-
Be sure to read this post! Beware of scammers. https://www.indianagunowners.com/threads/classifieds-new-online-payment-guidelines-rules-paypal-venmo-zelle-etc.511734/
Proposed State Constitutional Amendment on Ballot?
- Thread starter gmcttr
- Start date
The #1 community for Gun Owners in Indiana
Member Benefits:
Fewer Ads! Discuss all aspects of firearm ownership Discuss anti-gun legislation Buy, sell, and trade in the classified section Chat with Local gun shops, ranges, trainers & other businesses Discover free outdoor shooting areas View up to date on firearm-related events Share photos & video with other members ...and so much more!
Member Benefits:
Exactly...that how they will fool the majority of voters into passing the amendment.
The way I read it, current law prohibits borrowing except in very limited and defined situations (defense) and the proposed amendment adds the ability for a supermajority vote to override that and allow for borrowing.
It is worded in a way on the ballot to make it sound like it will add a prohibition to borrowing (but that already exists) so that voters will be tricked into voting "Yes".
If the question was asked in an honest manner it would read something like 'SHALL ARTICLE 10, SECTION 5 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF THE STATE OF INDIANA BE AMENDED TO ALLOW THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY TO OVERRIDE BALANCED BUDGETS FOR STATE GOVERNMENT THAT DO NOT EXCEED ESTIMATED REVENUES WITH A SUPERMAJORITY OF TWO-THIRDS OF THE MEMBERS OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES AND TWO-THIRDS OF THE MEMBERS OF THE SENATE VOTE TO SUSPEND THE REQUIREMENT?"
Our Constitution works fine. Legislators should not be looking for Phantom problems to solve.
Read the text and tell me what problem it solves.
The only thing it changes is funding pensions and allowing the state to go into debt for any reason.
2/3-2/3 is not a very high bar when all you want to do is spend, spend, spend...
If you can point to a problem that this solves I may change my position.
Please do not say Balanced Budget, because THE SENATE MAY VOTE TO SUSPEND THE REQUIREMENT.
Read the text and tell me what problem it solves.
The only thing it changes is funding pensions and allowing the state to go into debt for any reason.
2/3-2/3 is not a very high bar when all you want to do is spend, spend, spend...
If you can point to a problem that this solves I may change my position.
Please do not say Balanced Budget, because THE SENATE MAY VOTE TO SUSPEND THE REQUIREMENT.
Last edited:
So you guys are under the impression that the current Constitution forbids debt? Really?
You don't see the Space Shuttle-sized loophole highlighted above?
In reality, the Constitutional ban on debt is no ban on debt at all.
The proposed amendment is not the perfect balanced-budget amendment, but we have none now.
I'm voting for it.
You don't see the Space Shuttle-sized loophole highlighted above?
In reality, the Constitutional ban on debt is no ban on debt at all.
The proposed amendment is not the perfect balanced-budget amendment, but we have none now.
I'm voting for it.
So, we are currently $23 billion in debt. Obviously the current language in the constitution isn't doing much.
I did a little more research on this, and while I don't like that there is an allowance for debt, it does seem like it's better than the status quo.
This bill passed in 2015 and 2017, essentially unanimously.
I did a little more research on this, and while I don't like that there is an allowance for debt, it does seem like it's better than the status quo.
This bill passed in 2015 and 2017, essentially unanimously.
From SJR 7 Balanced Budget Amendment | Indiana Family Institute
SJR 7 would amend Indiana's Constitution to assure that the total amount of expense appropriations enacted by the Indiana General Assembly for a biennial budget may not exceed the estimated revenue of the State in the biennial budget period. It would also provide that if expenses exceed actual revenue when reconciled at the close of a biennial budget period, the subsequent biennial budget must subtract any shortfall from the projected revenue available for that subsequent biennial budget. SJR 7 allows these requirements to be suspended if at least two-thirds of the members of the Indiana House of Representatives and at least two-thirds of the members of the Indiana Senate vote to suspend the requirements.
[h=3]Analysis[/h]
The Indiana Constitution gives the following guidance regarding debts on behalf of the State of Indiana:
Thankfully, through much of our recent history the Indiana General Assembly has not accrued massive debts. However, the exception within our State Constitution allowing debts to “meet casual deficits” has been interpreted by the courts to mean that virtually any debt the Indiana General Assembly views as a “casual deficit” will be viewed by the judiciary as a “casual deficit” and therefore not at odds with the Indiana Constitution.
This interpretation allows the Indiana General Assembly to skirt the spirit of the Indiana Constitution and run up large deficits if it so chooses.
SJR 7 is a constitutional amendment that would correct this loophole. It would tighten up our constitutional protection against continual deficit spending. The lone exception would be for some unforeseen emergency and even in that circumstance the Indiana House and Senate would have to vote by a two thirds super-majority to temporarily violate the Balanced Budget Amendment.
[h=3]Conclusion[/h]
Hoosier families are forced to live within their means. When expenses start to run higher than income, citizens must make tough choices and cut spending. We expect no less of our government. Creating an environment where the long-term expectation will be that Hoosier citizens are not expected to shoulder the load of massive State debt is a positive development. Creating this environment will give Hoosier families peace of mind and allow them to plan their financial future with this assurance in mind.
SJR 7 would amend Indiana's Constitution to assure that the total amount of expense appropriations enacted by the Indiana General Assembly for a biennial budget may not exceed the estimated revenue of the State in the biennial budget period. It would also provide that if expenses exceed actual revenue when reconciled at the close of a biennial budget period, the subsequent biennial budget must subtract any shortfall from the projected revenue available for that subsequent biennial budget. SJR 7 allows these requirements to be suspended if at least two-thirds of the members of the Indiana House of Representatives and at least two-thirds of the members of the Indiana Senate vote to suspend the requirements.
[h=3]Analysis[/h]
The Indiana Constitution gives the following guidance regarding debts on behalf of the State of Indiana:
Article 10 Section 5
No law shall authorize any debt to be contracted, on behalf of the State, except in the following cases: to meet casual deficits in the revenue; to pay the interest on the State Debt; to repel invasion, suppress insurrection, or, if hostilities be threatened, provide for the public defense.
No law shall authorize any debt to be contracted, on behalf of the State, except in the following cases: to meet casual deficits in the revenue; to pay the interest on the State Debt; to repel invasion, suppress insurrection, or, if hostilities be threatened, provide for the public defense.
Thankfully, through much of our recent history the Indiana General Assembly has not accrued massive debts. However, the exception within our State Constitution allowing debts to “meet casual deficits” has been interpreted by the courts to mean that virtually any debt the Indiana General Assembly views as a “casual deficit” will be viewed by the judiciary as a “casual deficit” and therefore not at odds with the Indiana Constitution.
This interpretation allows the Indiana General Assembly to skirt the spirit of the Indiana Constitution and run up large deficits if it so chooses.
SJR 7 is a constitutional amendment that would correct this loophole. It would tighten up our constitutional protection against continual deficit spending. The lone exception would be for some unforeseen emergency and even in that circumstance the Indiana House and Senate would have to vote by a two thirds super-majority to temporarily violate the Balanced Budget Amendment.
[h=3]Conclusion[/h]
Hoosier families are forced to live within their means. When expenses start to run higher than income, citizens must make tough choices and cut spending. We expect no less of our government. Creating an environment where the long-term expectation will be that Hoosier citizens are not expected to shoulder the load of massive State debt is a positive development. Creating this environment will give Hoosier families peace of mind and allow them to plan their financial future with this assurance in mind.
When the proposed amendment passed the Senate, it had very few in opposition. One of these Senators was Karen Tallian. Karen is a former colleague of mine from the very beginning of my career. I have a great deal of respect for her and I like her on a personal level. However, she can hardly be considered conservative in any sense of the terms. As I read her thoughts about why she is against it, they seem to be two-fold: 1) She wanted to maintain flexibility to deficit spend if necessary, and 2) why change the Constitution?
Does is sound as if this Senator, a member of the Budget Committee believes that the current Constitution prevents deficit spending and that the amendment will make it easier?
Does is sound as if this Senator, a member of the Budget Committee believes that the current Constitution prevents deficit spending and that the amendment will make it easier?
How many voters are going to get in the booth and not have a clue what this is about? The wording doesn't help as I was always under the impression that we already had a balanced budget constitution. I don't feel I'm very unique in this belief.
US Census Bureau published debt figures for each state in 2008. In that year it was $26B. A website published a number of $23B in 2015.
IN.gov has a section on debt, but it is useless. I don't think the state likes to advertise how far we are in hock. At least we're not California!!
IN.gov has a section on debt, but it is useless. I don't think the state likes to advertise how far we are in hock. At least we're not California!!
htf r we 23b in debt?
Site Supporter
Staff online
-
KellyinAvonBlue-ID Mafia Consigliere
Members online
- Qwerty357
- BeDome
- Nazgul
- j706
- regulator1175
- tge45
- Jndturner317
- mcapo
- KellyinAvon
- oldschool1911
- 2WheelinTrucker
- Loco179
- edwea
- slims2002
- 85Cosmo
- LeverGunFan
- 92FSTech
- DoggyDaddy
- Twinsen
- Hkindiana
- Testypayload81
- drgnrobo
- Bosshoss
- snapping turtle
- El Conquistador
- Piezak
- Glock22
- MrMunster
- Indy574
- Jerry downey
- KJQ6945
- Mice54
- sp3worker
- OneBadV8
- Dutchmaster
- Joniki
- Cavman
- glank09
- Thor
- Squid556
- ROLEXrifleman
- flyingsquirrel
- loudgroove
- singlesix
- JR50
- FreeLand
- tangleridgeslim
- Fallschirmjaeger
- Dwight
- JHB
