Jabin said:

---

aggiehawg said:

---

aggiejayrod said:

---

Hawg,

Pagerman isn't wrong. If you said "this is the max you can spend on XYZ project" then a Dim would spent approximately 3 cents on XYZ if they don't also have a floor. There has to be a ceiling and floor and discretion on how to achieve that goal.

It's asinine to completely handcuff a president to do something he finds odious and if h doesn't like spending money on lesbian Middle Ages interpretive dance studies, why should he be forced to fund stupid crap like that?

---

So a floor and a ceiling as an amendment to ICA would be fine with me. But these twice a year grift-a-thons, needlessly throwing money out of the door has to be restricted in some manner. Maybe give OMB much more oversight, then? Also encourages insider trading by members of Congress. And one way how they get rich.

The system as it is rewards and encourages waste, graft and corruption. I'd wager 90% of those yahoos on Capitol Hill cannot balance a checkbook so placing the country's finances solely in their hands seems to me to be foolish.

So any other suggestions as to how to rein in spending, since debt ceilings don't work apparently, would be welcomed by me.

---

Somebody else suggested this: a Constitutional amendment that prevents any Member of Congress from running for reelection if they voted for a spending bill during a year that the budget was not balanced.

Or do it like most of the states - a Constitutional amendment requiring a balanced budget.

We also need a Constitutional amendment preventing Members from insider trading. All of their investments should be in blind trusts.

---

It is not possible to balance the budget without massive changes to entitlement spending. By which I mean HUGE cuts. And there isn't a politician alive that will suggest that, much less vote for it.

Or you could not spend a penny on "discretionary" spending and only pay SS, Medicare, Medicaid and interest.