<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<feed xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <title>Open Congress : Comments on S.J.Res.24 A joint resolution proposing a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution of the United States.</title>
  <link href="http://www.opencongress.org/comments/atom/bill/47516" rel="self"/>
  <updated>2008-03-08T23:34:07Z</updated>
  <author>
    <name>opencongress.org</name>
  </author>
  <id>tag:opencongress.org,2007:/bill/comments/47516</id>
  <entry>
    <title>New comment by EricMcpherson</title>
    <link href="/comments/atom/bill/47516" rel="alternate"/>
    <updated>2008-03-08T23:34:07Z</updated>
    <id>tag:opencongress.org,2008-03-08:/comment/2559</id>
    <author>
      <name>EricMcpherson</name>
    </author>
    <content type="html">
I am for this bill, however, ther shouldn't be any allowance for the government to try and vote whether it is a majority to go over the reciepts. And I was hoping that the government would try to do this before 2012. Way way before.    </content>
  </entry>
  <entry>
    <title>New comment by judithkratochvil</title>
    <link href="/comments/atom/bill/47516" rel="alternate"/>
    <updated>2008-01-15T07:45:01Z</updated>
    <id>tag:opencongress.org,2008-01-15:/comment/167</id>
    <author>
      <name>judithkratochvil</name>
    </author>
    <content type="html">
I agree with this proposal. However, there would have to be legislation ready to be debated on the floor of both houses upon ratification that would place limits and explain other potential waiver situations. It would also have to disallow the constant use of supplemental spending for an on going conflict.    </content>
  </entry>
</feed>
