today on the floor of this House, we will debate and I sincerely hope pass a constitutional amendment to the U.S. Constitution, a provision which will provide a necessary level of discipline to this body. Ten States in the United States currently have a supermajority requirement for future tax increases. Why? They have this provision because it has turned out to be necessary in order to restrain the ever-growing demands of Government for additional spending. What has been the effect and what has been the experience of those States? It is quite simple and it is quite straightforward. In the 10 States which have a supermajority requirement to raise taxes yet one more time, things, which we would expect would have indeed happened, spending has gone up less rapidly in those States with such a provision; taxing has gone up less rapidly than in States without such a provision; but, most importantly, Mr. Speaker, in those States which have done what this Congress has a chance today to do, and that is to require a supermajority for future tax increases, economic growth has increased at a faster pace than in those States without this restraint. Mr. Speaker, what is the issue? The issue is a simple one. If we make it harder, somewhat harder as this constitutional amendment would do, to exact additional tax dollars from the people of this Nation, then this Congress and the Federal Government will spend the money which it has more judiciously.
Editor's note · Context
Discussing the need for a constitutional amendment requiring a supermajority for future tax increases.
Share
More from John Shadegg
It's a third-party pay system that exists right now. It does not work when your employer controls your health care plan. It will not work when the government controls your health care plan. It makes all the sense in the world to let people…
I believe most people across America know that we have been debating health care reform for almost a year now--actually, quite frankly, a little over a year now. And I think most Americans agree with me and probably with almost everybody…
So this would be the first Federal mandate saying you must buy a product because the Federal Government tells you you must buy a product?
I have spent a great deal of my life advocating for the victims of crime. It seems to me this is an outrage that exists in current law. The victims of crime should not be revictimized. In this case, American law does revictimize those…





