Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site pyuxa.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!decvax!harpo!whuxlm!whuxl!houxm!mhuxt!mhuxr!ulysses!gamma!pyuxww!pyuxa!wetcw
From: wetcw@pyuxa.UUCP (T C Wheeler)
Newsgroups: net.flame
Subject: Re: Balanced Budget Amendment
Message-ID: <1275@pyuxa.UUCP>
Date: Fri, 14-Jun-85 08:06:00 EDT
Article-I.D.: pyuxa.1275
Posted: Fri Jun 14 08:06:00 1985
Date-Received: Tue, 18-Jun-85 03:53:36 EDT
References: <363@cmu-cs-edu1.ARPA>
Organization: Bell Communications Research, Piscataway N.J.
Lines: 14

You dumb twit, Rafferty.  A balanced budget amendment would put
the screws to congress, not the administration.  In case you have
never noticed, the administrations budget is a lot closer to being
balanced than the spend-all-we-can Congress'.  The real problem
is all those a**holes authorizing all kinds of pet spending
schemes, running up the cost of government.  Billions go down the
tube every year in pet projects for the folks at home so the
bastards can say how much they are doing so they can get 
reelected.  Therein lies the whole problem of overspending, reelection.
With a balanced budget amendment, it would put the onus on Congres
s to cut spending in all areas.  After all, Rafferty, it is the
Congress that OKs spending, the administration just signs the checks.
T. C. Wheeler