The Liberal Loon, Carol Hedges, and her Fiscal Policy Institute (FPI) are at it again, trying to convince Colorado's US Senators that balancing the budget, or voting for an amendment to the US Constitution requiring it, would be the end of the world. The Loon's FPI blasted out an email last Friday urging liberal and tax loving groups to sign a petition from fellow liberal tax lovers, the Center on Budget and (Liberal) Policy Priorities, urging Senators Udall and Bennet to oppose any and all attempts at passing a balanced budget amendment.
With a federal budget so bloated and abused it could star in Precious, most people are in agreement that something so common sense as requiring the federal government to balance its budget is a no-brainer.
But to groups that believe in economic fantasies, like the lack of serious consequences for continuing spending binges, a balanced budget is their worst nightmare. Groups like FPI believe the only way to continue the government spending with a reckless abandon is to ensure that there are no controls on the budget. From their plea to their liberal list:
"The House and Senate are likely to vote on proposals to add a balanced budget amendment (BBA) to the U.S. Constitution in July. The House now expects to act during the week of July 18th and the Senate vote during that week as well.
Both proposals would force extreme cuts in federal spending as the means of balancing the budget. We are very concerned that Members of Congress will vote for them because it sounds "responsible" to balance the budget."
A balanced budget amendment would force tough decisions in every budget debate, something that would imperil their endless list of favored government programs. They can't have that. Will Colorado's US Senators, Mark Udall and Michael Bennet, allow them to have their fantasy?
While the letter signed by a long list of liberal special interest groups is aimed at both Congressfolk and Senators, the real fight at this point is in the Senate. Passage requires a supermajority (60 votes), meaning more than a few Democrats are needed for passage.
Udall has expressed an interest in such an amendment, as he is trying to run towards the center, at least rhetorically, in anticipation of his 2014 re-election. Bennet, on the other hand, has been more skeptical, with his re-election much farther off. Pressure from groups that form the backbone of the liberal political infrastructure in Colorado can have an effect, even ones as loony as FPI.
The question is: will their pressure be enough for Udall and Bennet to cave?