Now why would I attempt to do what you ask when I actually promote Congress balances the budget on an annual basis, and without any loopholes, which is not what Levin's liberty amendment would do?
That is exactly what his Amendment would require...a balanced budget and limit federal spending and taxation.
Specifically what is wrong with limiting spending to 17.5% of GDP and requiring a three-fifths vote to raise the debt ceiling or limiting the power to tax to 15% of an individual’s income, prohibiting other forms of taxation, and placing the deadline to file one’s taxes one day before the next federal election.
Please be specific. Don't dissemble.
That's about as Conservative as you can get.
What I support is the Fair Share Balanced Budget Amendment which would actually compel Congress to balance the budget on an annual basis, and would also end our federal government's love affair with the socialist/communist tax calculated from profits, gains, tips, wages and other "incomes". It would also restore that part of the Founder's Great Compromise requiring "representation with a proportional financial obligation" whenever a direct tax is laid.
"Fair share" is Lib speak for "tax the rich". Nothing is going to "compel" the Congress except brute force at this point to balance the budget. They haven't even felt compelled to do their fiduciary duty and pass a budget in 9 years now. What makes you think they will be compelled on their own to balance a budget.
As for your proportional financial obligation...47% of the country pays nothing in taxes each year and the top 505 of wage earners pay nearly all of it.
Where is your "fair share" or "proportional financial obligation" figure into that?
BTW I notice this "Fair Share" tax thingy seems to be something you ginned up on your own and tried to pimp over on the Hannity Forums last April.
http://forums.hannity.com/entry.php?1560-The-Fair-Share-Balanced-Budget-Amendment-reform-is-not-complicated!
How'd that work out for you over there?
