« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

MEMBER DIARY

Why the Gang of 12 Could Be a Good Thing

Although bipartisanship and compromise in Washington seems to be defined as Republicans agreeing to eat and enjoy the crap sandwich that the Democrats put together, I believe that this particular arrangement is advantageous to taking another step on the road out of the financial mire.

I am working under the premise, however, that the Committee is constitutionally prohibited from raising taxes (or more precisely, revenue). This follows from Article I, Section 7:

All Bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives; but the Senate may propose or concur with Amendments as on other Bills.

The Committee is organized as a Joint Committee of both House members and Senators, and their results will not be a pure House concoction, hence taxes or ‘revenues’ are illegal.

Since revenues cannot be raised, cuts are the only alternative. Although the Democrats will want to cut defense, the cost of entitlements will quickly surface, including (gulp…) Obamacare, whose costs are estimated at ‘between 2.5 and 3 trillion over 10 years’ (twice the cuts required), not including the consequences on businesses.

Immediate repeal of Obamacare is unlikely, as the GROFAZ would be eating a large slice of humble pie. But at the very least the debate would be forced where we want it, that is, if the country is not to become another Greece.

COMMENTS

  • carolina

    There is a slight possibility that it will slow our downward spiral. Unfortunately a lot of other fiscal influences will continue to push us down (like new regulations that continue to be issued)
    BO & the dems seem determined to destroy this country. They don’t know how to do anything but tax, spend, and redistribute.
    However, there may be a glimmer of hope: Jerry brown wants to reduce CA medicaid costs – including requiring co-pays. Every state should require co-pays.

  • http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine

    I truly believe that a crash is coming before 2012 that will make today look tame.

  • http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine

    House?

  • JSobieski

    The critical issues are “standing” and “justiciability”.

    With regards to standing, only the House of Representatives is likely to have standing to challenge a defect with regards to the “originate in the House” requirement. Given that the House voted to approve the measure, the House has essentially waived any claim that it may have. Standing is a purposely limited concept, and I can’t see an individual citizen or an individual Congressman successfully asserting standing in this case,

    Unless a particular law involves a conflict between two branches of government (such as the line item veto), Article 1 Clause 7 is not going to be the basis of a successful challenge to a statute so long as its core is not violated (approved by both houses and signed by President or veto overriden). Short of one house not approving the law (in which case that house would have a majority against the bill and thus have standing) or a President improperly overriden with less than 2/3 vote, Article 1 Clause 7 isn’t particularly ripe for litigation.

  • Kyle-MI

    Any other interpretation would create a huge mess.
    As far as I understand, the House has taken up many Presidential budget proposals. Does this make those budgets unconstitutional?

    But what do I know. I am certainly no unfrozen caveman lawyer.

  • http://barbershopvalues.com daconia

    Since when did unconstitutionality stop these guys?!!
    The only good thing that might come out of this is that the only way they could compromise is to overhaul the tax code and recommend some kind of fair/flat tax. Revenues would go up but the new 2013 Congress and President could rapidly address that.

    gh

  • http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine

    research! more later…gamecock will go to work on this over the weekend

  • Xasteius

    A possible way to get around this is to have someone in the House agree to introduce the bill? I’m just reading the Constitution straight (an amateur with a little knowledge is dangerous :) ) but that’s just my interpretation.

  • http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine

    are usually a waste given the ease with which it is corrected, BUT, in this case I do want all constitutional objections pursued due to the likelihood of a committee deadlock and the draconian cuts to defense that would result.

  • http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine

    nt