Is it Time for a Balanced Budget Amendment for the Federal Government and All States?

The title sort of says it all. An amendment making deficit financing illegal, except in times of declared war, for the governments of all fifty states and the Federal Government. Compliance could be phased in over a five or ten year period but once the cutoff date was reached governments could only spend what they raised in revenues each year. Should this also be applied to municipal and county governments?

This would also force Administrations to come to Congress for declarations of war if large scale (expensive) military operations were to be conducted. Of course there might also be a perverse incentive to start wars in order to over-spend revenues. But after a few such attempts, I think the American electorate would catch on and put a stop to that.

So what do Americans think? Is real and enforceable fiscal restraint worthy of a constitutional amendment?

Cheers.
Evilroddy.

Re: Is it Time for a Balanced Budget Amendment for the Federal Government and All Sta

Evilroddy said:

The title sort of says it all. An amendment making deficit financing illegal except in times of declared war for the governments of all fifty states and the Federal Government. Compliance could be phased in over a five or ten year period but once the cutoff was reached governments could only spend what the raised in revenues. Should this also be applied to municipal and county governments?

This would also force Administrations to come to Congress for declarations of war if large scale (expensive) military operations were to be conducted. Of course there might also be a perverse incentive to start wars in order to over-spend revenues. But after a few such attempts, I think the American electorate would catch on and put a stop to that.

So what do Americans think? Is real and enforceable fiscal restraint worthy of a constitutional amendment?

Cheers.
Evilroddy.

Click to expand...

I'm all for it. I was for it way back when Reagan first proposed it.

Re: Is it Time for a Balanced Budget Amendment for the Federal Government and All Sta

Evilroddy said:

The title sort of says it all. An amendment making deficit financing illegal, except in times of declared war, for the governments of all fifty states and the Federal Government. Compliance could be phased in over a five or ten year period but once the cutoff date was reached governments could only spend what they raised in revenues each year. Should this also be applied to municipal and county governments?

This would also force Administrations to come to Congress for declarations of war if large scale (expensive) military operations were to be conducted. Of course there might also be a perverse incentive to start wars in order to over-spend revenues. But after a few such attempts, I think the American electorate would catch on and put a stop to that.

So what do Americans think? Is real and enforceable fiscal restraint worthy of a constitutional amendment?

Cheers.
Evilroddy.

Click to expand...

anyone else see where this would go? we would be at war forever just to keep the endless money spigot open .........

Re: Is it Time for a Balanced Budget Amendment for the Federal Government and All Sta

The problem with this is what gets cut? The Democrats will want to cut defense, the Republicans will want to cut social programs. No one will agree. Everything will be a “poison pill”.

Re: Is it Time for a Balanced Budget Amendment for the Federal Government and All Sta

No. Deficit spending is not always the worst thing in the world.

Re: Is it Time for a Balanced Budget Amendment for the Federal Government and All Sta

cuban smokes said:

anyone else see where this would go? we would be at war forever just to keep the endless money spigot open .........

Click to expand...

cuban smokes:

The US is already in a defacto state of near perpetual war already. This would "out" the militarism and make the Congress explicitly endorse it. Then the electorate could see who voted for war and toss their hawkish butts to the curb. I agree that the perverse incentive is there but I think the countervailing pressure to not keep voting for war or face the wrath of the American electorate every two years would impose a discipline on Congress to not rubber-stamp war. If that became a problem then maybe a clause in the balanced budget amendment that Congressional salaries and campaign war chests must be cut by 30% in any year that a war is declared or being fought (as Congresses part in the war effort) might constrain abuse of this.

Cheers.
Evilroddy.

Re: Is it Time for a Balanced Budget Amendment for the Federal Government and All Sta

No.

It is a ridiculously short-sighted means of rendering one's government unable to deal with emergencies without causing others.

Re: Is it Time for a Balanced Budget Amendment for the Federal Government and All Sta

The problem is that everything is considered an emergency. We never cut spending. We cut the future growth of spending.

Re: Is it Time for a Balanced Budget Amendment for the Federal Government and All Sta

Evilroddy said:

The title sort of says it all.

Click to expand...

So does the following answer:

Hahahahahaha

There is absolutely no way that would pass. It would be an utter disaster if it did, too.

Balancing the budget in 5 or 10 years is pretty much impossible. Nearly 75% of our budget goes to Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, Defense, VA and balancing the budget. Republicans are obsessed with cutting taxes, a move that will only increase the deficit.

Not to mention that if the federal government cut spending by $600 billion, that would have an enormous negative effect on GDP. It'd cause a nice little recession -- which would reduce revenues, and require even more cuts, which would exacerbate the recession and further reduce revenues, requiring more cuts....

Last but not least, debt is not a big issue. I've been hearing people bitch about debt since the 80s, and the crisis they keep promising? It never happens. We can easily cover our interest payments, and public debt never actually needs to be paid off in full.

We also see how state-level balanced-budget requirements (most states have them) cause all sorts of issues, especially for those tax-cutting Republicans. Kansas, for example, slashed taxes at the instigation of Richard Laffer. This resulted in year after year after year of fiscal crises, with the state -- which already spent as little as possible -- needing to raid its rainy day fund, slash education spending, pillage its highway funds, and after several years even Republicans realized they needed to increase taxes.

An amendment making deficit financing illegal, except in times of declared war, for the governments of all fifty states and the Federal Government.

Click to expand...

Does that include the War on Terror? The war in Afghanistan? Against ISIS?

So what do Americans think? Is real and enforceable fiscal restraint worthy of a constitutional amendment?

Click to expand...

Americans are kind of nuts.

They want services, but don't want to pay for it.

They will insist in one minute they want a balanced budget, then scream bloody murder when Congress cuts defense spending, Social Security and Medicare.

Re: Is it Time for a Balanced Budget Amendment for the Federal Government and All Sta

I don't mind if politicians borrow money, but the debt should be transferred to them personally at the end of each term, and they can't discharge it through bankruptcy. So if a government owes 1 trillion dollars after four years, and there are 535 congressmen + 1 president, then 1 trillion dollars/536 politicians = just under 2 billion dollars owed by each politician. None of them would dare to borrow that much money at such a high personal risk; and regardless, the new government will never be stuck with the bad decisions of its predecessor.

Re: Is it Time for a Balanced Budget Amendment for the Federal Government and All Sta

Visbek said:

So does the following answer:

Hahahahahaha

There is absolutely no way that would pass. It would be an utter disaster if it did, too.

Balancing the budget in 5 or 10 years is pretty much impossible. Nearly 75% of our budget goes to Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, Defense, VA and balancing the budget. Republicans are obsessed with cutting taxes, a move that will only increase the deficit.

Not to mention that if the federal government cut spending by $600 billion, that would have an enormous negative effect on GDP. It'd cause a nice little recession -- which would reduce revenues, and require even more cuts, which would exacerbate the recession and further reduce revenues, requiring more cuts....

Last but not least, debt is not a big issue. I've been hearing people bitch about debt since the 80s, and the crisis they keep promising? It never happens. We can easily cover our interest payments, and public debt never actually needs to be paid off in full.

We also see how state-level balanced-budget requirements (most states have them) cause all sorts of issues, especially for those tax-cutting Republicans. Kansas, for example, slashed taxes at the instigation of Richard Laffer. This resulted in year after year after year of fiscal crises, with the state -- which already spent as little as possible -- needing to raid its rainy day fund, slash education spending, pillage its highway funds, and after several years even Republicans realized they needed to increase taxes.



Does that include the War on Terror? The war in Afghanistan? Against ISIS?



Americans are kind of nuts.

They want services, but don't want to pay for it.

They will insist in one minute they want a balanced budget, then scream bloody murder when Congress cuts defense spending, Social Security and Medicare.

Click to expand...

So your vote is with endless deficit spending, and ever-increasing debt in perpetuity. I'm shocked, shocked I tell ya.

Re: Is it Time for a Balanced Budget Amendment for the Federal Government and All Sta

Perotista said:

I'm all for it. I was for it way back when Reagan first proposed it.

Click to expand...

After pushing through tax cuts for the rich and big increases in military spending Reagan had nerve advocating a balanced budget amendment.

A balanced budget amendment is like a resolution to begin a diet and exercise program six months from now, while in the mean time taking it easy and pigging out on junk food.

Deficits exist because of the Republican delusion that it always a good idea to cut taxes and never a good idea to increase them. In addition, Republicans like to start wars and spend more money on the military, even during peace time.

Re: Is it Time for a Balanced Budget Amendment for the Federal Government and All Sta

countryboy said:

So your vote is with endless deficit spending, and ever-increasing debt in perpetuity. I'm shocked, shocked I tell ya.

Click to expand...

If you are opposed to deficit spending I guess you are also opposed to Trump's plan to cut taxes.

Republicans keep saying, "We need to cut taxes in order to grow the economy." Nevertheless, taxes, and growth in the per capita gross domestic product, the job market, and the stock market have usually been higher under Democrat presidents.

Re: Is it Time for a Balanced Budget Amendment for the Federal Government and All Sta

As soon as Republicans demand that the top tax rate be raised to 90%, like it was during the 1950's, that is how soon I will believe they are serious about balancing the budget.

Re: Is it Time for a Balanced Budget Amendment for the Federal Government and All Sta

SmartCat said:

After pushing through tax cuts for the rich and big increases in military spending Reagan had nerve advocating a balanced budget amendment.

A balanced budget amendment is like a resolution to begin a diet and exercise program six months from now, while in the mean time taking it easy and pigging out on junk food.

Deficits exist because of the Republican delusion that it always a good idea to cut taxes and never a good idea to increase them. In addition, Republicans like to start wars and spend more money on the military, even during peace time.

Click to expand...

Me thinks you are laying on the GOP a bit heavy. Reagan tax cuts, he had to get a Democratic House to go along with them. Without the Democrats who controlled the house where the budget authorizations begin, where spending begins, there would never have been his tax cuts without their approval. Deficit spending usually has to be a two party street. Not always, but in Reagan's case it was.

Yes, I find it humorous that a president who ran up these big deficits would call for a balance budget amendment. But I'm still for it regardless of proposed it.

Re: Is it Time for a Balanced Budget Amendment for the Federal Government and All Sta

Evilroddy said:

The title sort of says it all. An amendment making deficit financing illegal, except in times of declared war, for the governments of all fifty states and the Federal Government. Compliance could be phased in over a five or ten year period but once the cutoff date was reached governments could only spend what they raised in revenues each year. Should this also be applied to municipal and county governments?

This would also force Administrations to come to Congress for declarations of war if large scale (expensive) military operations were to be conducted. Of course there might also be a perverse incentive to start wars in order to over-spend revenues. But after a few such attempts, I think the American electorate would catch on and put a stop to that.

So what do Americans think? Is real and enforceable fiscal restraint worthy of a constitutional amendment?

Cheers.
Evilroddy.

Click to expand...

Regardless the pros and cons of a balanced budget amendment, I would have to say "no" to the question in your title.

1. It takes so long to go through the process of enacting an amendment that by the time it IS enacted, it might not be a good time to do so.

2. We should take the pulse of the left-wing Mainstream Media before considering starting such action. With their power nowadays, they could make such an amendment a dead deal or a shoo-in.

3. Thanks to the divisiveness created by the Mainstream Media, considering such an amendment at this time would only increase division amongst our citizens. Not a good thing, in my opinion.


Now...in respect to the pros and cons of the idea, I have to come down on the side of no.

1. The Founding Fathers didn't put this kind of thing into the Constitution because they knew it would hamstring the government in time of great need or emergency.

2. Instead, they chose to depend upon statesmen and politicians to reign in borrowing and spending...and the people to keep those statesmen and politicians in line.

3. You speak about the "American electorate" catching on to politicians using your weasel out clause and putting a stop to it. I don't share your confidence. This electorate hasn't been concerned enough to keep their own statesmen and politicians in line for the last 50 years, what makes you think they'll care now? Because of war? As long as it's not on OUR soil, the American people...as a whole...don't care about war.

Re: Is it Time for a Balanced Budget Amendment for the Federal Government and All Sta

Perotista said:

Me thinks you are laying on the GOP a bit heavy. Reagan tax cuts, he had to get a Democratic House to go along with them. Without the Democrats who controlled the house where the budget authorizations begin, where spending begins, there would never have been his tax cuts without their approval. Deficit spending usually has to be a two party street. Not always, but in Reagan's case it was.

Yes, I find it humorous that a president who ran up these big deficits would call for a balance budget amendment. But I'm still for it regardless of proposed it.

Click to expand...

Everyone in Congress who voted for tax cuts and increases in the military budget shares responsibility for the tripling of the national debt under Ronald Reagan. Many Democrats in Congress lacked the will to stand up to Reagan because they knew that he carried their districts or states by larger majorities than they did.

Cutting taxes while increasing military spending was Reagan's idea, so he has most of the guilt for the huge deficits of the Reagan years.

Currently there is little support for specific cuts in the federal budget, and much support for higher taxes on the rich. That is why Bernie Sanders is the most popular politician in the United States. He almost certainly would have defeated Trump in the general election.

Evilroddy said:

The title sort of says it all. An amendment making deficit financing illegal, except in times of declared war, for the governments of all fifty states and the Federal Government. Compliance could be phased in over a five or ten year period but once the cutoff date was reached governments could only spend what they raised in revenues each year. Should this also be applied to municipal and county governments?

This would also force Administrations to come to Congress for declarations of war if large scale (expensive) military operations were to be conducted. Of course there might also be a perverse incentive to start wars in order to over-spend revenues. But after a few such attempts, I think the American electorate would catch on and put a stop to that.

So what do Americans think? Is real and enforceable fiscal restraint worthy of a constitutional amendment?

Cheers.
Evilroddy.

Click to expand...

No. It's time that the people of this country got off our asses and started payin attention to business.

Evilroddy said:

The title sort of says it all. An amendment making deficit financing illegal, except in times of declared war, for the governments of all fifty states and the Federal Government. Compliance could be phased in over a five or ten year period but once the cutoff date was reached governments could only spend what they raised in revenues each year. Should this also be applied to municipal and county governments?

This would also force Administrations to come to Congress for declarations of war if large scale (expensive) military operations were to be conducted. Of course there might also be a perverse incentive to start wars in order to over-spend revenues. But after a few such attempts, I think the American electorate would catch on and put a stop to that.

So what do Americans think? Is real and enforceable fiscal restraint worthy of a constitutional amendment?

Cheers.
Evilroddy.

Click to expand...

The US has tried this several times, it led to disastrous financial collapse every time, usually before the policy was even fully implemented. A governments and businesses are not households, and thus it would be completely silly to apply household economics to a business or a government.

So, no, I think it would be absolutely senseless and actively harmful to implement such a foolish amendment. The US should continuously re-invest in the future. That's how all modern governments and businesses work. But if you want to really see America fall into a second-world nation (I mean, faster than it's already headed there), then definitely pass this amendment.

Re: Is it Time for a Balanced Budget Amendment for the Federal Government and All Sta

SmartCat said:

Everyone in Congress who voted for tax cuts and increases in the military budget shares responsibility for the tripling of the national debt under Ronald Reagan. Many Democrats in Congress lacked the will to stand up to Reagan because they knew that he carried their districts or states by larger majorities than they did.

Cutting taxes while increasing military spending was Reagan's idea, so he has most of the guilt for the huge deficits of the Reagan years.

Currently there is little support for specific cuts in the federal budget, and much support for higher taxes on the rich. That is why Bernie Sanders is the most popular politician in the United States. He almost certainly would have defeated Trump in the general election.

Click to expand...

I think almost any other Democrat other than Clinton would have easily beaten Trump.

Re: Is it Time for a Balanced Budget Amendment for the Federal Government and All Sta

Perotista said:

I think almost any other Democrat other than Clinton would have easily beaten Trump.

Click to expand...

Bernie Sanders could have taken Trump easily. Currently he is the most popular president in the United States.

Re: Is it Time for a Balanced Budget Amendment for the Federal Government and All Sta

SmartCat said:

Bernie Sanders could have taken Trump easily. Currently he is the most popular president in the United States.

Click to expand...

That's a bold statement considering that Sanders couldn't beat Clinton in the primary.

Re: Is it Time for a Balanced Budget Amendment for the Federal Government and All Sta

In a Real Clear Politics average of six polls taken from May 6 to June 5, 2016 Sanders beat Trump by 49.7 to 39.3 percent.

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/e...s/general_election_trump_vs_sanders-5565.html

Since the general election Sanders' popularity has risen, while Trump's has declined.

--------

The Hill

To fully understand the huge public appeal of Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) and the catastrophic unpopularity of TrumpCare, let's first consider some polling and then the truth that Sanders and other Democrats have exposed against "TrumpCare."

Several other polls have shown Trump's numbers to be even worse, with his unfavorable ratings rising above 55 percent at times.

The huge popularity of Sanders in the Fox poll tracks virtually all other polling that shows Sanders to be, by a large margin, the most popular political leader in America, and far ahead of Trump, the most unpopular new president in the history of presidential polling.
Stunning polls show Sanders soaring while 'TrumpCare' crashes | TheHill

Re: Is it Time for a Balanced Budget Amendment for the Federal Government and All Sta

Possibly true but it is the voters who count, not the polls. We don't put people in office through polls. So it is all meaningless. Sorry.

Evilroddy said:

The title sort of says it all. An amendment making deficit financing illegal,

So what do Americans think? Is real and enforceable fiscal restraint worthy of a constitutional amendment?

Cheers.
Evilroddy.

Click to expand...

An idiotic idea just like that of the debt ceiling. All it does is tie the hands of people who are trying to solve our problems and keep our economy running smoothly. If you want the budget balanced vote for someone who swears that they will in fact do that, but don't tie the hands of legislators to some arbitrary nonsense.

Anybody who would argue for this garbage clearly has no concept of reality when it comes to how government spending works. Sadly there are way to many undeducated bafoons out there that seem to think a federal budget is just like their family budget. They are so anstronomically different it is insane, and to try and manage them the same is delusionally stupid.

First, the interest rates the federal government pays are incredibly low. Just like a Bank the debt we take on is usually turned around and invested in such a way that we actually make more money than we end up paying in interest. The United States would usually be losing money if it didn't run at least a little bit into the red. At the very least though we're almost certainly not screwing ourselves over by borrowing a little bit of money every year.

Secondly, if for any reason we found ourselves in a situation where we really really had to pay our collectors off, and we didn't have the money laying around we're in no real danger of defaulting because we can always just print the money. Not saying that we should do that a lot, but we can any time we need to, and in many instances it actually would make sense if we did it a little bit more than we currently do.