One moment, Republicans holler about the sanctity of the Constitution and the need to return to the wisdom of the Founding Fathers. But when they can't win what they want at the polls (and when it gets them a free trip on the taxpayers' dime), some South Dakota Republicans are happy to shout for rewriting the Constitution to suit their agenda. Here's State Senator Dan Lederman, justifying his junketeering to a gathering of arch-conservatives plotting Constitutional chaos in Virginia over the weekend:
Many are here because they see a myriad of problems coming out of Washington. some are here because of the intrusion of Obamacare into our lives and businesses. Some are seeking a renewed look at federal term limits and campaign finance reform.
In addition to these issues, I would like to see an amendment to the constitution for a balanced budget, and to force the Congress to stop mortgaging our children’s future.
Why are we seeking such a drastic measure to amend the constitution? It’s obvious that the entrenched politicians who control Washington have no interest in reforms. Congress passes campaign finance reforms that only make the process more difficult for candidates to be in compliance. It’s obvious that congress will never limit itself on spending.
And let’s not kid ourselves on whether or not Congress will ever pass term limits [Dan Lederman, "Convention of States Needed to Reform Washington," blog, 2013.12.08].
Campaign finance reform, budget reform, term limits... Lederman's assertion that "it's obvious" that Washington lacks the will to do these things really translates as "Boo-hoo! We Republican anarcho-capitalists are losing more national elections, so we have to hijack the Constitution with our state legislatures and write our economic apartheid into the Constitution while we still have the chance!"
I would think conservatives like Lederman would show much more restraint in calling for changes to the Constitution. But that thinking mistakenly assumes that conservatives like Lederman are real conservatives who mean what they say and hold to principles rather than power.
Mr Lederman wrote, "In addition to these issues, I would like to see an amendment to the constitution for a balanced budget, and to force the Congress to stop mortgaging our children’s future."
You are wrong Mr Lederman. Our Congress has spent the past 50 years, including the Kennedy administration and since, cutting taxes. The Congresses then and until 1980 restrained spending so as not to increase the national debt. Then with the Reagan administration and the advent of a new round of tax cutting and even tax elimination, plus increased military spending, the debt increased rapidly, all the while blaming the increase in the deficit on "entitlement" programs. All of the entitlement programs were paid for by their recipients, be it social security and medicare by withholding from their paychecks, or by veterans by service to their country or Native Americans by the treaties signed by our past Presidents after approval by the Congress. Then finally under the Bush administration with the approval of members of both parties, including our then Senators Johnson and Daschle, we cut taxes again twice and at the same time fighting two wars in which the American taxpayers had no skin in the game because their kids were no longer being drafted. So lets put the blame where it belongs, its not spending but not taxing for what we are spending.
I was also wondering if they will be asking for state reimbursement for this trip. I think we should have a bill which prohibits any taxpayer reimbursement for trips to groups that want to influence them. Left, right, whatever. Doesn't matter.
Cory, you are right that Lederman and company want to change the Constitution to suit their wishes, but it's really anybody's guess as to whose ideology would dominate at such a convention. The list of unanswered questions regarding such a grand meeting is extensive, most or all of which would have to be decided very quickly. Not only that, before even deciding those questions, it would have to be decided WHO decides the questions themselves and HOW. Progressives and Conservatives have equally as much to fear from a Constitutional Convention.
And regarding Lederman's concerns, the it only takes 50% plus 1 vote in each house of Congress, and the president's signature to pass a balanced budget. If there is not the political will to do so, we are kidding ourselves if we think there is the will to get 3/4 of the legislatures to approve it. And even if they did, HOW is the budget going to be balanced? Will the social programs be cut (which drive the spending), will we just print the money and devalue the dollar, or will we raise taxes even higher and higher and stifle productivity even more? And for states like SD, how much federal money are we willing to go without to balance the federal budget? If the answer is ZERO, then it tells you exactly how serious folks like Lederman are at actually balancing the budget with spending cuts.
Now, if they want term limits, let's see how many of them are willing to put language into such a resolution asking Senator Thune to step down in 2016 after two terms as US Senator. Besides, it's in the SD Constitution. It's the "will of the people" and he should honor that, right?
Then there's campaign finance reform. Just about fell off my chair when I read that Lederman complains about how onerous the federal regulations are. Yet, he is suing certain political enemies for violating those same laws.
That vote-count calculus raises alarms with me, too, Bob [and check your email, so I know which Bob you are!]. If we can't win a simple majority to balance the budget, how can we win 3/4 of the Legislatures for the same purpose? Do these guys have some plan to seize the Legislatures just long enough to etch their amendments into constitutional stone? Is it easier to score a one-time coup like that rather than fight the ongoing battle of assembling working majorities each budget year?
And indeed, given the practical difficulty of balancing the budget, wouldn't we do harm to the Constitution by creating a budget requirement around which future Congresses would simply craft fiscal schemes that would make a joke of that amendment?
these are the same people that, that along with wanting a super majority for new spending, are trying to restrict voting by the poor and minorities.
They support the constitution until it doesn't match with what they want to do.
I do love when an elected official mentions a balanced budget amendment. When push comes to shove in the budget battle, will South Dakota still recieve crop subsidies, funding for Lewis and Clark water and Ellsworth AFB? One man's pork is another man's bread and butter.
In the political environment we live in right now, the stupidest thing any person or politician can do is to call for a constitutional convention. Instead of what we have know we the people would be left with nothing and the only people who would win would be the politicians on both sides of the aisle.
There is also a movement to repeal the 17th Amendment to the US Constitution that changed the election of Senators from appointment by the state legislators to direct vote by the people. Apparently there is a lot of handwringing because although the current crop of obstructionists can win in their closely gerrymanded districts, they cannot win in statewide contests. You can bet that South Dakota would never have a Democratic Senator as long as the state legislature is controlled by the Republicans.
ALEC is also working on having states pass a law that allows the legislature to place canidates for national office on the ballot if the "powers that be" don't like the choice from a primary election.
Joseph, I disagree that it would be the politicians that would emerge the victors at a new Constitutional Convention, instead with the rise of the 1% and the corporation, I see the economic elite as being the real winners. This would be the opportunity to eliminate the middleman - the politician they have to purchase - and go straight to direct creation of the protections, rights, and rules they need in place to favor themselves directly.
I would think Democrat, Republican, Tea Party distinctions would quickly dissolve into Populist and Corporate factions by the end.
Mr. OBrien,
Politicians or economic elite, the American people would still be the losers, a constitutional convention is the worst thing that could happen to us. Our future would be more secure if we had to face and fight and invader that if we have to endure an attempt to write a new constitution.
Thank you Joseph. I've had about all the change I need in the last ten years alone.
That's just wonderful how they asked the taxpayers to give them a nice trip to Washington DC and to take nice pictures at Mt. Vernon. I hope they had a lovely vacation! They deserve it! In another couple of months, God willing, we will have the privilege of picking up the tab for their next trip.
Change the Constitution? Our government doesn't pay any attention to the one that we have.
And let's talk about a balanced budget. We live in a state that pays all of its bills but there is no way that those who govern can call it a balanced budget. When a government sits on way more money (in the billions) than it collects in taxes but refuses to fund education at the levels for which it is mandated by the State Constitution, there is no way that one can call it a balanced budget.
The fact that these people have no problem holding two opposing thoughts in their brain at the same time shows me how shallow and untrustworthy they are.
Hypocrisy, thy name is GOP!