Why don't conservatives propose a Balanced Budget Amendment that actually balances the budget?

You want to know what is more funny??

That the Congress APPROVED a budget - that had a deficit in the first place. All these yutz's in Congress continually approve a budget that does not balance (has more going out than coming in), KNOWING that they are going to have to borrow in order to pay for things. And THEN it comes time to raise the debt ceiling because of the deficit, and SUDDENLY they become "fiscally responsilbe" and "concerned about the spending"? If you approve a budget with a deficit, that means that congress is GUARANTEEING that they will cover the deficit.

IDIOTS!! They all are playing politics with OUR money, and they don't care about the fact that the people in the end will suffer the end result of all this fighting and stalemating.

First of all, my hat goes off to you for providing a link to an original source.

Second, it looks like the amendment allows congress a 2/3 vote to extend deficits for any pressing concern, not just military concerns. Also, there are no unchecked deficits for military action. It's per year, and only for formally declared (read: by Congress) wars, and there's a 3/5 vote.

Actually, it looks like it would make it a lot harder for the President to go off half roostered (word filter :p ) and start wars like they have been. This would put the teeth back into the Constitution. The President couldn't just call something a "police action" and act without congressional approval anymore. If the President wants money for a war, he has to sing for his supper under a balanced budget amendment, which would be really really awesome from the perspective of anti-war folks like myself.

I don't like that this amendment is being used as political fodder, but I have to say I do like the bill itself a lot. If you have other reasons why you feel it's a POS, I'd be happy to discuss them via e-mail.

That is not what the document says. The war in Iraq could have never happened if we had a balanced budget amendment, for example. Since, it would have been very very hard to get that many liberals to declare the situation a case for running an unbalanced liability like the war without a tax to pay for it.

Republicans would have run from the tax

Democrats would have run from the spending.

Therefore, No war in Iraq.

Your question is unanswerable because your premise is false.

The bills that they have put forth that does NOT balance the budget does those things, but cut, cap, and balance requires a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution. That truly DOES balance the budget. The part that you are referring to is the "cap" part, and can be found in the other GOP bills.

Brutus...what a crock of crap. If we cut out all of the waste, fraud, and ineffective or just plain irrelevant programs...better yet, if we cut all federal programs that are NOT Constitutional...we could cut 90% of taxes and STILL have a surplus. Our government is wildly out of control and growing fast. We need to prune it back and prune it back and prune it back some more until SOMEWHERE in that mess of unconstitutional crap is the Constitutional federal government that we started with.

There's no way to permanently balance the budget. The government needs to be able to deficit spending during times of national emergency. The voters need to be responsible and fire politicians who waste tax money and run deficits for no good reason.

You really haven't been paying attention have you?

Every time a Conservative/Republican introduced a bill that could get the budget more under control, reid or obama cried foul and stirred up their pot so it would over boil!! Putting out the fire!!

The left hasnt brought a plan to the table AT ALL. The GOP is at least trying. Reid wont even read the plans. I dont like either side any more than the other, but how can the left expect the right to compromise, when they themselves wont even read the plans?

I may get reported but then most truths are but only a complete moron would call "a vehicle to prevent tax increases" a "POS"! Look at who talks about "constitutionality" and who talks about "fundamentally transforming America",,, then choose who is looking out for America!

They did. It is tabled in the Senate.

You can dislike the manner in which they went about it, but it would in fact force a balanced budget.

I think it's a pretty complex issue but doable in some form.