Bill Description: House Concurrent Resolution 10 would state findings of the Legislature and make three separate applications to the United States Congress to call a convention of the states under Article V of the Constitution of the United States.
Rating: 0
Does it violate the spirit or the letter of either the United States Constitution or the Idaho Constitution? Examples include restrictions on speech, public assembly, the press, privacy, private property, or firearms. Conversely, does it restore or uphold the protections guaranteed in the US Constitution or the Idaho Constitution?
The broader concerns about an Article V Convention have been discussed elsewhere and include a number of possible outcomes, which are speculative. Even under the best of procedural circumstances, it’s unlikely that a convention would achieve the aspirational goals as called for in this resolution, particularly — "impose fiscal restraints on the federal government.”
There are several major problems with this proposed amendment. To start with, it does not define what a national emergency is for the exception for a balanced budget.
But more importantly, it assumes that the problem is one of balancing the federal budget without regard to distinguishing between the growth of spending and the growth of revenue.
In no single year in U.S. history has federal revenue exceeded 20.5% of GDP. 1944 was the peak year, during the height of World War II. Top marginal income tax rates then were over 90%.
The modern revenue peak was 20% of GDP in 2000 at the height of the “Dot Com,” boom. Yet according to data sourced from the Congressional Budget Office, revenues for the period 2025-2029 are projected to be 17.8% percent of GDP and outlays 23.4% which equates to more than $9 trillion of additional deficits. This means that unless Congress cuts spending by more than $9 trillion over the next five years – for example, taxes will have to be increased beyond anything known in the history of the country.
The proposal opens the door to a massive federal tax on sales and various forms of consumption, along the lines of the European system or an income tax increase.
There is also the very real risk that the hope of a future Article V Convention will continue to bleed time and resources away from more practical and immediate solutions to curtail federal malfeasance. States have far more power than they exercise. None, however, have been willing to risk a loss or reduction of federal dollars in order to cast off the burden of federal intrusion.
Rather than expect a convention to cure our country's ills, it would be wiser for states to direct their own affairs and insulate themselves from federal interference by becoming self-sufficient and rejecting proposals to expand the size and scope of government.
Another proposed amendment includes the language, “limit the terms of office for its officials and for members of Congress.”
There are currently 16 state legislatures with term limits; among them are Arizona, California, Florida, Michigan, and Nebraska. There is no evidence that, on balance, these states have achieved better outcomes with term limits than states without them.
Further, another objection is that the resolution applies term limits to elected members of Congress, without limiting any other unelected federal officials, including all those in senior policy positions. If the resolution included in its application a limit on the tenure of federal officials as well as members of Congress, it would at least have the possibility of balance. Without this balance, term limiting Congress would do nothing to shrink the power of the administrative state.
So at best, term limits would clean out members who have served for many decades.
(0)
