Today, I heard Rand Paul on Sean Hannity's radio show. They were talking about the national debt and the vote to raise the debt ceiling. Rand Paul said that he wants some kind of a plan to pass a balanced budget amendment if they are going to raise the debt limit.
First, Rand Paul is not Ron Paul and you can tell that just by how much Sean Hannity is sucking up to him. Ron Paul is a principled libertarian and does not usually hold back in what he has to say. His son Rand on the other hand is less radical and less principled, at least in his talk. He is not anti-war like his dad. Don't get me wrong here. Rand Paul is by far the best senator in the U.S. Senate. He is more fiscally conservative than any of the other 99 clowns and he has been great on certain things like the Patriot Act. But he is still not his dad.
So Rand Paul wants a balanced budget amendment. But do you know what is required to pass a constitutional amendment? You have to get two-thirds of the House and Senate to approve it and then you need three-fourths of the states. You would have an easier time getting a libertarian revolution than getting this done.
The next thing is, do we really want a balanced budget amendment. If that were put in place right now, it would probably mean that our taxes would go up. Now I certainly want a balanced budget, but I'm afraid that the view of Congress and many of the American people won't be quite the same. As a radical libertarian, I want a balanced budget with a government that is, at minimum, a fraction of the size of what it is now. I don't want a balanced budget with a $4 trillion annual budget or even a $2 trillion annual budget (although the latter would be an improvement).
Now for my last and most important point in all of this. If you really want a balanced budget amendment, why would you even consider raising the debt ceiling? By not raising the debt limit, it is doing the same thing as what a balanced budget amendment would do, at least temporarily. The only thing an amendment does is make it more permanent. But if you really want a balanced budget, then simply refuse to vote in favor of raising the debt limit. It really is as simple as that. The only reason I can see for advocating a balanced budget amendment but voting to raise the debt limit is because the person wants to kick the can down the road.
If the government did not raise the debt ceiling, it doesn't necessarily have to default (although I think it should). It could reduce spending dramatically. It could eliminate all federal funding for education, agriculture, energy, housing, etc. All of these things are unconstitutional. It could end all of the wars overseas. It could end all foreign aid. It could start reducing Social Security and Medicare, even on a small scale. It could sell government lands and government assets.
The problem is that the American people do not want this yet. They keep putting the same clowns into office and keep demanding a free lunch. Luckily the general public opinion is not like Greece, but it is not exactly like the American colonists of 1770 either. I think attitudes are changing for the better, but we still have a long way to go.
As for the debt limit, it will get raised. There will be some phony spending cuts so that the Republicans can appear to be concerned about the debt. But this whole balanced budget amendment idea is a joke. For anyone who cares about a balanced budget, they can simply vote no on raising the debt limit. If the debt limit isn't raised, that will automatically balance the budget, unless Obama declares himself a dictator and does it anyway (which is certainly a possibility).