Balanced-Budget Amendment

I know this discussion is unoriginal, but perhaps in the context of the United States’
potentially imminent default it might deserve reconsideration.

Should the U.S. adopt a balanced-budget amendment?

I don’t think the proposition is unreasonable so long as provisions for
extraordinary circumstances exist such that a congressional supermajority could
overrule the requirement. Our current debt-ceiling approach is effectively a
balanced-budget amendment that Congress has shifted out trillions of dollars in
the red.

Again, I think that the consideration of a balanced-budget amendment could be
potential common ground for both parties in budget talks, especially if it shifted the
dangerous consequences of congressional deadlock away from default and toward
the shorter-term shutdowns that the government has struggled with. It would also
seemingly legitimize arguments to support tax increases and spending decreases
equally.

Thoughts?

I don't think now is the time to experiment with how such an Amendment would work under exceptional circumstances.

Originally posted by wittywonka
I know this discussion is unoriginal, but perhaps in the context of the United States’
potentially imminent default it might deserve reconsideration.

Should the U.S. adopt a balanced-budget amendment?

I don’t think the proposition is unreasonable so long as provisions for
extraordinary circumstances exist such that a congressional supermajority co ...[text shortened]... ngly legitimize arguments to support tax increases and spending decreases
equally.

Thoughts?

Originally posted by Kunsoo
Nobody who has taken a basic macroeconomics course would agree to such an amendment. Deficit spending is sometimes good for the economy, and to deny such a huge fiscal tool during recessions by Constitutional amendment based upon what seems like common sense but would actually be hugely detrimental would be more than wrong. It would be incredibly stupid.

Originally posted by Kunsoo
Deficit spending is sometimes good for the economy [...] to deny such a huge fiscal tool during recessions by Constitutional amendment [...] would be incredibly stupid.

Originally posted by AThousandYoung
I don't think now is the time to experiment with how such an Amendment would work under exceptional circumstances.

Originally posted by wittywonka
I know this discussion is unoriginal, but perhaps in the context of the United States’
potentially imminent default it might deserve reconsideration.

Should the U.S. adopt a balanced-budget amendment?

I don’t think the proposition is unreasonable so long as provisions for
extraordinary circumstances exist such that a congressional supermajority co ...[text shortened]... ngly legitimize arguments to support tax increases and spending decreases
equally.

Thoughts?

Originally posted by whodey
Although someone from the GOP will undoubtingly propose a balanced buget Amendment, neither party wants anyone to tell them what they can spend and what they can't. They have no constraints on their powers so why start now? Any proposed Amendment is just smoke and mirrors to make us think someone in government gives a damn.

So all you Dick Cheney fans who think that deficits don't matter, enjoy the show!!

Originally posted by wittywonka
I know this discussion is unoriginal, but perhaps in the context of the United States’
potentially imminent default it might deserve reconsideration.

Should the U.S. adopt a balanced-budget amendment?

I don’t think the proposition is unreasonable so long as provisions for
extraordinary circumstances exist such that a congressional supermajority co ...[text shortened]... ngly legitimize arguments to support tax increases and spending decreases
equally.

Thoughts?

Originally posted by JS357

Thanks for posting that link; it’s a good first read for considering the issues in a little more depth. I guess the most potentially alarming fact about the states’ balanced-budget amendments is their means of circumventing deficit reduction requirements altogether (in times that aren’t “emergencies” ). I don’t really know enough about economics to appreciate what safeguards would be required to prevent the same types of behavior at the federal level, but I think that even in a constitutional amendment, policy specificity would be necessary and could be beneficial***. In particular, I wouldn’t want to see the government try to avoid costs by simply delegating out expenses to states (it’s not like that doesn’t already happen enough).

I did think it was funny that some proponents apparently argue that under the restriction of a balanced-budget amendment, the federal government should be able to generate surplus “rainy-day” funds. I’m not that naïve... 😉

One idea would be to link a simple majority override with, say, a declaration of national emergency by the Executive.

With regards to responding to natural disasters, I think your kind of exception would be reasonable, simply because I think responding to a terrorist attack or to hurricane devastation is (at least initially) apolitical. With regards to responding to economic decline, though, I think that there should be a means of bypassing the Executive (perhaps yet with a Congressional supermajority, or even with the recommendation of some sort of independent economic advisory council), because Republicans’ and Democrats’ economic ideologies are typically so polarized that it wouldn’t be hard to imagine a circumstance when the president would be stubborn even when deficit spending were legitimately indicated. An exception for times of war is also probably necessary, but would also be too sensitive to politics, in my opinion, to hinge on the decision of the president. Not to mention the fact that when wars last for entire decades, deficit spending can add up quickly...

How is the creation of debt to be limited in the amendment?

I’m not entirely sure if I understand your question. I understand a “balanced-budget amendment,” by definition, to mean that for any given fiscal year, government expenditures do not exceed government revenues.

_____

***Edit:

Wikipedia tells me that Switzerland and Germany both have "balanced-budget" amendments, too, but a look at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_external_debt shows that neither country has a particularly promising short-term debt outlook. Admittedly, Germany only passed its amendment recently, but still, I think this simply underscores the necessity for proper enforcement measures.

Originally posted by wittywonka
As usual, you sound incredibly fatalistic.

Are you convinced that only Congressional action exactly within your ideological definition of "acceptable" demonstrates that certain legislators actually care?

Originally posted by whodey
I'm convinced that both parties share certain agendas.

Originally posted by wittywonka
With regards to the budget, specifically: what would Congress have to do to convince you that at least come legislators actually care about serious long-term deficit reduction?

Originally posted by wittywonka
Originally posted by JS357

Thanks for posting that link; it’s a good first read for considering the issues in a little more depth. I guess the most potentially alarming fact about the states’ balanced-budget amendments is their means of circumventing deficit reduction requirements altogether (in times that aren’t “emergencies” ). I don’ ...[text shortened]... tly, but still, I think this simply underscores the necessity for proper enforcement measures.

Originally posted by wittywonka
I know this discussion is unoriginal, but perhaps in the context of the United States’
potentially imminent default it might deserve reconsideration.

Should the U.S. adopt a balanced-budget amendment?

I don’t think the proposition is unreasonable so long as provisions for
extraordinary circumstances exist such that a congressional supermajority co ...[text shortened]... ngly legitimize arguments to support tax increases and spending decreases
equally.

Thoughts?