Balanced Budget Amendment will be the result of Obama’s failed leadership

Failed leadership means

Balanced Budget Amendment

For all the pleasure I’ve taken at all the disarray among the left leaning writers and commenters I’ve read here at MMA and other places, I have been equally dismayed at the total lack of real sense showed by my Republican members of Congress.


One of the many talking points we hear from Republicans is “We need to run government more like a business.” On the surface, that sounds wonderful. Trouble is the people that say this and get elected by saying it have no clue how to run a business.

A good example is the ridiculous demand from republicans for balanced budget amendment to The Constitution as part of any deficit reduction/debt ceiling deal.

The trouble with this is, if there was one, investment in America would halt because the Republicans that have no clue about investment would outlaw bond issues for infrastructure improvements and other projects that create jobs and make America a better place to live and do business. Or perhaps even worse, should we be attacked and need to invade or take expensive military action. A balanced budget amendment would for the most part be dangerous as it would force the Fed to print more money to pay for these things, raising inflation, or forcing Congress into making huge tax increases or taking from Social Security recipients or Veterans and active duty military.

When I see an opportunity I have a line of credit that enables me to take advantage of it. As well as be prepared for unforeseen circumstances. Government needs to have this flexibility also. It’s vital to the economy and national security.

In regards to the debt reduction talks, this is where I believe President Obama is showing too much weakness. While I do believe government spends too much and cuts must be made, President Obama is trying too hard to be conciliatory and not taking a real leadership position.

Obama offered $4 trillion in cuts to Boehner’s $900 billion and the republicans rejected it. Instead of pleading for compromise and softening his position, President Obama should have took a lesson from President Bush on leadership and not only dug in his heels, he should have said on national TV that the first thing cut by Geitner will be Congressional salaries. The democrats would be safe as Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi are millionaires several times over and could bankroll the entire democratic caucus. Surely they would be generous to their fellow democrats.

But Obama didn’t show steadfast leadership. And that is why these talks are failing. Bush made sure those who opposed his policies understood there would be a price. There is no price for opposing President Obama.

Click here for reuse options!
Copyright 2011 MadMikesAmerica
Did you like this? Share it:
Posted by on July 31, 2011. Filed under Commentary. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0. Both comments and pings are currently closed.
Back to Main Page

7 Responses to Balanced Budget Amendment will be the result of Obama’s failed leadership

  1. Bradley scott

    July 31, 2011 at 12:48 am

    The balanced budget ammendment was concieved, carried, and will be born of, by and for the Tea Party. Don’t try to finger the President as their bastard’s baby daddy. Not to worry, though. This one’s slated for abortion by the GOP, the intellegent ones, at least.

  2. Milton Thornridge

    July 31, 2011 at 6:23 am

    The GOP leadership is also showing weakness towards the Tea Party Mr. Scott. They seem to forget there is more to governance than just being angry. I do admire Harry Truman who said it takes politicians to run government. 80 Tea Party members are being allowed to run government.

    • Bradley scott

      July 31, 2011 at 10:02 pm

      John Mc Cain’s admonishment of the Tea party didn’t indicate weakness to me, and the logic behind his reasoning will win out.

  3. lazersedge

    July 31, 2011 at 3:27 pm

    Uncle Miltie, you always have to have things explained to you like you are a child don’t you. I am not doing this to take up for President Obama because he has had his own set of problems but folks like you refuse to take reality in to account. It took President Bush 8 years to squander a surplus in the government budget by instituting a tax cut in the face of two wars, one of which was not necessary. Because of his inattention, and the deregulation of he and President Clinton, Wall Street literally stole America blind and caused the stock market crash under President Bush. This was all left for President Obama to fix. Couple that with the “Party of NO” aka the Republican Party for the 2009 and 2010 when nothing got done. Remember old boy it is congress who controls the purse strings, not the president. Boehner, cannot control the Republican majority in the house because of the Tea Party folks to get a debt ceiling bill passed. He so afraid of his own political future he will not go against them. Obama will win in 2012 and I think you will see a different Obama emerge. I think the Republicans and the Tea Party will regret putting the country through this process over the next presidential term.

  4. jenny40

    July 31, 2011 at 7:36 pm

    Supply side economics is a disaster, and as long as we continue to pursue this ridiculous policy we are going to be on the edge of a recession if not a depression. We need to raise taxes not cut them.

    • John Myste

      October 22, 2011 at 3:47 pm

      Supply side economics is a religion.

  5. John Myste

    October 22, 2011 at 3:46 pm

    The deficits are a continuation of Bush policies. The GOP continually tries to blame Obama. Whether he should have terminated the Bush strategy is debatable, but I find it utterly hypocritical that the GOP blames Obama for the Bush policies, but not Bush, their authors.

    The only slightly credible argument I have seen was that the Affordable Healthcare Act was not a Bush policy. The one making that argument then followed up with he false claim that this “caused the debt to explode under Bush.” I pointed him to the CBO budget numbers published by the treasury department under Bush that refuted this notion. The entitlements bucket did not expand enough to add four trillion dollars as a result of ObamaCare. In fact, it did not expand enough to add 2 trillion. Depending on how you interpret the numbers, I conceded that even with redirecting of funds from Medicare Advantage to Affordable Healthcare, one could feasibly claim an addition of 2 Billion, that could be projected over four years as .8 trillion.

    The idea that Obama is behind the explosion of debt is a lie. If the GOP had consented to the rich having to pay their fair share of taxes, the entire small additional of ObamaCare would have been covered and Obama would not have owned any of the debt at all. It would have been purely Bush’s legacy, instead of almost purely Bush’s legacy.

    If you want to criticize Obama for not backing away from Bush policies, then sign me up. I can get on board with honest criticism that follows actual analysis.