McConnell proposes tail-wags-dog amendment to U.S. Constitution


The balanced budget amendment to the U.S. Constitution promoted this morning by Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell would, in effect, provide for minority rule on fiscal matters.

The measure would require a two-thirds supermajority in Congress to pass any tax increases.

The wingnuts will love this nonsense, but mark my words: This crackpot idea will never become part of the Constitution.

There’s more HERE.

By the way, I wonder if this gesture on McConnell’s part is an effort to win back the hearts and minds of right-wingers who want to string him up for the debt-ceiling proposal he offered yesterday. (See HERE.)



  1. Read the article and then get your facts correct, please.

    1. California requires a two-thirds majority to raise taxes, and your linked article implies that this is why California is in such terrible financial shape. Wrong. California requires a two-thirds majority to do several things: pass a budget, change education funding, etc. It was the two-thirds requirement for a budget that messed the state up, plus nonstop spending. Requiring a two-thirds majority for raising taxes was and is a good thing.

    (And if you think a two-thirds requirement to raise taxes will make it too hard to raise taxes, think again. I live in California now. State income tax is almost 10%. Sales tax is almost 10%, excluding groceries and unheated fast food. My property taxes last year were $9700 and I live in a small dumpy 90-year-old house. Oh, and I sold some stock earlier this year… no special rate on capital gains. In California capital gains are taxed as ordinary income. If the politicians in Sacramento could figure out a way to tax gravity, they would do it. They already have the California lottery to tax stupid people. But back to Illinois and your article.)

    2. This article claims that a supermajority is a cheap and evil way for the GOP to codify a political viewpoint. Well, gee, there is one part of Obamacare (Section 3403 on the Independent Medicare Advisory Board) that now requires a supermajority to repeal. The liberals did this just to make it harder to change Obamacare when Congress comes to its senses later. So don’t feed me this nonsense that liberals are this pristine paragon of virtue when it comes to advancing a political goal.

  2. Charlie Kasnick

    Let me see ,exploded debt under ,Reagan,Bush I ,and Bush II,The Radical Repubs did away with pay as we go when Bush II was elected and the Radicals controled congress and senate,and only now they have spending addicts remores.
    They are resonsible for the bigges tax increases on the middle class in my history,Reagan alone had 7 tax increases.
    And beside their morallity is that God wants them to help only the bankers ,wall street ,and the wealthy.I cant find this in any of the bibles in my house.
    They dont understand we have a demand driven economy.Tricle down economics is more like when the Kings and Lords new what was best for the little people and gave out pennys while they lived large.Maybe that is what they really want is a Monarchy type system,The senate leader radical repub ,Mitch Mconnel, today is floating and idea that election are not good for Americans!

  3. Dan F writes: “Get your facts correct, please.”

    But where is there even one error anywhere in the five paragraphs of my post?

  4. DanF,
    California no longer requires 2/3 vote to pass a budget, only a tax increase.

  5. Dan F.: What they do or don’t do in California doesn’t change the fact that McConnell’s proposal to require a two-thirds majority to pass a tax increase amounts to the tail wagging the dog. It’s downright un-American. But, of course, I’m sure you love it.

  6. Neftali

    Charlie Kasnick – biggest tax increases on the middle class? Really? Based on what? Those 7 increases you mention are petty compared to the huge tax relief Republicans gave to the middle class.

    History lesson for your feeble brain:

    Income Tax rate for for a single person making $35K/year

    (Reagan years)
    1980: 49%
    1982: 44%
    1983: 40%
    1984: 38%
    1985: 34%
    1988: 28%

    (George W. Bush years)
    2001: 27.5%
    2002: 27%
    2004: 25%


  7. I believe he was referring to Reagan\’s increase of the FICA tax, not federal income tax.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *