etc.) One of the weirder cases is King Ranch, involving many square miles of valuable ranch lands and only a dozen or so school aged children organized as an independent school district.

So what, in fact, the legislature did in 2005 was to give businesses a huge property tax break by forcing school district to lower their tax rates. While the increases in the franchise tax was supposed to offset the lowered property taxes, they did not. So the net effect was to give businesses a handsome tax cut at the expense of the public schools.

And so we come to 2011, Faced with a huge state deficit the Republican controlled legislature (in the House they have 101 of 150 seats; the Senate isn’t anywhere near as lopsided, but the Republicans still have a comfortable majority under the Republican Lt. Governor who presides and leads), the legislature cut everything–health care, prisons, highways, universities, community colleges, scholarship funding and, of course, the public schools. What they did not do or even attempt to do was to fix the broken tax system.

At the very minimum they should have closed the loopholes and exemptions in the franchise taxes on businesses and raised the gasoline tax (for Texas highways). They did not. They could have eliminated the sales tax “holiday.” (Of course commercial interests like that one because it brings out shopping crowds in August.) They could have made a small increase in the sales tax. Eventually, the state needs to adopt an income tax. Of course none of this was ever on the table. The might even have stopped Texas dollars going to Louisiana and Oklahoma by allowing casino gambling and slots at the horse races. But they did none of this. Instead the savaged the people of Texas in the name of “No New Taxes”–probably the most vicious “non-tax tax” imaginable.

 

Texas Budget Shortfall

Friday, February 25th, 2011

This is old news, but it is one of two must do items on the legislature’s agenda.

Lawmakers faced with 25 billion budget shortfall.

In one of the videos of the link, three legislators are interviewed. They all agree that the budget must be balanced by cutting expenses. That can only be done by cutting education and health and human services. They talk about cutting their expenses, but that is only a fraction. The governor is fighting proposed cuts in his business subsidies. There is no mention from the governor or the legislature about cutting the governor’s $10,000 per month house or his travel expense. He is traveling around the country promoting his national image.

The legislators make clear there will be no new taxes or tax increases. They hedge when it comes to fees, such as auto registrations. But the demagogue tax mantra hides some facts. Texas ranks 45th in the nation in per capita tax burdens. It is one reason the state ranks dead last in per capita spending. It could raise the per capita tax load by 10% (i.e. from the present 7.9% to 8.7% and still be tied with Arizona, Mississippi, Montana and Oklahoma for 35th.

The argument of the GOP is that Texas’ low taxes are one of the reasons businesses are moving to Texas. But is this really healthy? Do businesses looking for low taxes and the resulting low level of state services (i.e., that 50% per capital expenditure) really help the state? In addition to low taxes and low service levels Texas attracts businesses looking for low, non-unionized labor. That is why Texas’s per capita income is $2,041 below the national per capita income. Both the low level of taxation and the low level of income translate into low levels of state and local government revenue.

Furthermore, roughly $9 billion deficit faced by the state legislature results from increased population! One of the reasons for the projected increased cost of public schools is the increased enrollment that results from population growth. In other words, what Governor Perry is bragging about is attracting businesses that are freeloading off of the rest of us in Texas.

To make matters worse, the state legislature is dealing with all sorts of “emergencies” (according to Governor Perry), none of which address the two must pass items and, indeed will surely add to the state’s expenses and/or those of local governments. These “emergencies” include photo voter ID, mandatory sonograms before abortions, schools monitoring certain out of school student behaviors, immigration, resolution calling for a federal balanced budget amendment, attempts to nullify federal environment and Medicaid laws.

Americans and Taxes

Monday, February 14th, 2011

Nothing is certain but death and taxes. Most of us don’t like paying taxes. Probably more of us object to taxes than to death. But Americans seem peculiarly adverse to taxes.

The anti-tax sentiment is nothing new to Americans. Taxes were, after all, one of the causes for the American Revolution. Some historians note that in 1776 the colonists were not all that bad off. They pretty much enjoyed full employment. Poverty wasn’t much of a problem, even though some may have been borderline, living at subsistence levels on small frontier farms supplemented by hunting and fishing. Historians note that the colonists were physically larger than their British cousins because their diets consisted of far more protein. Speech and press were fairly well free. There was a fairly high level of self government with the colonial legislatures.

But taxes imposed by the British government were a proximate cause of the American Revolution. They weren’t particularly onerous. There might be valid complaint that the colonists had no voice in how taxes were levied. But it is not at all clear that colonial representation in Parliament would have avoided the revolution.

The real problem was that the British government felt that the colonists should bear at least some of the cost of defense against the French and Indians on the frontier. That why the taxes were levied. The British government wasn’t trying to milk the colonies; they were simply trying to get the colonists to help pay for the British troops fighting the French and Indians that were threatening the American colonists.

So it would seem that the American people have resisted paying for government services for at least 235 years. It is nothing new. Our forefathers didn’t want to pay for the costs of defense against the French and Indians. So they revolted. That was what the original Boston Tea Party was about.

The American Revolution didn’t change that. One of the myriad problems that faced the Congress in the period from 1776 to 1788 was the refusal of the 13 states to pay for the federal government. They wouldn’t pay for the costs of Washington’s Army. They wouldn’t pay for the costs of the Congress. They wouldn’t pay for the cost of sending ambassadors to Europe. They didn’t like to pay taxes to pay for government.

So this “No Taxes” bit is nothing new.

I don’t enjoy paying taxes. But neither to I enjoy paying rent or utility bills. But I do like to have a place to live, electricity and water. And because I enjoy having a roof over my head, a warm apartment on cold days and a cool apartment on hot days I pay the bills. I like eating and having clothes to wear. Most of this stuff is bought with credit cards. I don’t particularly enjoy paying the credit card bills each month that result. But that is the price of eating and wearing clothes.

I didn’t pay for my education in public schools. The tax payers paid for my education through grade 12 and, as I went to a state college my freshman year, they paid for part of that education too. I did post graduate work at the University of Texas–subsidized by taxpayers. Of course, by that time I was a taxpayer. I like police and fire protection. I like clean water and air. I like to have access to public libraries. I like safe food. I like streets and roads. All of these things are paid for by taxes. And given the benefits, it is a good deal.

I don’t particularly enjoy paying taxes. But I do enjoy being a Texan and an American. And, given the benefits, I think I get a pretty good return for my taxes. Taxes are the cost of living in a civilized modern community, state and nation; it is a real bargain. Nor am I so selfish as to want to hog all the benefits to myself. Others less fortunate than I may share in the community, state and nation my taxes support. And I, for one, would willingly pay more in taxes (albeit maybe not enjoying doing so) to make my community, state and nation a better place for my fellow humans and all those who come after me.

Texas Legislative Priorities

Saturday, February 12th, 2011

As I have written before, there are two, and only two, things which the Texas Legislature must accomplish during the current regular session: Adopt a balanced budget which is constitutionally required in Texas and Congressional redistricting to accommodate the four new House seats Texas gains because of the 2010 Census. It must accomplish them by the end of May when the regular session of the legislature must adjourn sine die as required by the state constitution.

I might add a third “must do,” or rather a “must not do.” It must not do anything which would result in expensive lawsuits. If they muff many things in the budget–like school funding, mental health funding, Medicaid funding, prison funding–there will lawsuits. And if they muff redistricting by gerrymanders to reduce Black and Hispanic representation or to ensure disproportionate Republican representation, there will be lawsuits. There are other, unnecessary acts, actions which will result in litigation: Voter ID, restrictions on abortion and various attempts to deal with illegal immigration.

Curiously, the legislature is dealing, not with their Must Do List, but rather with all sorts of unnecessary proposals which will widen the gap which must be closed in the state budget.

For example, voter ID. Now to give that a chance to pass judicial muster, it must provide free photo IDs to those who, for any reason, do not have a government issued photo ID (e.g., drivers license, passport). The is, of course, no such thing as a “free photo ID.” That “free photo ID” will be paid for by someone–namely the State of Texas. It creates something that will increase state expenditures. It is also likely that the legislation will result in lawsuits. It is discriminatory. And it is problematic. For example, we septuagenarians are exempt from the requirement. But since septuagenarians are more likely to vote Republican, it discriminates against younger voters who are more likely to vote Democratic. Furthermore, unless the state creates thousands of “substations” where photo IDs are made (adding greatly to the cost) it becomes discriminatory against the poor, disabled and elderly who would have difficulty getting to the places were such IDs are currently made–for a fee.

Currently winding through the legislature is an emergency bill to require women seeking an abortion to have a sonogram. Don’t get me wrong; I am pro-life; but this is bad legislation. Once again, who pays for this? The woman? If so, it is discriminatory because it would limit the ability of poor women to get abortions. And that will entangle the state in expensive lawsuits which compound the budget problem. If the state pays for it, well that also compounds the budget problem.

There are numerous bills under consideration which would in one way or another involve the state and local governments in enforcing laws against illegal immigrants. They will increase law enforcement costs at both the state and local level. (And local governments have their own budget crises. It will increase court costs, jail costs and prison costs. It also could have a negative effect on revenues, particularly if enforcement should actually target employers in an effective way.

In many ways the legislature (and governor) seem to be ignoring the elephant in the room–namely an estimated $25 billion gap between projected expenditures and revenues over the next biennium. And, following the GOP and Tea Party mantra, of “no new (or increased) taxes” and “cut baby, cut” They are about to entangle the state in even more costly activities.

School finance. Currently they are talking about cutting funding for public education by $5 billion. That will probably also meet constitutional challenges. It may or may not be constitutionally discriminatory–something that has plagued Texas school finance for decades. But it surely will not meet the state constitutional requirement that the state provide an “efficient” system of public education. It will also result in something like 100,000 unemployed teachers and other school employees. That will result in increased state unemployment costs and reduced state revenues as those unemployed people cut back their spending. (The state sales tax is the primary source of state revenue–after federal grants.) And unemployment has an economic ripple effect; lost business results in layoffs and businesses closing.

They plan to cut mental health services. That will probably result in lost jobs and an increase in the prison population–and the costs associated with law enforcement, prosecution and court trials to put the mentally ill that tangles with the law in prison. It could also result in more lawsuits.

They plan to cut nursing home payments. That will result in lost jobs as nursing homes close. I’m not sure what happens to the poor in those homes; it may be the final stage in the Republican Health Care Plan in action–die quickly.

We could go on and on with this analysis. But it is too painful.

Oh, you might ask what does not seem to face the budget act in Austin. Well, there’s the governor’s slush funds with which he pays off his major campaign contributors in the guise of “creating jobs.” There’s the $10,000 a month governor’s house–he’s living there ever since someone torched the Governor’s Mansion while the Texas Rangers slept and can seem to figure out who did it. There are the costs of the governor’s travels to promote his “national image” at right wing nut rallies and meetings. The costs of these trips to the state treasury are Top Secret for “security reasons.” While the legislature is talking about cuts of 17% to state programs that benefit Texans, the House has agreed to cut its expenses by 10% and the Senate by a whopping 5%. What is not being cut are the expenses of all those lawsuits the Attorney General is waging against the federal government.

There may be increases in fees–e.g., automobile registration fees. There is even some timid talk of raising the gasoline tax a bit to fix deteriorating state roads and bridges. Taboo are increases in the state franchise tax or the sales tax. Also taboo is any new tax–read, a state income tax. Nor are we going to close any loopholes in the state franchise tax.

Oh, yes. We believe that the federal government must cut spending in major ways. By the way, please send us billions in federal money. And under no circumstance should there be any restrictions on how we use that money.

By the way, Texas is sitting on an $8 billion dollar “rainy day fund.” It isn’t raining, so that must not be touched.

And there you have the priorities of the Texas governor, legislature, GOP and Tea Party.

Texas Lawbreakers Run the State

Thursday, January 27th, 2011

Seems Texas officials don’t believe in obeying the law, defy the federal government.

State officials OK coal-fired plant, defying EPA

“This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof … shall be the supreme Law of the Land, … anything in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary not withstanding.

“The … Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers … of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution.”

United States Constitution, Article VI.

Gotta Love Those Constitutionalists!

Thursday, January 27th, 2011

Senators Hatch and Cornyn have introduced a proposed constitutional amendment in the U.S. Senate. Supposedly Cornyn represents me. I must protest!

It is interesting that these “constitutional conservatives” are eager to change the U.S. Constitution. Some want to repeal the 16th Amendment. Some want to repeal or radically change the 14th Amendment. And now Hatch and Cornyn want to change Article I, Section 8, radically. We have a Tea Party governor in Texas who wants to negate Article VI or, barring that to secede from the United States. Many apparently want to pretend that the “general welfare” and “necessary and proper” clauses Article I, Section 8, are purely rhetorical and of no constitutional effect. We had a Tea Party candidate here in Dallas who said if the Tea Party didn’t get its way they should resort to the violent overthrow of the U.S. government. (He was overwhelmingly feated by the Democratic incumbent.) You have to wonder about these self-proclaimed “constitutional conservatives.”

But to the matter of the Hatch-Cornyn amendment. It is called a “Balanced Budget Amendment.” That sounds good until one looks at it and what it would do. The basic thesis would be that Congress would be constitutionally required to pass a balanced budget. (The previous Congress wasn’t able to pass anykind of budget–balanced or unbalanced, largely thanks to Cornyn and friends.)

It was possible in 2000 for Congress to pass a balanced budget. In fact, the budget which George Bush inherited in 2001 from the Clinton administration had a budget surplus! But instead of applying that surplus to reduce the national debt, most of which was left over from the Reagan administration’s fiscal policies, the Bush administration and Republican controlled Congress (1) reduced taxes and (2) increased spending. They also started to wars which were “off budget”–that is, made the budget deficits look substantially smaller than the actual debt. The result doubled the national debt by in eight years. (Incidentally, when one doubles the debt one necessarily doubles the cost of debt service–which is the fifth biggest chunk of our national expenditures after Medicare, Social Security, Medicaid and Defense.) The irresponsible fiscal policies, along with repeal of the regulation of derivities and lax regulation of stock markets, banks and mortgage and insurance companies led to the collapse of the economy in 2008.

That collapse required government spending that approached two trillion dollars and dramatically reduced revenues. So the consequences of not addressing the national debt in 2001 and instead adding to it is the main reason for the current debt crises and unbalanced budget. If implementing the bipartisan commission’s won’t instantly balance the budget even with its drastic rewriting of the tax laws and cutting entitlements (Medicare, Social Security, Medicaid) and all discretionary spending, including defense, passing a constitutional amendment won’t do it either.

Interestingly, the Hatch-Cornyn amendment would exempt Congress from balancing a budget when we are at war. Remember, we are at war right now and have been for nearly a decade. So, unless we end the wars started during the Bush years and stay out of any future wars, Congress will be under no obligation to balance any budget!

Furthermore, the amendment would require a 2/3rds majority in both the House and Senate to pass any tax increase. We should know from the record that getting 2/3rds of Congress to vote for any tax increase. (It isn’t clear whether or not the “temporary tax cuts” passed last December could be allowed to lapse.) The obvious intention is to force any balancing of budgets to be through cuts. But anyone who has engaged in any of the budget balancing exercises knows that it is simply impossible to cut $1.5 trillion from the budget without catastrophic consequences. Those of us who participated in those exercises know that just to balance the budget, significant tax increases as well as draconian cuts in expenditures will be required. The bipartisan commission appointed to make proposals came to the same conclusion.

What more, cuts in government spending will increase unemployment, which reduces revenue and increases government spending. In fact one of the real difficulties is that a sensible approach to balancing the budget by increasing taxes and cutting expenditures (something that would have been possible in 2001 when the economy was overheating) is that in a weak economy increasing taxes and cutting spending aggravates the economic problems. State and local governments and many private sector contractors are, in fact, cutting jobs as the stimulus winds down. That is why the unemployment rate remains high. Unemployed workers do not pay taxes; underemployed workers pay less taxes. Both require more government services, which drives up expenditures creating more debt.

Now Tea Party and Republican folk like to talk about returning to the principles of the founding fathers who wrote the Constitution. They reveal their ignorance of American history. In the period from 1776-1787 the United States was governed by the Articles of Confederation. The United States was on the verge of collapse under that government. The confederacy was deeply in debt, partly due to the cost of the revolutionary war and some other problems. But it was hamstrung when it came to raising revenue to pay off those debts and pay for the operation of a very small, limited confederate government. The fiscal situation was so bad that money issued by the Congress,  as the saying goes, “wasn’t worth a continental.” The government was finding it impossible to borrow, because it had no way to pay back the loans. That wasn’t the only problem with the Articles, but it certainly was a major one that led to the drafting of the Constitution in Philadelphia in 1787.

In point of fact, the Articles of Confederation were the Tea Party’s dream–and the nightmare for those who actually lived in a country governed by them. The men who gathered behind closed doors in Philadelphia in 1787 secretly to draft a new Constitution knew that the confederacy wasn’t working. They also knew from history that confederacies don’t last. About the only confederacy I can think of that lasted more than a couple of decades is the Swiss confederacy. (And I am thinking of confederacies that go back 2,500 years!) The writers of the Constitution made sure that the national government under the new Constitution could tax to raise revenue to pay off its debts and to pay for its operation. They made sure that the new government had the resources and power to “lay and collect Taxes” and “to provide for the common Defense and general Welfare of the United States.” (Article I, Section 8)

Incidentally, they also bailed out the states which were also heavily in debt. Some of those founding fathers in Philadelphia left for a short period of time to go to New York City, where the Congress of which they were members was meeting to vote for the Northwest Ordinance which subsidized those speculating in lands west of the Allegeny Mountains (including Washington and several other members of the Philadelphia Convention). The ordinance also provided grants for the establishment of public schools in the territories. The new government under Washington did things like create the Bank of the United States. The Hatch-Cornyn amendment is an attempt to overthrow the Constitution and the United States of America.

The “historical” fantasies of the Tea Party and GOP remind me of a line in the TV series I, Claudius. To paraphrase the line: “The Republic isn’t what it once was; what is more, it never was what it once was.”