That sounds like some kind of Balanced Budget Amendment to me. I haven’t been in favor of it in the past, believing that you can’t legislate responsibility.

But I’m changing my mind. The Founding Fathers recognized the need for divided government and separation of powers. They recognized the need to strictly enumerate the powers of the national government. And isn’t it AMAZING that they felt the need to include the 10th Amendment in the Bill Of Rights, to ensure that all power not specifically vested in the national government were retained by the States, or by the people.

Of course, Congress has since ceded its authority over lawmaking to the Executive Branch, culminating in Obama’s czars. And the meaning of the enumerated powers has been stretched beyond recognition. And the 10th Amendment is, these days, utterly ignored. The same could happen with any balanced budget amendment.

But I’m changing my mind. A direct link, as uncleFred said, between revenue and spending could be considered necessary, based on our experiences with an ever-expanding national government. I now believe it would be useful to have that link be Constitutional. Perhaps you could require a 2/3 vote to depart from it in both houses of Congress, to deal with national emergencies, such as war. If you can’t get 2/3 vote in both houses, then I guess it’s not really an emergency, is it?

They could still play nasty budget hide-the-money tricks such as was done with ObamaCare. But it would still help. Heck: As a prior year’s actual data resolves any discrepancy between its budgeted (guessed) revenues and expenditures, you can require this year’s budget to deal with any such discrepancy, thus putting an even better corrective into place; at the risk of adding complexity to such an amendment.

We need to put in place some mechanism that links budgets and taxes so that we don’t end up in the all to common situation that we trade tax increases for spending cuts and the cuts never happen (or the other way around). Perhaps that they get written and negotiated separately, but both spending and tax policy are voted on together. They both pass or neither passes.

I call that a fail. It’s as if he didn’t really think through the tax code.

Spending reductions are awesome, but they’re not properly part of a *tax* proposal. They should be part of a *budget* proposal. Focus, Rick, focus!

With the deductions, it isn’t a flat tax after all. It is a politician applying an appealing label to fool the public. Orwell has a cousin in Texas.

gcotharn – the problem is that the post card doesn’t help if you need to do your regular tax prep first to see if the “flat” tax is a better deal. Further the notion that a flat tax, even an optional flat tax, is materially easier to pass than 9-9-9 is pretty dubious. The entrenched interests in the congress will fight like dervishes to protect their ability to sell tax favors, I’d rather fight it and end up with a no exemption 9-9-9 than get a fungible flat tax, which is not flat, and have to have the fight again in two decades.

Like others, and being a small consumer, I really prefer a consumption tax. I also think that is the fairest form of tax. Being a little selfish I would also favor more user fees, e.g. school fees on those using schools. (It really rankles to see the mini-Taj Mahals that are required to educate, or not educate, children today and which I am expected to help fund. The schools I went to would be condemned out of hand now.)

Sorry to hear about VandDerleun’s problems. He is a treasure

I love it that we are talking about meat other than RINO meat these days.

My own sentiments were somewhat similar back in the 70s. The future looked bleak until Ronaldus Maximus road onto the scene. It took me almost four years to realize that Reagan really did turn the economy around because the MSM was so busy telling everyone it wasn’t so. I was certain that there was no future worth considering, but I was wrong. Lower taxes and less regulation made the difference. Between 1980 and 1993 when I retired my financial situation improved by a whole lot. Eighteen years and I’m not having to eat dog food or skip any medications yet.

The problem is that every time we begin to get things right, the progressives always want to increase the size and scope of government putting us back in the hole.

Perry’s proposal is closer to something which can be acted upon. And, insofar as reducing the intrusiveness of the IRS, doing your taxes on a postcard is a good start. Btw, Perry stole the postcard idea from Herman Cain, who stole if from Steve Forbes. Kudos to all who steal a good ideas.