Please disable your Ad Blocker to better interact with this website.

Chuck Norris Wants a Balanced Budget Amendment. Don’t Mess With Chuck!


In a recent editorial Chuck Norris has come out in favor of a balanced budget amendment. His proposal would require a convention of the states, but that convention would be limited to the balanced-budget amendment not completely rewriting the Constitution.

Washington’s out-of-control outlays remind me of the words of President Ronald Reagan, who said, “We could say they spend money like drunken sailors, but that would be unfair to drunken sailors. It would be unfair, because the sailors are spending their own money.”

But alas, there’s finally hope on the horizon to control the federal fiscal insanity by the states’ initiative to force a balanced budget amendment via an Article V constitutional convention.


[The] first objection of a federal BBA is that it would put the U.S. economy in further jeopardy during recessions or years with lower federal revenue by forcing policymakers to cut spending, raise taxes or both; hence, ultimately leading to higher deficits and a weaker economy, or so they say.

However, Barry Poulson, professor of Economics at the University of Colorado, disagrees.

In his Forbes opinion column, Poulson explained that a greater risk to our future economy exists if we sit back and allow the same Washington fiscal insanity to continue. If left to more of the same, our country will reach a point of no return in which nothing will help to avoid economic collapse.


Opponents’ second objection of the BBA is that, if the states force a convention, the Constitution could be at risk for alterations besides the balanced-budget amendment, because “anything could happen.”

Dr. Poulson rebuts this objection by explaining that “state legislators are addressing this fear of a ‘runaway convention’ by enacting a companion bill referred to as the ‘delegate limitation act.’ The ‘delegate limitation act’ requires that delegates to the amendment convention consider only the single subject of a balanced budget amendment, and subjects them to recall and penalties if they fail to follow these instructions.”

We like Poulson’s idea. We don’t like the idea of a constitutional convention as it has been proposed by people like Mark Levin. We feel it opens the doors to progressive tinkering. That problem appears to be solvable with Poulson’s idea of the “delegate limitation.”

Twenty-five states are already on record as favoring a balanced budget amendment. Thirty-four states are required to ratify a new amendment. We could be within striking distance of stopping runaway spending in Washington.


Join the conversation!

We have no tolerance for comments containing violence, racism, vulgarity, profanity, all caps, or discourteous behavior. Thank you for partnering with us to maintain a courteous and useful public environment where we can engage in reasonable discourse.

About Author

Michael Becker is a long time activist and a businessman. He's been involved in the pro-life movement since 1976 and has been counseling addicts and ministering to prison inmates since 1980. Becker is a Curmudgeon. He has decades of experience as an operations executive in turnaround situations and in mortgage banking. He blogs regularly at The Right Curmudgeon, The Minority Report, Wizbang, Unified Patriots and Joe for America. He lives in Phoenix and is almost always armed.

Send this to a friend