Embracing An Article V Convention
By Richard Larsen
Government debt continues to amass at a dizzying pace. The federal government has displayed no discipline in reining it in and reestablishing a more sound fiscal footing for the future of the country. Our founding fathers, however, had the prescience to include in our Constitution the means whereby the states, and the people, could force the government to do what they have no appetite to do, to require a balanced budget.
Just since 2006, federal government debt has shot from $6.7 trillion, to nearly $18 trillion. The largest segment of that spending occurred over the past six years with five years of deficits exceeding $1 trillion. Our government has been spending 60% more than it’s been collecting in tax receipts.
Those figures do not even begin to address our long-term debt due to non-discretionary entitlement programs. According to the General Accounting Office’s (GAO) 2013 annual report, unfunded debt including Social Security and Medicare is over $76 trillion, an increase of 8% over 2012 levels. Our national debt increases by an estimated $8.2 million per minute, and about $350 billion per month.
The GAO was explicit in its warning to the policy makers about our spending. They said in the very first paragraph, “GAO’s simulations continue to show escalating levels of debt that illustrate that the long-term fiscal outlook remains unsustainable.”
Former Comptroller General of the United States, David M. Walker, has been sounding the clarion call of economic disaster for the nation if spending is not reined in, and politicians refuse to deal with fiscal realities of unabated spending. He describes America as a “sinking ship” in a sea of our own debt. He points out that, “The US ranks near the bottom of developed global economies in terms of financial stability and will stay there unless it addresses its burgeoning debt problems,” based on the Sovereign Fiscal Responsibility Index.
Something must be done before the dollar and our entire economic system collapses entirely due to our calamitous accumulation of debt. And the solution could be nestled in Article V of the Constitution. That Article declares how the document can be amended.
“The Congress, whenever two thirds of both houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose amendments to this Constitution, or, on the application of the legislatures of two thirds of the several states, shall call a convention for proposing amendments, which, in either case, shall be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the legislatures of three fourths of the several states, or by conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other mode of ratification may be proposed by the Congress.”
That second option, referred to as an Article V Convention, or Convention of the States, has never been utilized. It’s been attempted before, but never to fruition. It was added to the document after four earlier attempts at language that would have opened the door to a full constitutional convention. The precise and narrow limitations of an Article V convention only allows for adoption of amendments, not a complete “con con” which could facilitate mischief in rewriting our founding document. In Federalist Paper 43 James Madison explained, “It guards equally against that extreme facility, which would render the Constitution too mutable.”
This is validated by Nick Dranias, Director of the Goldwater Institute’s Center for Constitutional Government, who has said, “Despite claims made to the contrary, the truth is that Article V does not provide authority for a foundational constitutional convention. The Founders specifically and repeatedly rejected efforts to substitute the current Article V language to allow for a foundational constitutional convention to be called.”
Currently there are active efforts to call an Article V Convention for at least two major issues: a Balanced Budget Amendment, and a National Debt Relief Amendment. Both are oriented toward forcing the federal government to get its fiscal house in order. The latter would disallow congress from increasing the federal debt without a majority of states approving an increase in the debt limit.
In order for such a convention to be convened, two-thirds of the states must pass resolutions calling for it, and then upon adoption of the specific amendments at the convention, three-fourths of the states must ratify. Therein lies the assurance that only viable and constitutionally sound amendments would emerge from such a convention.
Every citizen, and every state in the union has a stake in the solvency and fiscal stability of the nation, and should be actively embracing and supporting the Article V Convention process for these key issues. Hopefully an amendment will then be advanced for establishing term limits on congress, as well. Since Washington will not lead on these critical issues, it’s time for the people, and the states, to do so.
Associated Press award winning columnist Richard Larsen is President of Larsen Financial, a brokerage and financial planning firm in Pocatello, Idaho and is a graduate of Idaho State University with degrees in Political Science and History and coursework completed toward a Master’s in Public Administration. He can be reached at rlarsenen@cableone.net.
In order for such a convention to be convened, two-thirds of the states must pass resolutions calling for it, and then upon adoption of the specific amendments at the convention, three-fourths of the states must ratify.”
This may have been possible at the time you mention, that is 1789 when the nation was thirteen states, when there was no standing army, and the Federal Government as such was at its weakest point.
I would say that today 2014, it is a virtual impossibility for any state to pass the measure, let alone two thirds of them.
Ranger,
Good point. Wouldn’t you also say that in today’s economic climate in which Wall Street calls the tune as our government still supports the excesses of hedge fund operators and banks that are still dealing heavily in derivatives trading (in May 2013 Citibank’s lobbyists succeeded in rewriting the Dodd Frank legislation that they did not like; especially parts pertaining to the regulation of derivatives. Therefore, we are probably as deep into the next derivatives bubble as we can go already. How does this affect the National debt? How did it affect the national debt in 2008? Taxpayers are guaranteed the privilege of once again picking up the tab for the banks’ excesses in order to prevent the “too big” (even bigger) banks from failing. Richard should surely know that this is happening so how can he preach for the taxpayer to cut back or for us to vote for another party. Politicians are less than worthless (what would that be – peeled zeroes?)In any case it is far too complicated ford the average voter to understand. What we don’t need is for those who know better to be preaching for an Article V Convention.
Jenuwin:
Good reply: so you seem to have taken at least a step at the problem–so how about another step into the problem. What is a viable solution. It seems by most accounts that most of the debt is internal-that is American owned–and we have been borrowing money from China just to pay the interest and keeping the tab good. But the interest is so large that the principal is never paid down so theoretically or otherwise for the government to remain solvent it must always raise the debt limit. Cutting services does little and now with the Islamic State threat it is going to get worse.
We laughed of course when Russia went belly-up because they were socialist. But Capitalism is a far more complex system, and the banks make the tune–and of course we can’t let them go under- that would smack of 1929.
Maybe what America really needs is another Comstock Load the gold and silver strike that made Nevada a State and paid the tab for the Union victory and threw in a little extra cash for the Continental railroad. it was built on borrowed money and the government gave away a lot of Indian land ) that we bought and paid for having a receipt from the French for 15 millions in gold.
Anyway the gold now is oil–and there may be a whole lot more there lost than won. In truth when there is so much money floating around that has been accumulating for a at least three hundred years–because the English lost a chunk of change when thirteen colonies saidthey weren’t going to pay and they wanted
the whole thing and not just a slice of the pie, which inturn might be the motive behind an article v convention (who cuts the pie)
but if we follow larsen’s advise and cut the pie to the states it would logically follow that the states should also assume a cut of the federal debt. They would shut up in a hurry if the states had to assume that burden.
I used to own several credit cards, and one day I decided to pay them all off. I did that by paying more on what I owed. I presently have one, which I use occasionally and I make sure it is paid off each month. Conclusion, If one wants to get out of debt he/she pays more on the debt.
The problem as I see it, is that the government is trying to pay less than the minimum, which means the debt will never be paid off, and there are still expenditures that the government must pay.
As soon as the government may get a little extra cash to pay down the debt, then a tax cut is negotiated and the debt remains the same. The expenditures remain the same and more debt is incurred. The way around this is to decrease government spending by complaining about entitlement programs, but bills still have to be paid, and commitments kept.
Every state where taxes have been cut, the state is having difficulties paying bills and is falling into the red, just as the Federal Government has. This hasn’t been working and maybe there needs to be a change.
I hypothesize that if taxes were increased back to the amount during the Clinton administration, the deficit would go down and a surplus would be produced.
During the Obama administration there has been less spending by the government.
http://money.cnn.com/2014/01/27/news/economy/spending-obama/
To make things simple. Spending more than what is generated equals increased debt. More money has to be earned to pay the debt down, and the government can’t get another job. It increases revenues by increasing taxes. We all need to step up and be willing to pay more!
jayhook,
I was nodding in agreement with you until the last couple of paragraphs.
https://www.nationalpriorities.org/budget-basics/federal-budget-101/spending/
Less spending? But more in debt? No, budget for how many years? Nope, Obama blew it and saying less spending is not entire right. Less collected and never budgeted down might be closer. Obama get the credit for imaginary economics of the worst kind. He kept spending when we didn’t have it, just as bad or worse.
It’s a miracle anyone has any ‘change’ left.
Another example of skewing facts and lying by omission.
We don’t have a Debt problem we have a Revenue problem as a result of loopholes and tax avoidance schemes of the wealthy.
Revenue comes from Taxation to pay for the Military, pay for Social Security we all collect directly, Medicare 90% of us will collect at age 62 unless we become disabled (a Safety net) which is where most of our tax dollars go unless you are Corporate Executives with stock schemes thanks to a loophole about 30 years ago, where they circumvent ordinary income tax rates on their contracted compensation.
Most people do not know that in 2011, Mitt Romney disclosed his 14% tax rate that people think he pays such a low rate because he gives to his church and has good accountants. No, not true, he had No earned Income, he paid No Social Security tax and No Medicare tax on the millions he reported to the IRS thanks to the tax loopholes he gets from Congress, mainly Repubican.
We need to close the loopholes of guys like Mitt who pay no or little taxes, close the loophole of stock schemes to avoid ordinary income taxes, and spread the tax load around.
I am tired of paying at a 40% tax rate when guys like Mitt and Corporate Executives are paying at 15%.
Their kids no longer serve our country in the military, so why reward them by excluding their children from Military Service? We just might have less war, if the elite had their kids serving their country.
We can fix the problem, just raise the Capital Gains tax rate of 15 to 20% back to ordinary income tax rates of 39% we all pay.
Also, stop Stock Buybacks and shift the myth of returning value to shareholders to a Stakeholder that includes our communities, the employees, and the Company.
Also bring back the draft, we could cut the cost of our military with everyone, who attaches USA to their citizenship to serve their country.
You see, with the American Legislative exchange Council(the Union of Corporations writing legislation in secret to be introduced in state legislatures) ALEC, they have been capturing State governing bodies for three decades, the “Right to Work for Less laws” that has lowered the standard of living of the Middle Class, the Voter Restriction laws, the shift of tax burden from the wealthy like Risch to the rest of us, and recently the Guns on Campus legislation that the Idaho Republicans voted for in fear of the wrath of the NRA (I’m a member) even though 90% of feedback and vocal rejection was loud and clear but the R guys voted for Guns in the Classrooms like the one, that shot the professor in the foot.
By the way, if I had a child or I was in the class, I would contact a lawyer and sue for endangerment. There is no law that can protect them from the irresponsibility of this law.
Thanks to the “Corporate Five US Supreme Court Justices” that are voting to lead our country to a Oligarch Plutocracy, we have no choice but to have a Constitutional Amendment but not with the ALEC organization controlling many state legislatures under Article V, no way for an Article V convention. This is only a ruse to allow the Corporations, like the Koch brothers to take over every state and rip us all off.
Here is a good reason to repeal Citizens United. But not with the risk of a convention from every state because of the likes of the Koch’s with their ALEC organization.
This US Senator exposes what we got, when the five Corporate US Supremes voted for Unlimited Dark Money in our political process.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nBbZAMsZ-Rg
I notice that most of the articles from this author cater to the 1%, but I guess those guys have the money this author needs to tap into. After all, they pay little or no taxes and have all that cash laying around.
Mike,
Taxes come from people who are WORKING and right now there are more people not working than since 1978. Don’t ask how many. Tax the rich 100% and the shortfall won’t be covered, it’s bigger than that.
You pay a 40% tax rate? Liar, I took care of the IRS computers and that one doesn’t compute. I’ve averaged in the range of about 10% but 43% or more of tax payers average ZERO. Ignore that. No, when 20% of tax payers pay 80% of taxes, then taxing them more will just make things worse.
If KOCH and ALEC didn’t exist you’d have an awfully dull world. Run with Soros instead?
Obama just raised the inheritance tax to over 50% on EVERYONE. Where is your outrage? You keep it well concealed.
No, the only person lying is YOU.