Balanced Budget Amendment - Good Idea? Bad Idea?

the states seem to have survived. and anything that would prove a restraint on the growth of government (say, a BBA that holds government expenditures to 17% of GDP except in cases of emergencies, requiring a supermajority of the congress) would be helpful. good idea.

Baralis said:

The only problem with this idea is if congress suddenly found themselves with a budget shortfall they would simply ratchet up taxes to meed expenditures insuring their eligibility for reelection.

Click to expand...

easily fixed - hold spending to a particular percentage and mandate across-the-board cuts of the necessary percentage in all cases not receiving a supermajority vote.

They will pass amendments to amendments to allow either side when in power to over fund their own pet projects or unbalance the budget when they choose...

Click to expand...

To follow your logic, you could write an admendment that could not be amended. The people in power probably wouldn't do this, but everything that we think is ideal is possible.

I agree with the Warren Buffet quote. These men and women are probably the most incompetent leaders we could have. They really should be made accountable.

I said "Bad Idea". With exceptions suppose I could see it working. For one, I can't see a one year cycle working. To me a budget period needs to to include the top of a peak and the bottom of recession. Put another way, the exceptions need to be more than just war and natural disaster, but also include the natural upswings and downswings in the economy. Capitalism is violent and there's no reason that a federal government can't trim the peaks to fill the valleys and add some stability. That said, you'd need a mechanism counter or unwind the exceptions in time of growth. Unfortunately these are all complex problems that I'm not sure fall under a balanced budget concept which is why I can't see a it flying in a general sense.