Balanced Budget Amendment

[Dagger]

What do you guys think about a Balanced Budget Amendment to the constitution? Personally I think it would be a great amendment except for the fact that Democrats and some Republicans would relentlessly raise taxes to comply with the amendment. A possible solution to this is have a 5 year fixed tax rate, basically saying the government cant raise taxes in order to comply with the balanced budget amendment unless there is a 3/4 majority to do so. Also, congress members would get a pay cut if the budget wasnt balanced in time.

Thoughts?

 

[Smart]

I support the same balanced budget amendment that Reagan tried to pass in 1982.

No changes. No compromise.

We can probably accomplish it after the 2012 elections if we get the 53-56 seats I think we will get. Many Dems will vote for a BBA. If we just get the magic 60 we can send it to the states, who will definitely agree to it!

 

[TheLastIndependent]

Balanced budget ammendment is a good idea. I wouldn't necessarily make it an ammendment though. Sometimes, a balanced budget may not cut it. You can't cut something just because you need more defense spending

 

[sangha]

What do you guys think about a Balanced Budget Amendment to the constitution? Personally I think it would be a great amendment except for the fact that Democrats and some Republicans would relentlessly raise taxes to comply with the amendment. A possible solution to this is have a 5 year fixed tax rate, basically saying the government cant raise taxes in order to comply with the balanced budget amendment unless there is a 3/4 majority to do so. Also, congress members would get a pay cut if the budget wasnt balanced in time.

Thoughts?

Why yes! After all, history has dozens of examples of nations that prospered under the requirement of balancing budgets. That is, if by "dozens" you mean "none"

 

[Neomalthusian]

It is national self-sabotage to limit our purchases to what we can actually afford to purchase. This is America. We can grow and prosper forever.



/sarcasm

 

[Smart]

Why yes! After all, history has dozens of examples of nations that prospered under the requirement of balancing budgets. That is, if by "dozens" you mean "none"

Socially tolerant, fiscally liberal? Wouldn't that make you liberal and not an independent?

 

[Neomalthusian]

Socially tolerant, fiscally liberal? Wouldn't that make you liberal and not an independent?

When sangha describes his lean as "Independent," what he means is that he no longer lives at his parents' house.


We can allege whatever we want when we select our lean. Personally I lean left. Politically though I lean right. :lamo

 

[sangha]

Socially tolerant, fiscally liberal? Wouldn't that make you liberal and not an independent?

I'm not a liberal; I'm a socialist and liberal nor socialist are not mutually exclusive with independent

 

[ChunkySalsa]

I agree with the basic Keynesian principle of deficit spending during recessions and paying down the debt during the booms. A balanced budget amendment would tie their hands and prevent the government from moderating the excesses of the market. We should work to balance the budget, but preventing unemployed people from rioting in the streets is a higher priority.

 

[sangha]

When sangha describes his lean as "Independent," what he means is that he no longer lives at his parents' house.

And I go commando

 

[Smart]

I'm not a liberal; I'm a socialist and liberal nor socialist are not mutually exclusive with independent

Right, I suppose you consider yourself a Bernie Sanders type. Correct?

Most independents are still Capitalist, I didn't know you were Socialist or I wouldn't have said anything.

 

[Neomalthusian]

And I go commando

Double independent, then. :shock:

 

[sangha]

Right, I suppose you consider yourself a Bernie Sanders type. Correct?

Most independents are still Capitalist, I didn't know you were Socialist or I wouldn't have said anything.

Yes, Bernie Sanders is about as cool as a politician can get

 

[Luna Tick]

What do you guys think about a Balanced Budget Amendment to the constitution? Personally I think it would be a great amendment except for the fact that Democrats and some Republicans would relentlessly raise taxes to comply with the amendment. A possible solution to this is have a 5 year fixed tax rate, basically saying the government cant raise taxes in order to comply with the balanced budget amendment unless there is a 3/4 majority to do so. Also, congress members would get a pay cut if the budget wasnt balanced in time.

Thoughts?

I'd like to see a balanced budget amendment, but not the one you describe. It should simply say the budget has to be in balance, except in times of war. However, we have to go back to Congress having to approve a declaration of war, and it should prohibit "police actions" like Vietnam. In other words, we don't ever send soldiers into any conflict without prior Congressional approval for that specific action. It should be illegal for Congress to give up this right to the president (or anyone else). What I'm trying to avoid is the government keeping us in a perpetual state of war as an excuse to not balance the budget. We should be able to unbalance the budget in a true emergency such as when we had to fight Hitler and Imperial Japan.

 

[a351]

No, it would be a highly counterproductive measure to pursue at the given moment.

 

[code1211]

What do you guys think about a Balanced Budget Amendment to the constitution? Personally I think it would be a great amendment except for the fact that Democrats and some Republicans would relentlessly raise taxes to comply with the amendment. A possible solution to this is have a 5 year fixed tax rate, basically saying the government cant raise taxes in order to comply with the balanced budget amendment unless there is a 3/4 majority to do so. Also, congress members would get a pay cut if the budget wasnt balanced in time.

Thoughts?

Maybe a good addition would be that the maximum budget in any year could not exceed the revenues of the previous complete year.

The budget in 2013 could not exceed the revenues collected in 2011 and so on. Also, the first dollar could not be spent if no budget was submitted and approved. Continuing resolutions would be a thing of the past.

 

[code1211]

Why yes! After all, history has dozens of examples of nations that prospered under the requirement of balancing budgets. That is, if by "dozens" you mean "none"

Various states have balanced budget amendments and I would bet without checking, that no state without such an amendment has a balanced budget on an ongoing basis.

 

[code1211]

Socially tolerant, fiscally liberal? Wouldn't that make you liberal and not an independent?

That's what I understand a Liberal to be.

 

[code1211]

I agree with the basic Keynesian principle of deficit spending during recessions and paying down the debt during the booms. A balanced budget amendment would tie their hands and prevent the government from moderating the excesses of the market. We should work to balance the budget, but preventing unemployed people from rioting in the streets is a higher priority.

Maybe a part of the budgeting process would need to include the establishment and maintenance of a Rainy Day fund.

 

[code1211]

No, it would be a highly counterproductive measure to pursue at the given moment.

We are 15 trillion in debt sand rising like the debt was riding an Atlas rocket.

When might be a better time to try and rein in spending?

 

[a351]

We are 15 trillion in debt sand rising like the debt was riding an Atlas rocket.

When might be a better time to try and rein in spending?

When doing so wouldn't put the clamps on short term growth. (i.e. when we're in shouting distance of quasi normal labor market conditions.)

 

[Luna Tick]

We are 15 trillion in debt sand rising like the debt was riding an Atlas rocket.

When might be a better time to try and rein in spending?

I believe he's referring to the fragile state of the economy. If we were to suddenly balance the budget by raising a bunch of taxes or by drastically cutting services, it would put us in a world of hurt. This could be counteracted by allowing the first balanced budget to happen gradually. Maybe it gets balanced over a 5 to 7 year period.

Congress should also be allowed to unbalance it to deal with true emergencies like we had to with World War II. Then we have to find a way to prevent the government from drumming up some bogus conflict as an excuse to unbalance the budget.

 

[Chiefgator]

I agree with the basic Keynesian principle of deficit spending during recessions and paying down the debt during the booms. A balanced budget amendment would tie their hands and prevent the government from moderating the excesses of the market. We should work to balance the budget, but preventing unemployed people from rioting in the streets is a higher priority.

Except that the basic principle has never really been followed... The Debt does not get paid down during booms, because politicians don't want to be associated with being the one that raised taxes to pay the bills. That is one of the fundamental flaws of Keynesian.

 

[code1211]

I believe he's referring to the fragile state of the economy. If we were to suddenly balance the budget by raising a bunch of taxes or by drastically cutting services, it would put us in a world of hurt. This could be counteracted by allowing the first balanced budget to happen gradually. Maybe it gets balanced over a 5 to 7 year period.

Congress should also be allowed to unbalance it to deal with true emergencies like we had to with World War II. Then we have to find a way to prevent the government from drumming up some bogus conflict as an excuse to unbalance the budget.

The gradual approach is the best one, as long as it's not too gradual. 10 years or less.

Any "emergency" loophole will be exploited. If the budget balance can be abandoned for a "national emergency", there will be a national emergency every freaking year and we all know that's true.

Our lawmakers are like junkies and money is their drug. You can't seriously think they can control themselves when they never have before , do you?

 

[Luna Tick]

Maybe a part of the budgeting process would need to include the establishment and maintenance of a Rainy Day fund.

I do like that idea, except that I fear politicians will find numerous excuses to raid it like they did the Social Security Trust Fund. We would need to set it up so that there are serious political consequences for raiding the emergency fund without a serious and compelling reason. What drove me nuts when Clinton and the Congress finally had the budget balanced, every politician had a plan for how to spend the surplus. Did any politician consider NOT spending it? How about paying down the debt with it, especially the part of the raided SS Trust Fund.

The gradual approach is the best one, as long as it's not too gradual. 10 years or less.

Any "emergency" loophole will be exploited. If the budget balance can be abandoned for a "national emergency", there will be a national emergency every freaking year and we all know that's true.

Our lawmakers are like junkies and money is their drug. You can't seriously think they can control themselves when they never have before , do you?

That does concern me, but I'm glad we weren't required to have a balanced budget during WW II. That was truly a justified reason for deficit spending. We were facing a dangerous enemy that likely would have destroyed us if they had won. The emergencies allowed would have to be very clearly defined, meaning we can deficit spend if our very survival is at stake. This has to go hand in hand with allowing for war ONLY when Congress authorizes a specific war. No more of this BS of giving the president authority to act without a formal declaration.

I agree with the basic Keynesian principle of deficit spending during recessions and paying down the debt during the booms. A balanced budget amendment would tie their hands and prevent the government from moderating the excesses of the market. We should work to balance the budget, but preventing unemployed people from rioting in the streets is a higher priority.

What I wonder is if we could be Keynesian without any deficit spending at all. I like the idea of a rainy day fund that would be similar to the strategic oil reserve. When times are booming it's strictly hands off the rainy day fund. When the economy sucks, we're allowed to stimulate the economy with that fund. That way we end the cycle of borrowing and paying so much interest.