It all depends on what you mean by balanced. If you mean NO ability to borrow ever, even in times of war, then it would not be workable. If you were to limit the ability of the gov't to do as it now does, which is to simply spend as much as they wish, without regard to any real limits, then yes. The devil is in those details. Since states need not worry about such matters as wars, they work reasonably well under true balanced budgets.
I do fear that any exception for "war" would simply guarantee congress would seek to constantly keep us in a declared state of "war", just as they used the "emergency declaration" for the 2010 census (a 200+ year tradition) expense to skip even that NORMAL and EXPECTED expense from being covered by their silly "pay go" budget rules.
The best idea, IMHO, is to limit the total peacetime spending budget of the federal gov't to a fixed percentage of the past year's ACTUAL GDP. A mandatory amount of principle repayment percentage of the national debt should also be included. Obama has increased federal spending by 20% over that of Bush, which was already WAY too high. Everybody seemed "happy" with the Clinton federal budgets that had federal spending at about 19% of GDP, I personally think that 18% of GDP is a much better target.
Obama is now spending well over 24% of GDP at the federal level and that is clearly not working out well, even Bush, while spending at 20% of GDP, was running large federal deficits in every year of his presidency. It seems clear that the congress is unwilling to tax "we the sheeple" at anything above 18% of GDP, so it only seems logical to TRY to limit peacetime federal spending to that level as well.
If we place no limits on federal spending then we will sonn become like Greece yet, we are definitely "too big to bail".
Last edited by ttwtt78640; 07-15-12 at 08:51 PM.
“The reasonable man adapts himself to the world: the unreasonable one persists to adapt the world to himself.
Therefore all progress depends on the unreasonable man.” ― George Bernard Shaw, Man and Superman
On the other hand, you could look at the history of our debt and simply ban Republicans from running for President. That would do more for our deficits than a ammendment which would take a decade to get ratified.
Last edited by iguanaman; 07-15-12 at 09:07 PM.