Splitting the difference is a major problem here. The Republicans are incentivized to be as crazy as possible because attitudes like yours, and most editorial boards will just split the difference assuming 2 valid points of view. So the crazier you are, the further the split will be in your direction.
PS: A basic functional strategy would be to block any Democratic bill in the senate and then pass a poison pill in the house which they can then present as the "only option to avoid default". Instead their only option is compromising in the Senate so they can get enough Dem support in the House to pass something. However, they are still acting like they can pass something in the House and blocking legislation in the Senate.
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/24/opinion/sunday/24sun4.html
keep in mind the group that passed this bill were not in the congress 2 years ago, let alone 10. Also keep in mind the republican leadership that was in office the last 10 years did not endorse or get behind the cut, cap, balance bill either. T
* Boehner has been in the House since 1991 and has been in a senior position for most of the time since 1995, so he has his part in the history.
* If a balanced budget amendment was such a major priority, there was plenty of time to pass it when President Bush was in office and raising the debt limit. This isn't about the principle but the opponent, amply illustrated by the reams of incoherent, provably incorrect slurs against President Obama from Tea Party activists.
* The proposals currently being insisted upon produce less savings than Democratic proposals but with the means to re-ignite this debate during next year's election campaign; their motive isn't a fiscally responsible solution but an attempt to inflict political damage.
* While it's true that Tea Party supporters weren't in congress 2 years ago, they're not there now in substantial numbers either. To argue that a small group of inexperienced politicians backing an incredibly economically naive platform should be allowed to have the final say is absurd; they are being used as cover by the Republican leadership.
* If the priority was truly balancing the finances then the targets would be different. Bush's top-end tax cuts were a huge contributor to the deficit yet are being treated as sacrosanct. US military spending is 5 times the nearest rival (China) and approximately equal to the next 20 biggest spenders; this is ego and corporate welfare, and a far better source of savings than the soft targets proposed. Equally if the healthcare bill combined with Medicare and Medicaid was too expensive in its current form (somewhat surprising given the CBO forecast savings rather than increased costs from its introduction) then the correct answer is not repeal but extension - single payer, whenever examined, has been cheaper. http://www.pnhp.org/facts/single_payer_system_cost.php?page=...
So, I repeat myself. What the Republican leadership is proposing, including a balanced budget amendment, is not fiscally responsible measures to try to regain control of American government finances. It is ridiculous grandstanding to try and inflict political damage on their opponent by deliberate misrepresentation of the both the history and the facts.
Your assessment of the republican leadership is correct, your assessment of the tea party caucus is off. It will probably play out the same as the 94 republican revolution, where the leadership takes over the movement and resumes deficit spending.
The goal is not spending or balanced budget per se, the goal is to maximize freedom and minimize the impact of the federal government on the individual citizen. So single payer health care is not optimal if you value freedom of choice. If your only criteria is cost, then we should just make all doctors and nurses slaves, because that is cheap.
'Freedom' is one of those 'motherhood and apple pie' terms that gets thrown about, but with very little rigour behind its use. Freedom to what, exactly? The alleged virtuous benefits for freedom of the current healthcare situation (as you brought up that one in particular) are somewhat illusory to my mind when the current limited offering is costing the taxpayer more - financial freedom would be enhanced, not diminished, by a more comprehensive offering, while providing improved service. There's no realistic proposal to limit one's choice to pay for alternative treatment if one prefers, but the current system is, frankly, provably a waste of money.
Chanting "cut cap and balance" repeatedly without any substance behind it is the definition of grandstanding.
Of course, it doesn't justify the claim, but it might trick people into believing it if they aren't paying attention.
(The contrast between South Korea and North Korea is, of course, even more striking. But I did not grow up in Korea.)
A truly irrational person is a rare thing. If you are unable to explain the actions of your opponent in any other way then the fault lies within you, not them.