Government

Blaze Exclusive: Sen-Elect Mike Lee On Why He’s Fighting for a Balanced Budget Amendment

Senator-elect Mike Lee of Utah hears voices. Last Tuesday, he heard 360,130 of them by way of his state’s voters. What were they telling him? Among other things, he says, “balance the budget.” On Monday, Lee talked with The Blaze about how he plans on answering those voices: a federal constitutional amendment requiring a balanced budget.

“It’s time for us to start transitioning from a kind of government we don’t want at the federal level, to the kind of government we do want, and this is the most important first step toward doing that,” Lee said regarding a new balanced budget initiative.

Currently, he is part of a group called Balanced Budget Amendment Now (BBAN), a grassroots initiative launched Monday that will fight for a balanced budget amendment to be introduced fall of 2011. Besides Lee, Kentucky Sen-elect Rand Paul and former Ohio Secretary of State Ken Blackwell are supporting the initiative.

“We are going to run a 50 state media and grassroots campaign that forces Congress to vote on October 1, 2011 for a Balanced Budget Amendment,” the group said in an e-mail to The Blaze. “Those who vote against it will be singled out and removed in 2012.”

According to the e-mail, that means gathering 5,000 – 10,000 signatures and postcards from registered voters in every Congressional District. Those postcards and signatures will then be sent to House members and Senators.

Starting in April 2011, the group will post a list on its website of those who have pledged to vote for the amendment. For those who have not pledged, the group says it “will double and triple our efforts to inform their voting public of their irresponsible behavior.”

“Americans understand that Congress has been mortgaging the future of future generations who in many instances are not yet old enough to vote,” Lee told The Blaze. Future generations include those who “have yet to be born.”

“That’s a problem. That’s a form of taxation without representation.”

A Washington Post op-ed from Sunday shows that Americans agree. Pollster Frank I. Luntz writes that the number one idea that at least 60 percent of Americans want to see instituted is a balanced budget amendment.

Proposed Balanced Budget Amendment Language

The idea has been tried in the past, but has had no success. This time, Lee said, it will be different. As opposed to similar amendments in years past, Lee and BBAN do not support an automatic exception for war-time spending. They view such a caveat as a loop hole that could be easily exploited.

“It would become too tempting for Congress to simply declare war ad then say ‘as long as that declaration of war remains in effect we’re home free,’” he explained. Instead, they advocate for a two-thirds super majority requirement to override the amendment, the same majority required to pass it.

Yet some doubt the effectiveness of such an amendment. For example, fiscally-responsible deserts such as California and New York have one. Lee hopes to guard against that by introducing consequences: the amendment will include language giving each member of Congress the standing to sue to enforce the amendment’s provisions.

“We rely on our elected officials to adhere to constitutional procedures that bind them — they take an oath of office to uphold that,” he said.

Still, some remain unconvinced. Critics, like Lee’s one time Utah opponent Scott Bradley, say that pushing for such an amendment could lead to another constitutional convention. Anarchy would ensue, as well as the Bill of Rights going the way of bras in the 60s.

“I understand the fear he’s expressing,” Lee said of Bradley and those with similar thoughts, “but the concern he’s identifying is simply not going to materialize.” Rather, Lee believes this election has forced Congress to wake up, and members will listen to the people. That’s also why he believes the amendment will be successful this time when it has failed in the past.

“The voters have called for pretty significant personnel changes,” he said, “and the mood will be substantially different this year because members of Congress are finally coming to an understanding that the voters are demanding more out of Congress.”

Like any good lawyer should, the one-time Supreme Court law clerk is anticipating his opposition’s arguments. He thinks the biggest challenge will be from those who say the amendment and a balanced budget just aren’t “realistic.”

That doesn’t have him discouraged: “There are all sorts of things that were once believed to be unrealistic. The whole idea of representative government was once thought to be unrealistic. The idea of people being treated equally without regard to their skin color was once thought to be unrealistic. The idea that America could exist as its own independent sovereign entity was once regarded as unrealistic. There are all sorts of things that some people argue against with that argument. And in so many instances that’s proven incorrect.”

He foresees others arguing the amendment is unconstitutional, citing Congress’s power to incur debt in Article I Section 8. And while he recognizes that there are some instances when debt may be needed, he believes that has gone unchecked. With this amendment, then, “we’re just channeling that — we‘re making it so that it’s not quite so easy.”

“Congress has gotten too comfortable mortgaging the future of more generations,” he repeated.

In the end, he doesn’t believe the opposition arguments will win out. But if for some reason they should, he has a guess as to how the American people will respond: “If Congress doesn’t do it I think you will see an even bigger personnel shift after the 2012 election.”

And if the voices weren’t loud enough this time, they could be deafening by then.

Comments (54)

1 2
  • tomin8tor357
    Posted on November 8, 2010 at 9:39pm

    We tried it in Cali, and it didn’t work. So, good idea, but make sure it gets implemented WITHOUT loopholes like we have in Lala Land.

    Report Post »  
  • IVillageIdiot
    Posted on November 8, 2010 at 9:28pm

    I thought we had a spending cap too…

    Didn’t they just vote to forget about it that cap, and then did what they wanted to do, SPEND MORE..?

    Report Post » IVillageIdiot  
  • RightPolitically
    Posted on November 8, 2010 at 8:45pm

    Go for it!

    Report Post » RightPolitically  
  • Iamtheoracle
    Posted on November 8, 2010 at 8:27pm

    I am from Utah and Mike Lee is a bulldog… but I do worry that he will eventually lose his constitutional fever and go the way of the party… he is very traditional and an attorney. But his Dad was a brilliant constitutional expert and left a strong legacy. Don’t do us wrong Mike…

    Report Post »  
  • dontbotherme
    Posted on November 8, 2010 at 8:14pm

    This is a start. Get those card in the mail. I think they’ll have many more than they need.

    Report Post »  
  • North_Star
    Posted on November 8, 2010 at 8:06pm

    Glad I voted for this man. I hope he will be effective…. time will tell.

    Report Post » North_Star  
    • where is JG
      Posted on November 8, 2010 at 9:21pm

      did you vote for Morgan or are you in the 1st or 3rd. MATTHESON=PIGLOSI signs will soon fill the streets of SLC. 2012 MORGAN for the 2nd!

      Report Post » where is JG  
  • EqualJustice
    Posted on November 8, 2010 at 8:03pm

    They don’t even have a BUDGET yet? HELLO? What the hell are you waiting for LIBERALS, a LAME DUCK budget, or what??

    Report Post » EqualJustice  
  • sbenard
    Posted on November 8, 2010 at 7:59pm

    I have voted for Scott Bradley (he always runs on the Constitution Party ticket) in the past. I know him personally, and he would also be a fine U.S. Senator! But this time, with a Constitutional conservative like Mike Lee running, it was time to vote for a conservative, a defender of the Constitution, AND a viable candidate! We had TWO fine candidates to vote for. Now THAT’S a choice I wish I always had!

    Report Post » sbenard  
    • shasta
      Posted on November 9, 2010 at 12:00am

      I voted the same as you, I had Lee winning but wanted to show my support for Bradley. I hope Bradley stays close to the political scene. I wish every state had the same problem we do….Vote could be a coin toss with most of our candidates and no one would complain the outcome.

      Report Post » shasta  
  • joseph Fawcett
    Posted on November 8, 2010 at 7:59pm

    this is all words until it becomes law. I have heard this all before a number of times and yet nothing other than spending and more spending and debt and more debt.

    http://www.josephfawcettart.com western artist

    Report Post » joseph Fawcett  
  • Jim S
    Posted on November 8, 2010 at 7:58pm

    The spending by the Federal government MUST not only be balanced but a healthy surplus must be achieved. The debt limit will have to be raised in the next few months or WE, all of us, will start defaulting on promised obligations. IF we don’t raise the debt limit, the current revenue will cover SS/Medicare, military and debt payments, NOTHING ELSE can be paid. http://www.usa.gov/Agencies/Federal/All_Agencies/index.shtml is a list of ALL current Federal agencies…it is a very very long list. We must stop current spending on every branch, of the Federal Govt. We cannot put this off to some future date. Almost, almost, all the things currently done on the Federal level must stop.Those things that are truly needed will be picked up on a state level. All of us will be hurt by this, some more than others, but lets get hurt and thrive…we can’t recover from a total collapse of our country. Will somebody PLEASE take control and get this done? We have no current leaders, somebody MUST step up and do it. If we do it right, we will emerge leaner and stronger, if we do nothing I fear for my country. Am I spooked by watching to much news?….agree-disagree?

    Report Post »  
  • TattooQ
    Posted on November 8, 2010 at 7:55pm

    Washington needs more BRAN . A high fiber diet might clean out at least some of the constipation of waste, fraud, and abuse.

    Report Post »  
  • SaintMichael
    Posted on November 8, 2010 at 7:49pm

    This thing is fundamentally flawed in section 3. Section 3 still allows spending via borrowing over reciepts. That is the situation we have been in for years – we borrow for every fiscal year. Section 3 also exempts payment of debt principle from the outlays. Congress will NEVER pay down the debt principle in this system – there is no incentive to.

    The basic points this amendment should include are:
    - no borrowing of funds without a super majority in both houses
    - mandatory debt principle repayments (distinct and separate from mandatory interest payments)
    - ban ear marks – all federal spending must be included in spending bills (I’d go so far as to say all bills must be on the same subject matter, but that would be difficult verbage to draft)

    Term limits need to be left to a separate amendment. If you cut off congressional power to spend as they like, term limits become much less important.

    Report Post »  
  • jose wasabi
    Posted on November 8, 2010 at 7:46pm

    Good idea, but I think Term Limits should be first on the list.

    Report Post » jose wasabi  
  • sbenard
    Posted on November 8, 2010 at 7:45pm

    I voted for this guy, and THIS is why! I went to a Tea Party event at the Utah State Capitol, and Mike Lee briefly addressed us. He promised us that every law that went through the Senate must pass a Constitutional filter or he would vote against it! That was the day I decided to vote for Mike Lee. Utahns elected him with nearly 70% of the vote!

    Thanks, Mike!

    Report Post » sbenard  
    • where is JG
      Posted on November 8, 2010 at 9:17pm

      Me too. Too bad we could not get rid of Rabid blew Dawg Jim Meth Is Sin. Morgan Philpot Won EVERY County except Salt Lake. Too Many Socialists and commies in the gay sections of the City. Sad. I’m moving ASAP to A real Congressional Rep area. 3rd district. Jason Chaffetz who will ROLL OVER THE ULTRAMEGA DINOSOUR ORRIN HATCH> BYE BYE ORRIN. You and Bob Bennett will soon be able to cry over your spilled milk. WE THE PEOPLE HAVE SPOKEN!

      Report Post » where is JG  
  • tbb
    Posted on November 8, 2010 at 7:40pm

    This is why I voted for Bradley

    Report Post »  
  • mamawalker
    Posted on November 8, 2010 at 7:31pm

    It can happen if we are the ones who start to Push and Shove for a change!

    Report Post »  
  • gimmetheskinny
    Posted on November 8, 2010 at 7:27pm

    Here, here. Wow, a common sense approach.

    Report Post »  
  • Ronko
    Posted on November 8, 2010 at 7:08pm

    This doesn’t go far enough and has some loopholes, what we need isn’t a balanced Budget amendment what we really need is a law that says the Govt has to balance the budget and term limits. We need term limits bad even more so then this amendment. Article V of the Constitution is the answer to term limits but thats another topic for a different time. For the balanced budget amendment I don’t see it happening not even with the Republicans taking over the house.

    Report Post »  
  • Fragget
    Posted on November 8, 2010 at 7:07pm

    @ Pajamash
    I agree that there needs to be a plan to reduce the current deficit. But it shouldn’t be included in a Constitutional Amendment. The amendment will stay forever to guide the U.S. far into the future. Legislation that forces the government to eliminate our current debt should be written after the amendment is passed.

    Report Post »  
    • hifi74
      Posted on November 8, 2010 at 7:29pm

      I agree, this is right similar to the illegal immigration issue. You have to close the border before shipping people out, if you don’t then they will just continue to come back. If we don’t close the gap in the budget before trying to fix or problems already, they will; just come back to haunt us shortly there after.

      Report Post » hifi74  
  • 5
    Posted on November 8, 2010 at 7:05pm

    18th Amendment is like 100,000,000,000,000 One Hundred Trillion Ken Lays from Ennron.
    This was President Wilson Big Lie. Teddy Roosevelt Lie & Obama 10x Lie.
    but this was the lie that has been worse than any enemy of the State.

    Before this road, Fire Dept. Police, etc. we paid by the State so, if your State made Stupid mistake like (CA) they had to fix it. Caifornia would not owe any money if this Amendment
    was not passed.
    Started out 1%.
    1% my azz.
    Wilson was a Commie Pinko Progressive.

    Report Post »  
  • vennoye
    Posted on November 8, 2010 at 6:52pm

    We the People, should have shut this down years ago!!! I don’t know how we let them get away with this for so long!! When I get angry, I get angry at myself first…I learned a long time ago to not give people blank checks!!

    Report Post » vennoye  
  • gimmetheskinny
    Posted on November 8, 2010 at 6:48pm

    Lets hope that he gets the support of his colleagues. Good to hear talk that would actually be good for the people.

    Report Post »  
  • pajamash
    Posted on November 8, 2010 at 6:48pm

    One problem I see in the amendment is there is no clause incorporating current debt into the mix. For example: The budget must include provision to pay down and eventually pay off current debt. A budget that does not include pay down of debt must be rejected by congress unless and/or untill the debt is paid off.

    Report Post »  
    • untameable-kate
      Posted on November 8, 2010 at 7:22pm

      Get rid of all the porkbarrel spending, cut wasteful govt agencies and fire about half of the govt employees. Bet we could find a bunch of money.

      Report Post » Untameable-kate  
    • Dispman
      Posted on November 8, 2010 at 8:02pm

      The current debt is considered in this amendment…
      Section 3 sentence 3: “Total outlays shall include all outlays of the United States except for those for repayment of debt principle.”

      Report Post »  
  • Trance
    Posted on November 8, 2010 at 6:46pm

    Add in some term limits while you’re at it!

    Report Post » Trance  
    • Joshua7
      Posted on November 8, 2010 at 8:05pm

      Amen to that!

      Report Post » Joshua7  
    • Timmtamm
      Posted on November 8, 2010 at 8:54pm

      He is actually trying for that too. It was one of the things that Mike Lee ran on.

      Report Post » Timmtamm  
  • pajamash
    Posted on November 8, 2010 at 6:43pm

    Isn’t it sad that we need legislation to apply to something that any family needs to do, which is, “Stay within our means”!!!!!

    Report Post »  
    • 5
      Posted on November 8, 2010 at 7:02pm

      18th Amendment is like 100,000,000,000,000 One Hundred Trillion Ken Lays from Ennron.
      This was President Wilson Big Lie. Teddy Roosevelt Lie & Obama 10x Lie.
      but this was the lie that has been worse than any enemy of the State.
      Before this we paid by the State so, if your State made Stupid mistake (CA.)
      they had to fix it. Caifornia would not owe any money if this Amendment
      was not passed. 1% my azz. Wilson was a Worm. “A Commie worm.”

      Report Post »  
    • snowleopard3200 {mix art}
      Posted on November 8, 2010 at 7:33pm

      Lets get this process going on the balance budget, and reigning in the government while we are all the way at it. This appears to be a start, and that is what is needed. To do nothing is guaranteed end of the land, by bankruptcy and collapse at worse. Keep encouraging the legislature to continue to work and make it happen.

      http://www.artinphoenix.com/gallery/grimm

      Report Post » Snowleopard {gallery of cat folks}  
    • Oversat
      Posted on November 8, 2010 at 8:01pm

      I just don’t understand how a balanced budget amendment would increase deficit spending and result in taxes never being decreased. Can someone please explain it to me?

      Report Post » Oversat  
    • tobywil2
      Posted on November 8, 2010 at 8:14pm

      INFLATION – STEALTH TAXATION

      The tyrants (Wannabe Peers) would have you believe that taxes are only increased when the legislature increases taxes. These tyrants use the confusion over the relationship between wealth and the medium of exchange (money) to perpetuate this myth. Actually, the tax on the economy rises whenever the government s increases spending. Tax laws just determine how the liability is distributed. If the taxes fail to cover expenses, the value of the dollar decreases and anyone who owns money pays the tax in the form of loss of purchasing power. Money, (paper money) has no intrinsic value. The dollar’s value is determined by the quantity of wealth the market is willing to exchange for the dollar. The dollar’s value eventually will be determined by the nation’s wealth divided by the dollars and credit in circulation.

      Inflation is not a recent phenomenon. During the 19th Century the inflation rate in the United States was 12% for the entire Century. In 1800, $0.89 had the purchasing power of $1.00 in 1900, a change of about 12% in 100 years. From 1900 to 2007 the inflation rate was about 25 to 1, a change of 2500% in 107 years. A Google search lists over 20 pages of “inflation calculators” three of the most popular inflation calculators list the inflation rate of between 24.6 and27.71 from 1900 and 2007. In other words, $1.00 in 1900 was worth around $25.00 in 2007.

      What happened? In the late 1800’s and early 1900’s four factors emerged that caused inflation to increase. These are:
      • Creation of the “Fourth Branch of Government” the Bureaucracy
      • Enacting and enforcing the Sherman Antitrust Act.
      • Creation of the Federal Reserve
      • Enacting the income tax
      • Wars

      How did these factors cause such erosion in the value of the dollar? Chapter 9 of “21st Century Common Sense” explains in simple terms how these factors produced inflation of the dollar and aided the “Wannabe Peers” in usurping our freedom. http://commonsense21c.com/

      Report Post » tobywil2  
    • Chris G
      Posted on November 8, 2010 at 8:15pm

      I don’t think a BBA is necessary.

      If Congress would cut the size of the fedgov to its Constitutional limits, we would get a balanced budget — & then some. Enough in fact to possibly eliminate our $14 trillion national debt!

      Report Post » Chris G  
    • jzs
      Posted on November 9, 2010 at 12:09am

      The US has to balance the budget, like Clinton did. Republicans made big gains promising to do that but did you notice they didn’t mention one single part of spending they would cut? They’re not raising taxes on the rich, so where are they going to cut? Seriously.

      Report Post » jzs  
    • Republic Under God
      Posted on November 10, 2010 at 11:38am

      JZS, read Glenn Beck’s Broke. Ultimately there should be no sacred cows. EVERYTHING has to be ont he table. INCLUDING DEFENSE. Any CUT is going to hurt. We should all be ready to make the sacrifices for our COuntry’s future. And just a small perspective on History. Clinton’s surplus was under a Republican-controled Legislature. Though he, as president, still should get credit for signing off and not vetoing them.

      Report Post » Republic Under God  
1 2

Sign In To Post Comments! Sign In

Sign Up For Our Newsletter!

Glenn Beck Radio

Listen to Glenn Beck 24/7 Listen Now
Restoring Love