Block · one region of the page, as the scanner read it. It may hold a whole story, part of one, several, or an advertisement; stitching blocks into articles is the next step. Text is supplied OCR.
Page 5 · column 1 of 6 · from the scan, no model involved
A constitutional remedy is needed because statutory efforts to control spending have failed. Consider Congress’ recent attempts to control its runaway spending habits. The Congressional Budget Act of 1974, which was supposed to cut down on deficit spending, has been “waived” (i.e., ignored) 398 times in the past decade. In 1979, the Congress passed a statute that mandated a balanced budget by 1982; this statute was repealed in 1982.
And while I continue to support the Gramm-Rudman-Hollings Act of 1986, which has been successful in raising Congressional awareness of excessive spending with its threat of across-the-board “sequestration” cuts, Congress has put its energy into crafting gimmicks to meet the Gramm-Rudman yearly deficit targets (like using Social Security and other trust funds to hide the real deficit) rather than enacting lasting budget savings. The result of these statutory efforts to control the budget? A deficit estimated at $168.8 billion for Fiscal Year 1991.
Clearly, taxpayers need better protection against a Congress bent on runaway spending than such statutes. A Constitutional amendment — that cannot be “waived” or otherwise ignored — is needed.
Allowing the American people to debate - the matter is among the
92.2%