This is all well and good but the repubs need to privide details on how they'll achieve it.

Last time the dems successfully lied to the american public about what the repubs would do. They claimed that repubs would gut SS to balance the budget.

Social Security ''is the most successful social program in the history of the world,'' said Senate Democratic leader Tom Daschle. ''For millions of older Americans it is the difference between living in dignity, and living in fear and poverty. A balanced-budget amendment shouldn't force us to break that historic contract.''

Clinton remarked that: "the amendment could have caused or worsened a recession, threatened the nation's credit standing, involved judges in national economic policy and jeopardized Social Security."

The obvious question is, "Why ban earmarks for only one year?"

The answer is also obvious.

Grahamnesty removed his lips from McCains' backside long enough to do something "conservative?" I didn't think he was UP for re-election this year!

Once upon a time, I could support a balanced-budget amendment. Now, not so much.

Any BBA would require an escape clause that allows America to take on debt in case of war or other emergency.

How would you define an emergency? Probably by a 2/3 vote of both houses of Congress.

I am afraid that the practical effect would be for Congress to try to declare an "emergency" every year ... and that the 2/3 majority would become the practical requirement for passing any budget.

Under those conditions, I think the government would end up more dysfinctional than it is now.

I hope Sen. Richard Shelby (R-AL) is listening. He's threatening to abuse the filibuster by blocking all of Obama nominations unless he gets his earmarks.

http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/02/report-shelby-blocks-all-obama-nominations-in-the-senate-over-al-earmarks.php

James H,

Point taken, but I'd still like to see the full text of the proposed amendment.

Certainly there should be an exception for declaration of war.

For other 'emergencies', I would require a 3/4 majority of both houses.

Then, there is the question of Social Security. For this to work, SS would have to be formally separated from the rest of the budget is such a way that no SS funds could EVER be co-mingled with other monies ever again. This would be a nice first step toward privatizing it in the long run.

Rehm: Tom Mann, what percent of the federal budget is actually set aside for earmarks?

Thomas Mann: About one percent. And what's important to keep in mind too Diane, is this is not 1 percent that if one eliminated all the earmarks would then lead to 1 percent reduction in spending because for the most part, this is not the authorization of new money, it's rather Congress's determination to allocate aspects of programs that have already been funded. So if you eliminate the earmarks, presumably those dollars will still be spent, but through other allocation mechanisms such as grant making activities.

Ban on earmarks? Nice talking point, but little more.

Forgot the link.

http://www.brookings.edu/interviews/2009/0316_earmarks_mann.aspx