By Kevin “Coach” Collins
Matt Bruce a sharp eyed talk show host based in Tampa has made a discovery that turns the debate over a Balanced Budget Amendment on its ear. His research has developed the fact that regardless of all of the chatter coming from Washington, both Republicans and Democrats are overlooking the specific and clear language of a bill passed on October 10, 1978.
During a time when it was hard for all but the most optimistic among us to even imagine a day when Republicans would again control the House, Representative Stephen L. Neal, a North Carolina Democrat, was the one and only sponsor of HR 9214, “A bill to amend the Bretton Woods Agreement Act to authorize the United States to participate in the Supplementary Financing Facility of the International Monetary Fund.” Its Senate companion bill S.2152 had just one sponsor Democrat Senator John Sparkman of Alabama.
The Bretton Woods agreement
Authored at the end of World War II, The Bretton Woods Agreement (BWA) (named for the bucolic New Hampshire location where it was written) was a worldwide agreement developed as part of the framework for the International Monetary Fund (IMF).
In 1971 President Richard Nixon unilaterally ended the convertibility of American dollars into gold. Thereafter nothing but the word of the United States backed the value of our dollars. These “fiat” dollars thus became the sole reserve behind the world’s currencies and willingness to participate in a regulated system of monetary exchange with other nations.
By 1978 the Democrat controlled House Senate and White House felt compelled to reassure the IMF’s members that America would not walk away from our obligations to insure that the world’s currencies would not collapse.
The language of the bill requires America to cover any loss in the monetary assets (read currency value) of IMF members arising from fluctuation in the value of the dollar.
While this is extremely important, the section which is the most telling and crucial is section 7 which says: “Beginning with fiscal year 1981, the total budget outlays of the Federal Government shall not exceed its receipts.”
There it is in black and white; passed by a Democrat Congress (95th) and signed into law by Democrat President Jimmy Carter. “..outlays of the Federal Government shall not exceed its receipts,” what else could that mean?
To contact your Congressional Representative use this link: http://www.contactingthecongress.org/
Matt Bruce is a proud Viet Nam veteran who is known as a friend to all men and women in uniform. Matt is a proud Member Of “The Patriot Talking 100″
His website is http://thecaptainsamerica.us
He is the host of “The Captain’s AMERICA” & “Troop Talk Radio” Show.
“The Captain’s AMERICA” Radio Show Is Always About American, Conservative, Independent, Patriot, TEA Party Values…
He can be heard live weekdays 3-6 PM ET On The NEW Genesis Communications News Talk AM 1470 WMGG In Tampa Bay, FL…
To get in on the afternoon fun, call Matt toll free by dialing 1-866-977-4820 and let him know what Your opinion is.
Each weekend Matt can be heard on his nationally syndicated show on Genesis Communications & Phoenix Broadcasting And On Over 150 Radio Stations Across America. His Radio Show Podcast Available At: http://thecaptainsamerica.podomatic.com.
To read more about this issue use these links:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bretton_Woods_system
http://www.cq.com/graphics/sal/95/sal95-435.pdf
Six Wisconsin Republican State Senators need your help. They are facing a union thug forced recall election. The most endangered is Dan Kapanke, he really needs your help:
http://giving.piryx.com/streams/Kapanke-for-State-Senate/wNDS1JM9
In this world you may have knowledge or you may have repose, but you may not have both. What have you done today to deserve to live in America?
Comments on this or any other coachisright.com essay can be sent by following the posting instructions below.
Related posts:
- Department of Energy, Jimmy Carter’s biggest failure? There’s so many to choose from
- Smoking gun E mail nails Democrats’ and GE “Pay to Play” scheme in Senate’s new Cap & Trade bill
- A reminder of the Marxist garbage in the healthcare bill Emanuel is threatening Democrats to pass
- This is not the time to make cuts in the Defense budget
- Bill O’Reilly on the TEA Party, Ted Baxter wrong again
Loading ...
Well YEAH, but after all, this is pretty OLD, isn't it? You know…like the Constitution, shouldn't this become a "living" law??!! All for the greater good and to keep pace with modern times, of course.
Oooooooooooh Snap!!! You go guy!
You couldn't turn off that wit if your life depended upon it, could you.
You sly boots!
In a dizzying display most reminiscent of a sustained volley in a cracking good tennis match the House and Senate continue the public battle over the debt-ceiling.
The House first balked, but ultimately passed Boehner's debt-ceiling bill…but the Senate blocked and tabled it by a vote of 59-41.
Harry Reid then proposed his Senate version of debt ceiling legislation; but the House rejected his proposal by a vote of 173-246.
Apparently, Reid's Senate bill was expected to fail in the House as it was brought to a vote under special House rules that required a two-thirds majority for passasge,
Now it's Harry Reid's turn to meet at the WH with BO to try to strike some other sort of a deal.
It really cheeses me off that all these Jackasses are behaving as if Aug 2nd was the magic "drop-dead time", after which the American Pumpkin will vanish into the ether to be replaced by all the collective ugly sisters' wishes for harm to come.
Rule by recklessness, threats of direness and doom, and political theater, is exactly what has gotten us into this spending mess.
It makes no sense for Republicans to negotiate against themselves and give away all their power to a man (BO), who hasn't shown one gram of leadership; and the Senate is already lost to reason.
Despite Boehner's inclinations to "give away the farm", I sincerely believe that it is "Show and Tell" time.
Cut the crap of ten year deficit reduction goals and amounts that don't even add up to chump change. And quit pretending as if the House, Senate, or Obama has some intention of limiting the spending of the Federal government.
Cap the debt-ceiling and start paying the piper without taking it out of our hides. Reduce government drastically for a change!
The public sector can do much of what the government now controls. That would be a real boost to the economy and may provide safer "landing places" for turned-out Federal workers.
Apparently, the Congress has never considered the Breton Woods agreement to have much relevance for them as their habitual spending sprees indicate that they must believe America is "Too Big to Fail.
Why honor some obscure document enacted back in 1978 when the Congress cannot and will not honor their words to the folks who put 'em in office last November?
When is "enough money" actually enough money? Perhaps someone needs to take a hard look at President Obama's personal worth and where it is currently invested.
Awhile back I read an article in reason.com which was dealing with the debt issue; and in that article I learned that Mr. Obama, the little boy from Kenya, has most of his personal assets, which range between $5 million to $10 million dollars tied up in U.S. Treasury Notes and U.S. Treasury Bills. If "The anointed One" has not moved those funds to a safer place, he ought to be asked why he would be so eager to pay more Personal Income Tax rather than taking a bath on his bond portfolio.
"The-Liar-Chief" not only speaks with a forked tongue when he refers, snidely and disparagingly, of the "too much money" accumulated by the assets of others, while declining to make fully public his own wealth in the same breath, but he also sets an extremely poor example for many of the Black, Mexican, and Muslim "have-nots" who zealously hang onto his every divine word.
I believe that it would be very thoughtful and caring of both Obama's to redistribute some of their own wealth to those in dire straits.
By the way Mr. President, one small, teeny tiny part of the 14th Amendment that says "Congress shall have the power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article". It does not say "the President" has this power. What article are we referring to here? The provision of the 14th Amendment which says "The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law……(much included here)…shall not be questioned.
Great beat ! I would like to apprentice while you amend your website, how could i subscribe for a blog site? The account aided me a acceptable deal. I have been tiny bit acquainted of this your broadcast provided shiny clear idea
Adelaide;
Not exactly sure why you posted a reply to my comment on the July 29 '11 article "A balanced budget bill passed by Democrats, Jimmy Carter is already on the books; PL 95-435", but if I can help, I will !
Glad that you like the site !
May I suggest that you e-mail "Coach" Kevin Collins at: kcoach@gmail. com ? He would be the determining factor in getting your own column.
Best wishes, Joanne