The Case for the Convention of States Project’s Resolution (Part 2)
Monday, May 17, 2021
Last week we looked at the first two subjects of our resolution. We also discussed examples of proposals that could be discussed at an Article V convention of states meeting called under our resolution. This week we will cover the final subject and the fallacies of single-subject resolutions.
The final subject of the Convention of States Project’s resolution is restoring fiscal restraints.
The size of the federal government has grown year over year since the Coolidge Administration. Which party controls the White House or Congress is immaterial. The rate of growth year over year may change but the growth of the federal government is a constant.
The national debt is closing in on $30T. Unfunded mandates are estimated to be a minimum of $150T. In 2020, the Trump Administration spent $6.55T on federal revenues of $3.42T. President Biden has proposed $6.1T of new spending in his first 100 days. This does not even include the $6+T federal budget for 2021. If this comes to pass, the federal government will spend over $12T in 2021 alone. This is completely irrational and amounts to fiscal child abuse on future generations.
Much of this abhorrent spending is a result of the federal government’s involvement in areas where they have no constitutional authority. This section goes hand in hand with the first subject. Decrease the size of the federal government and decreasing what government spends becomes more difficult to oppose.
Examples of possible proposals under this subject are: 1) increases in the national debt limit would need approval by the states and 2) a limitation on taxation or abolition of the 16th Amendment. How about if the federal government had to follow Generally Accepted Accounting Principles?
Originally, citizens were to pay taxes to their state, and the states funded the federal government. This allowed the states to control the size of the federal government. That train left the station long ago. The states can reset this balance and bring government spending under control. That is something the federal government has neither the desire nor ability to do on its own.
Now, let us look at how single-subject Article V resolutions are ineffective and ill-advised.
A popular idea is to enforce term limits on members of Congress. There is a visceral attraction to this line of thinking. Each of us has a longtime member of Congress in mind they would like to see sent home. Amendments must correct processes and overall government structure. They cannot be written to address an individual person or a few people.
If we impose term limits on Congress but allow them to continue to spend and make the same decisions as they do now, the only thing that has changed are the people making the decisions. The Congress-members we elect are still working in a broken system. It is like rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic. Term limits alone will not sufficiently address the dysfunction of the federal government.
Another popular initiative is to pass a balanced budget amendment. If the federal government’s ability to spend is limited without the size, scope and decisions they make being addressed, the federal government can decide to continue or expand those programs and shift the additional costs to the states. This could prove disastrous to state finances. Additionally, if the federal government does not use real math or accounting best-practices, the budgetary process is meaningless.
History shows that pre-worded proposals are unsuccessful. It takes 34 states to agree to the purpose of calling an Article V convention of states meeting. Each state that entertains a pre-worded proposal is likely to change sections of the proposal. Soon, there are not 34 applications that agree, and an Article V meeting is never called. This is the history of pre-worded amendment proposals moving through state legislatures.
Some efforts have been made to propose amendments through an interstate compact. This is the approach of the Balanced Budget Amendments efforts. Their approach is to have 38 states agree to their proposal effectively reaching the three-fourths threshold to ratify an amendment. The Constitution states that individual states cannot enter an enforceable interstate compact without Congress signing off. Congress cannot be expected voluntarily agree to a reduction in their power. This approach to limiting the federal government’s power is a dead end.
We have looked at few examples of proposals that may be introduced in an Article V meeting called under the Convention of States Project’s resolution. Nibbling around the edges or pursuing single-subject resolutions are insufficient to address the issues the federal government has caused. In fact, doing so could inflict significant harm to our republic. The Convention of States Project’s resolution is the only constitutional solution that is as big as the problem.
Part 1 is accessible on the Archive link below.
Help with confirming your email address here
Sign up for our free COS University courses here
Past Blog Posts
Did you miss last week's blog post? No worries, we've got you covered!
Click here to access our archive and see the full history of the blog.
