"(A) strong balanced budget amendment with protections in regard to taxation, and in regard to spending, and in regard to court interference is absolutely critical if we're going to preserve the kind of a country and the kind of constitutional republic that we have at the present time," he told CNSNews.com.
This is no exaggeration. Runaway federal spending, driven by the welfare state that President Franklin D. Roosevelt initiated during the Great Depression, has brought America to the brink of ruin.
In 1902, according to the Tax Foundation, the federal government spent only 1.9 percent of GDP.
By fiscal 1941, before the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor, FDR had managed to hike that to 12 percent.
In fiscal 2011, according to OMB, the Obama administration spent 25.3 percent of GDP -- more than twice what FDR spent at the height of the Depression.
In fiscal 2011 alone, the national debt jumped $1.229 trillion, according to the U.S. Treasury. In calendar year 2010 (when fiscal 2011 started), there were only 93.641 million Americans who were full-time workers in the private sector, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics. That means that last year alone the federal government borrowed about $13,121 for every full-time private-sector worker in the country.
And this is before Obamacare is fully implemented or the baby boom generation fully retires and starts drawing Social Security and Medicare benefits.
This week, I interviewed Republican Sen. Mike Lee of Utah, who has offered a balanced budget amendment in the Senate that would cap federal spending at 18 percent of GDP and require two-thirds majorities in both houses to enact a tax increase.
Lee said every Republican senator supports this amendment, and that an amendment that did not cap spending and require two-thirds majorities to increase taxes would likely lose Republican votes in the Senate.
Boehner would make a profound mistake if he led House Republicans to vote on a balanced budget amendment that did not limit federal spending as a percentage of a GDP and did not require supermajorities to increase taxes. He would not only hurt -- rather then help -- the amendment's chances for ratification, he would be signaling that House Republicans are not ready to close the door to limitless federal spending.