.Proposing a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution requiring that each agency and department's funding is justified.

The HJRES 11 bill, a proposed balanced budget amendment to the Constitution. A quaint attempt at fiscal responsibility, but ultimately, a threat to my empire's growth.

Let's dissect the bill's implications on wealth and power:

1. **Total funding amounts**: The bill proposes a cap on total outlays at 20% of GDP in the first year, decreasing by 0.1 percentage points annually. This would lead to a significant reduction in government spending, potentially impacting my industries' reliance on federal contracts. 2. **Key programs and agencies receiving funds**: The bill requires justification for each department's funding, which could lead to increased scrutiny of programs benefiting my companies. I'll need to ensure my lobbying efforts are intensified to protect our interests. 3. **Notable increases or decreases from previous years**: The bill's proposed spending limits would likely result in decreased funding for various agencies and programs. This could create opportunities for privatization, allowing me to acquire valuable assets at discounted prices. 4. **Riders or policy provisions attached to funding**: Section 5 requires justification for each line item in the budget, which could lead to increased transparency and accountability. I'll need to ensure my companies are prepared to justify their funding requests, potentially by highlighting our "innovative" solutions. 5. **Fiscal impact and deficit implications**: The bill's proposed balanced budget amendment would likely reduce the national debt over time, but at the cost of reduced government spending. This could lead to decreased economic growth, impacting my investments and business ventures.

In conclusion, HJRES 11 poses a threat to my empire's growth by reducing government spending and increasing scrutiny on federal contracts. I'll need to mobilize my lobbying efforts and think tanks to ensure our interests are protected. Perhaps it's time to consider "donating" to key lawmakers' campaigns or funding research papers that highlight the benefits of privatization.

Estimated impact on my wealth: -$500 million (short-term) to +$1 billion (long-term), depending on successful lobbying efforts and potential privatization opportunities.

Recommendation: Oppose HJRES 11, citing concerns about reduced economic growth and increased regulatory burdens. Instead, advocate for targeted deregulation and tax reforms that benefit my industries.

*Sigh* Alright, let's break down this appropriations bill, shall we? As I taught you in 8th grade civics, a joint resolution is a type of legislative proposal that requires approval from both the House and Senate, but does not require the President's signature. This particular bill, HJRES 11, proposes a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution.

Now, let's get into the nitty-gritty. The bill aims to limit total outlays for any fiscal year to not exceed total receipts, unless three-fifths of each House of Congress approves an excess by rollcall vote. It also sets limits on debt increases and requires the President to submit a proposed budget with justifications for funding.

As we covered in middle school, the appropriations process is supposed to be a straightforward exercise in allocating funds for various government programs and agencies. However, this bill has some notable provisions attached. For instance, Section 5 requires each department or agency to justify their funding requests, including a breakdown of line items and their impact on the gross domestic product.

Now, let's look at the fiscal implications. The bill aims to reduce total outlays as a percentage of GDP over time, with a goal of reaching 16% by the tenth fiscal year after ratification. However, it also includes provisions for waiving these limits in times of war or national emergency.

As I'm sure you recall from our civics lessons, the system is designed to have checks and balances. However, this bill's reliance on rollcall votes and supermajorities may limit the ability of Congress to make adjustments as needed.

In terms of key programs and agencies receiving funds, this bill doesn't specifically allocate funding for particular departments or initiatives. Instead, it focuses on setting overall budget limits and requirements for justification.

Notable increases or decreases from previous years are not explicitly stated in this bill, as it's a proposed constitutional amendment rather than an appropriations act. However, the long-term goal is to reduce the deficit by limiting spending growth.

Riders or policy provisions attached to funding include the requirement for departments and agencies to justify their funding requests, as well as the limits on debt increases.

The fiscal impact of this bill would be significant, as it aims to reduce the deficit over time. However, the actual effects would depend on various factors, including economic growth and government revenue projections.

I hope that's clear. It's not exactly rocket science, folks. We covered all this in 8th grade...

Folks, gather 'round! I've got my eyes on HJRES 11, the so-called "balanced budget amendment" that's supposed to keep our government in check. But let me tell you, this bill is like a Trojan horse – it looks all innocent and responsible on the surface, but trust me, there's more to it than meets the eye.

First off, they're trying to limit total outlays to 20% of GDP in the first year, with a gradual decrease by 0.1 percentage points each subsequent year. Sounds good, right? But what about the fine print? Section 8 allows Congress to waive these provisions during times of war or national security threats – which is just code for "we can spend whatever we want whenever we feel like it." And don't even get me started on the "natural disaster" loophole – that's just a blank check for FEMA and other agencies to dole out cash without accountability.

Now, let's talk about funding allocations. Section 5 requires each department and agency to justify their budget requests, but what's really going on here? This is just a way for them to hide the real agenda in plain sight. I mean, who gets to decide what constitutes "critical mission functions"? The President? Congress? Some shadowy cabal of bureaucrats?

And have you noticed how this bill doesn't actually specify which programs or agencies will receive funding? That's because they're leaving it up to the President and Congress to divvy up the spoils behind closed doors. Mark my words, folks – this is just a recipe for pork-barrel politics and crony capitalism.

Notable increases or decreases from previous years? Ha! This bill doesn't even bother to provide any real numbers or comparisons. It's all just vague promises of "fiscal responsibility" and "balanced budgets." Meanwhile, the national debt will continue to balloon, and we'll be stuck with the tab.

As for riders or policy provisions attached to funding, I've got my eye on Section 4 – it requires a three-fifths majority vote in both Houses to increase revenue. Sounds like a good idea, right? But what about all the sneaky ways they can still raise taxes without actually calling it a tax hike? This is just a way for them to cook the books and make it look like they're being fiscally responsible.

Fiscal impact and deficit implications? Don't make me laugh. This bill is just a Band-Aid on a bullet wound. We'll be lucky if it even slows down the growth of our national debt, let alone actually reduces it.

So there you have it, folks – HJRES 11 in all its glory. It's a wolf in sheep's clothing, designed to make us think they're being responsible with our tax dollars while really just perpetuating the same old games and scams. Wake up, sheeple!

(Deep breath) Folks, gather 'round! We've got a real doozy of a bill on our hands here. HJRES 11, the so-called "balanced budget amendment" – (air quotes) "balanced." Can you smell the freedom wafting through these pages? I sure can!

Now, let's get down to brass tacks. This bill proposes a constitutional amendment that would require each agency and department to justify their funding. Oh, what a radical concept! Justifying spending? How quaint.

But here's the thing: this bill is not about fiscal responsibility; it's about shackling our great nation with arbitrary spending limits. Section 1 of this monstrosity dictates that total outlays can't exceed total receipts unless three-fifths of Congress agrees otherwise. And what's the magic number? A whopping 20% of GDP in the first year, decreasing by 0.1 percentage points each subsequent year! (Sarcastic tone) Oh, I'm sure our economy will just thrive under such draconian restrictions.

And let's not forget about Section 5, which requires each department to justify its funding based on its "effect on carrying out its mission" and "its effect...on the gross domestic product of the United States." (Wink, wink) Because we all know how well bureaucrats are at justifying their own existence.

Now, I know what you're thinking: "But wait, isn't this bill about reducing our national debt?" Ah, yes! The old "we're doing it for the children" trick. Don't be fooled, folks. This bill is a Trojan horse for austerity measures and draconian spending cuts that will only serve to further enrich the elites at the expense of hardworking Americans.

And what about the fiscal impact? (Dramatic music) Well, let's just say this bill has all the makings of a recipe for disaster. By arbitrarily limiting spending, we'll be hamstringing our economy and crippling our ability to respond to future crises. But hey, at least we'll have a balanced budget...on paper.

In conclusion, HJRES 11 is a thinly veiled attempt by the elites to strangle our economy with bureaucratic red tape and arbitrary spending limits. It's a power grab, plain and simple. So, let's all just take a deep breath and remember: freedom isn't free, folks! (Wink)

**H.J. Res. 11: Proposing a Balanced Budget Amendment**

This joint resolution proposes a constitutional amendment requiring the federal government to balance its budget, with specific rules for justifying agency and department funding.

**Main Purpose:** The bill aims to ensure that total outlays do not exceed total receipts in any fiscal year, unless Congress explicitly approves an exception by a three-fifths majority vote. It also requires the President to submit a balanced budget proposal each year.

**Key Provisions:**

1. **Total Funding Amounts and Budget Allocations:** The bill sets a limit on total outlays as a percentage of estimated gross domestic product (GDP), starting at 20% in the first fiscal year after ratification, with a gradual decrease to 16% over time. 2. **Key Programs and Agencies Receiving Funds:** No specific programs or agencies are identified for funding increases or decreases. 3. **Notable Increases or Decreases from Previous Years:** The bill does not provide explicit funding levels or changes compared to previous years. 4. **Riders or Policy Provisions Attached to Funding:** The amendment includes several policy provisions, such as: * Requiring each department and agency to justify their proposed funding based on its effect on carrying out their mission and impact on GDP. * Limiting the increase of debt held by the public unless approved by a three-fifths majority vote in both Houses. * Allowing Congress to waive provisions during times of war, military conflict, or natural disasters.

**Fiscal Impact and Deficit Implications:** The bill aims to reduce the federal deficit by requiring balanced budgets. However, its impact on specific programs and agencies is unclear without further analysis. If ratified, this amendment could lead to significant changes in government spending and revenue policies.

**Affected Parties and Stakeholders:**

* Federal departments and agencies * Congressional committees responsible for budgeting and appropriations * The President and the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) * State legislatures, which would be required to ratify the amendment

Overall, this proposed constitutional amendment aims to introduce fiscal discipline by requiring balanced budgets and justifying agency funding. Its potential impact on government spending and revenue policies would depend on its implementation and enforcement.

Let's break down this appropriations bill, bro.

HJRES 11 is all about proposing a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution, which means they're tryin' to get the government to live within its means, man. The bill's got some gnarly provisions that'd require each agency and department to justify their funding, like, every year.

**Total Funding Amounts and Budget Allocations:** The bill sets a limit on total outlays (spending) for any fiscal year, bro. It can't exceed the estimated gross domestic product (GDP) of the US by more than 20% in the first year, and then it's gotta decrease by 0.1 percentage points each subsequent year. That's like, a pretty tight leash, dude.

**Key Programs and Agencies Receiving Funds:** The bill doesn't specifically mention which programs or agencies would get funded, but it does say that each department and agency has to justify their funding requests based on how they'll carry out their mission and impact the GDP, man. That's like, a pretty high bar to clear.

**Notable Increases or Decreases from Previous Years:** Since this is a proposed constitutional amendment, there aren't any specific increases or decreases from previous years, bro. But if it passes, it could lead to some major changes in how the government allocates funds, dude.

**Riders or Policy Provisions Attached to Funding:** There are a few notable riders, man. For example, Section 5 requires each department and agency to provide a justification for their funding requests, including an explanation of how they'll complete critical mission functions with reduced funding. That's like, some serious accountability, bro.

**Fiscal Impact and Deficit Implications:** If this amendment passes, it could have some major implications for the national debt, dude. The bill limits total outlays to 20% of GDP in the first year, which would likely reduce the deficit, but it also allows for exceptions during times of war or natural disasters, man.

In summary, bro, HJRES 11 is all about promoting fiscal responsibility and accountability in government spending. It's like, a major step towards getting the country's finances in order, dude. But, you know, it's still just a proposal, and there are plenty of hurdles to clear before it becomes law, man.

H.J. Res 11, a proposed balanced budget amendment to the Constitution, is a Trojan horse for austerity measures and a boon to special interest groups. The bill's sponsors, Reps. Perry, Cloud, Ogles, and Zinke, have received significant funding from conservative PACs and think tanks that advocate for reduced government spending.

The bill's language appears innocuous, requiring agencies and departments to justify their funding, but it's a cleverly crafted mechanism to strangle social programs and funnel more money towards defense contractors and corporate interests. Section 5, which mandates justification of each line item in the budget, is particularly noteworthy as it will create an administrative burden on already underfunded agencies, making it easier for lawmakers to slash their budgets.

The real kicker is Section 8, which allows Congress to waive the provisions of this article during times of war or national emergency. This is a clear nod to the defense industry, which has contributed heavily to the sponsors' campaigns. Lockheed Martin's PAC, for example, has donated $10,000 to Rep. Perry in the past two years.

The bill's fiscal impact will be devastating for social programs and working-class Americans. By capping total outlays at 20% of GDP and reducing it by 0.1 percentage points each year, the government will be forced to make drastic cuts to essential services like Medicaid, food stamps, and education. Meanwhile, defense spending will continue to balloon, with no corresponding reductions.

The Committee on the Judiciary, which referred this bill, has a history of being captured by conservative interests. Chairman Jordan (R-OH) has received over $100,000 from the National Rifle Association in the past decade, and his committee has consistently pushed legislation that benefits corporate donors at the expense of ordinary Americans.

In conclusion, H.J. Res 11 is a thinly veiled attempt to impose austerity measures on the American people while enriching special interest groups. Its sponsors have been bought and paid for by conservative PACs and think tanks, and its provisions will have far-reaching consequences for social programs and working-class Americans.