Balanced Budget Amendment

[NorthSideSox72]

Since this topic has come up a lot lately in other threads, I thought I'd throw a discussion out there.

 

What do people think of the possibility of a Balanced Budget Amendment to the Constitution? Good or bad? What are the pluses and minuses? Should there be a war exemption? If so, how should that be structured, given the current nature of war?

 

I'll provide my position later.

 

[BigSqwert]

I'm against it. That's why we can vote for a new President every 4 years. If he/she screws things up royally you elect someone to take their place*.

 

 

*Does not include the past 8 years. Americans forgot to care about the issues for some reason.

[GoSox05]

If there is a war exemption you might as well forget it. We are always at war.

[Balta1701]

I'm of 2 minds on this.

 

On principle, it's a horrible economic idea, because there are times, like say, right now, when the economy is struggling where it behooves everyone to have the government running a deficit. You can't exactly cut back on spending that easily because the economy slowed down; you're cutting back spending at the same time as more people wind up needing the services (Medical, unemployment, etc.). And, having the government go in to a deficit is a method of re-stimulating economic growth. And then there's the biggest argument of all...war. A balanced budget amendment totally screws you in a time of war. You basically have to repeal it.

 

The problem is of course in practice...because ideally, you'd like to stay at some sort of equilibrium, where when the economy is hot you're actually building up a surplus and paying down some debt, but when the economy hits the skids you dip in to the credit cards a bit more to help things along. But over the last 50 years, and especially with 3 of the 4 presidents since 1981, we've built up a dramatic structural deficit that is now at the point that its existence alone is hurting the economy. There was no point, even at the peak of growth in the last business cycle where we were really anywhere close to balanced. It's far, far easier for a President and Congress to spend like there's no tomorrow if they have no reason not to do so, and that's how we've gotten where we are now. They just pretend the extra money they're spending, in good times and bad, just comes out of the air, and then when China threatens to start selling off the bonds they've taken in unless the government bails out their investments in a GSE, we really wind up having no choice.

 

In any but the most screwed up world it's a terrible idea.

[whitesoxfan101]

If there is a war exemption you might as well forget it. We are always at war.

 

This is exactly why I'm against this. In theory, a balanced budget amendment sounds great. But in practice, I have no idea how it would work during times of war, and I can't see very long periods of peace in our future, regardless of which party is in the Oval Office. There is just too much bad s*** going on in too many places, and too many people that want to do harm to us. And this is coming from a guy (myself) who was against the Iraq war from day 1.

 

If he/she screws things up royally you elect someone to take their place*.

 

*Does not include the past 8 years. Americans forgot to care about the issues for some reason.

 

Do you really have to throw a pot shot in every post? It could certainly be argued Americans aren't forgetting the issues, they are just making a statement about how awful the candidate for the democratic side is.

Edited September 10, 2008 by whitesoxfan101

[clyons]

This is something I've always been against. I'm no economist, but I think I learned in Econ 101 that occasional deficit spending can be good for an economy, as happened with the New Deal programs after the Great Depression and the defense build up prior to World War II.

 

In addition, I'm uncomfortable with the notion of us allowing our politicians to essentially claim, "We can't manage to balance the budget right now, but if we were required to do so by law, we could and we would." Simple accountablity to the people should be enough, but we, the voters, continue to give them a pass. If they can't do it just because its right, throw the bums out and get new ones.

 

Third, I don't see how this could ever be effectively enforced. Who provides oversight? I'm all for open government and accountability, but some aspects of government spending and programs (e.g., national security) need to be "secret," even in peacetime.

 

Finally, I strongly believe that the constitution is something not be trifled with. There is good reason that it has only been amended 27 times (and on just 18 occassions). Creative accountants can play all kinds of tricks to make uneven books looked balanced on paper, and as people have pointed out in commenting on a "war" exception, necessary exceptions to an amendment like this could, imo, easily swallow the whole. If a chain is only as strong as its weakest link, I don't want to risk watering down the overall Constitution by enacting an amendment that could possibly be circumvented with accounting tricks or whatever. I'd rather amend through term limits than with something subject to potential loopholes. I don't want to open the door to similar end-runs around the Bill of Rights.

 

In sum, my point is that "we the people" already have the power to insist that our government balance the budget if we decide that is what we want. We just need to exercise the power we already have. A balanced budget amendment has always seemed like sort of a gimmicky cop-out to me.

[Texsox]

Plus a good old fashioned payment before an election is always a nice way to win votes. The economy is slowing right before an election OMG!! The other party may get in!! Quick buy the voters something and tell them someone else will be paying for it.

 

So now we have all the spending and half the paying for it.

[DABearSoX]

So how'd you all spend your rebate checks?