« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

MEMBER DIARY

Senator Mike Lee (R-UT) And Freedom Works’ Matt Kibbe Talk Tea Party And Balanced Budget Amendment

By: Melissa Clouthier (Diary)  |  February 14th, 2011 at 06:05 PM  | 

RESIZE: AAA

Senator Mike Lee (R-UT) and Matt Kibbe, President of Freedom Works, joined me at CPAC for a joint interview, last Friday. We talked about two things: The future of the Tea Party and the Balanced Budget Amendment.

Both topics are subject to lots of controversy. In fact, there’s been much discussion that a Balanced Budget Amendment would mean, axiomatically, that taxes would increase. When I asked the guys about this, they conceded the concern and Matt said the BBA would have to be written “just right.”

As for the future of the Tea Party, both gentlemen felt that the Tea Party was growing stronger and would find even more good candidates for the 2012 cycle.

Note: We had a tough time finding a quiet place to talk, so there’s significant background noise. This is a very interesting discussion, though, so I encourage you to watch.

More CPAC interviews at my YouTube Channel.

Tags: , , , , ,

COMMENTS

POSTING RULES  |  LOGIN TO COMMENT  |  REGISTER TODAY
  • fedsocdan

    I love you :-)

  • dajeeps

    Spending and debt aren’t the real problems. They are only symptoms of the real problem of government going way out in the weeds from the enumerated powers. It’s perhaps my cynical view showing through, but my guess is that a BBA is being pushed rather than clarification amendments to put Fedzilla in its place because it is preferable to Federal level politicians to retain the power that has been usurped from the States and the people over the last 80 years even though we cannot afford it.

    Some think it can’t hurt to do this, but aside from any affect on taxes, it could cause problems in budget prioritization in the future. That is if it does not become another of those inconvenient things in the constituion that is overlooked, SCOTUS does not eviscerate it like it has the 10th amendment, and it assumes honest accounting of liabilities. We simply cannot count on the government being loaded with conservatives and constitutionalists whose goal is to limit government and keep that way. History does not necessarialy repeat itself, but it does rhyme, and if we leave power centralized in the Federal government, it will continue to be abused money or not.

    Aside from possible unintended consequences of not solving the real problem, I think a reasonable question to ask would be: does it fit with the character of the rest of the document? I don’t think that it does, as it is intended to deal with the way things are, a sort of wink and a nod to being out of bounds, ‘go ahead and spend my own money to remove my liberty and destroy what’s left of Federalism as long as you don’t spend too much’. It makes my skin crawl. Sorry.

    “The desire is there to do something about difficult problems, but because it is difficult to do something which would help solve them, people do something else instead.”

    – Dr. Madsen Pirie, Adam Smith Institute

  • tamib

    I want to see a Republican reaching across the aisle is to slap some sense into a silly liberal.

    The presidents budget is suicide for this nation and all that is standing in the way of economic death is the GOP. Call me skeptical but I don’t have enough faith built up to believe they will hold their ground.

    The GOP seems to be saying they want to see Obama act like the adult when it comes to spending – that’s like asking a 5 year old to control themselves in a candy store. Obama has plans for this nation and economic recovery or retaking a prominent place in the world is not in them.

    The GOP better wise up, we didn’t put them into office to play around, to play nice or to reach agreements with the other side. We expect quick, firm, tough decisions and action. If they can’t deliver we will find those who will.

  • http://www.timelyrenewed.com timelyrenewed

    A balanced budget amendment in theory is a worthy endeavor. However, it is unclear how it could possibly get a two-thirds vote of both House and Senate in the 112th Congress. The only way it will get through, even as part of a deal to raise the debt ceiling, would be if it as full of loopholes as PAY-GO.

    If we are going to devote resources to a constitutional amendment in the 112th Congress, let’s put through an amendment to the amendment process itself which will eliminate the unnecessary convention now required by Article V and permit States to directly initiate amendment proposals. This will break the current de facto federal congressional and judicial monopoly on interpreting the Constitution, and permit grassroots patriots on the state level to restore the Constitution by amendments such as a balanced budget amendment. This will also open a path to other constitutional amendments to permanently constrain future federal overreach of the sort rejected by the people in November. See http://www.timelyrenewed.com