Bernanke: Limit Spending!

Bloomberg: Bernanke Calls on Lawmakers to Consider Rules on Limiting Federal Spending

“Well-designed rules can help promote improved fiscal performance,” Bernanke said today in a speech in Providence, Rhode Island. A rule “could provide an important signal to the public that the Congress is serious about achieving long-term fiscal sustainability, which itself would be good for confidence,” he said.

Bernanke provided one of his most detailed prescriptions yet for reducing the record federal budget deficit. He said in congressional testimony in June that unless the U.S. makes a “strong commitment to fiscal responsibility,” the country in the long run will have neither economic growth nor fiscal stability.

“It is crucially important that we put U.S. fiscal policy on a sustainable path,” Bernanke said at the Rhode Island Public Expenditure Council’s annual dinner, where he was invited to speak by Senator Jack Reed, a Democrat from Rhode Island and member of the banking committee.

“The only real question” is whether adjustments to taxes and spending will come from a “careful and deliberative process” or from a “rapid and painful response to a looming or actual fiscal crisis,” Bernanke said.

I cannot think of any process more “careful and deliberative” than the process required by the Constitution to adopt a new constitutional Amendment. For that reason, I support the Spending Limit Amendment proposed by Reps. Mike Pence and Jeb Hensarling.  Read about it HERE.

Perhaps, now that Ben Bernanke is urging an end to our federal government’s spendthrift ways, the Democrats will listen.  Somehow, I doubt it.  Previous attempts to appeal for fiscal sanity, such as the appeal made earlier this year by Jim Bunning, have after all not been received so well.



  1. Jordan Bell says:

    There is a rule to limit Federal spending right in the Constitution. Any powers not delegated to them are reserved to the States and to the People, yet the Feds get involved and spend away into all aspects of our lives. They also adopt Pay-go spending, of which they completely ignore. They all swear an Oath to the Constitution, of which the majority all break as soon as they finish saying “So help me God.” If a spending amendment is passed, what is the guarantee that they will comply with it? If they don’t follow or enforce the rules already laid out, then what is the point of adding more?

    I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God.

  2. Jeff Schreiber says:

    Constructed correctly, an Amendment which would cap federal spending at one-fifth of GDP would be difficult to weasel around, whereas Congress has repeatedly made sport of sidestepping the General Welfare Clause and Necessary and Proper Clause and other parts of those rules to limit federal spending already in the Constitution.

  3. Jordan Bell says:

    Even if constructed correctly, I just don’t see it happening, nor having the effect that is desired. I mainly just see it as a way to pander to votes from the majority of us who would like to see this and to get back to Constitutional principles. We have already seen Amendments trampled on, and what would stop them from abandoning/trampling it during a “crisis” which in turn becomes a perpetuated crisis from their involvement? If they can not adhere to the Constitution in times of peace and tranquility, they most certainly won’t during a time of “crisis.” The majority are just thieves and liars, and unless we have moral and just representatives, an Amendment I think won’t do any good.


Speak Your Mind