A Few Thoughts on a Balanced Budget Amendment
I tend to like those politicians who are lobbying for a balanced budget amendment (hereafter BBA). They seem genuinely interested in restraining the growth of the administrative welfare state. But I also think that the idea of amending the Constitution to require a balanced budget is unwise and impractical.
There are several problems with the concept of a BBA. First, it seems impossible to write an amendment that would prohibit government's propensity to use Enronesque accounting methods. At the very least a BBA would have to have the prolixity of a legal code to keep things honest.
Second, multiplying procedural rules is not an adequate way to restore or perpetuate limited government. The people need to vote for representatives who are wise, patriotic, and just. If those representatives are found to lack these characteristics once in office, and this has sadly always been all too common, the people must be motivated by what Madison called a "vigilant and manly spirit" to hold them accountable or vote the bums out.
If we must have a BBA, we are admitting that free, representative government is impossible. A BBA, like term limits, is an admission that we cannot trust the people's representatives to govern or the people to keep those representatives honest.
Our Constitution is perfectly sound. The enumerated powers granted to government in the Constitution are perfectly adequate to deal with the fiscal situation. Elections, the separation of powers, legislative checks and balances, and in extreme cases impeachment, are more than sufficient means to hold our representatives accountable to their oaths of office.
Those proposing a BBA have laudable motives--they wish to restrain out of control government spending. But they should focus on doing so by a return to constitutionalism rather than unnecessarily amending the Constitution.
- Comment (16)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (0)
Comments :
May '10
Re: A Few Thoughts on a Balanced Budget Amendment
I just have a nightmare vision of Stephen Breyer rewriting the tax code.
Apr '11
Re: A Few Thoughts on a Balanced Budget Amendment
I'm of two minds on a Balanced Budget Amendment. On one hand, it's a good idea for the nation to realize that spending can't continue as it has.
On the other hand, I believe here in California the state government is constitutionally required to balance the budget, but as of the last several years has resorted to shuffling numbers, fixing books, and overestimating revenues to officially "balance" our budgets. We have elected people to power who are interested in neither the letter nor the spirit of the law, only in the short-term satisfaction of their own goals, desires, and whims.
Dec '10
Re: A Few Thoughts on a Balanced Budget Amendment
"We fought then for what we are contending for now--to prevent an arbitrary deprivation of our property, contrary to our consent and inclination. I shall be told in this place that those who are to tax us are our representatives. To this I answer, that there is no real check to prevent their ruining us. There is no actual responsibility. The only semblance of a check is the negative power of not reëlecting them. This, sir, is but a feeble barrier, when their personal interest, their ambition and avarice, come to be put in contrast with the happiness of the people." Patrick Henry, June 9, 1788. I can only feign shock that we find ourselves in this predicament.
Dec '10
Re: A Few Thoughts on a Balanced Budget Amendment
This assumes that we actually are allowed to elect our own representatives; for many that is not possible. For years, I lived in the gerrymandered district in Florida that sends Corrine Brown to the House. There's not a darned thing a person in that district can do to get rid of her corrupt, just plain ignorant self. Many Americans are not able to vote out incompetent and/or corrupt representatives. The presumption always is that the poor, benighted electorate just can't get its act together and that it must just be more patient! Don't dare be "radical" and push for serious change at the local, state, and federal level.
Just be patient and wait for your betters in your state capitals and in Washington, D.C. to methodically iron out these little wrinkles in the otherwise perfect system of governance. (Head Pat)
Nothing will ever change unless we change it ourselves. I am tired of waiting for the system that has brought on these problems to judiciously and prudently self-correct. It is delusional to expect anything like that. Slap 'em with a BBA that precludes raising taxes without two thirds of both houses.
Nov '10
Re: A Few Thoughts on a Balanced Budget Amendment
Think of a BBA as the budgetary equivalent of hate crime legislation... completely unnecessary and riddled with holes. I agree with C.U. Douglas... anyone interested in it should look to California as a cautionary tale. Never underestimate the power of the politician to circumvent the will of the people when their own arses are on the line. A BBA won't provide fiscal sanity, but you can bet on more committees, "fees" and backdoor dealing if you really want this thing!
Jul '10
Re: A Few Thoughts on a Balanced Budget Amendment
We've had a Constitution all these years and people would still expect politicians to abide by a BBA?
Good post.
Oct '10
Re: A Few Thoughts on a Balanced Budget Amendment
I agree with Jimmy Carter. I don't even think that the BBA will be obeyed and since this is a purely political matter I don't think the Supreme Court would ever get involved unless, God forbid, they ever became that activist.
Not to mention that a BBA could be passed which would only expand the size of gov't through tax increases that close budget deficits. It might end up accomplishing the very opposite of what conservatives want.
Re: A Few Thoughts on a Balanced Budget Amendment
Hi King Prawn,
So who else is going to tax us if not our representatives? Or should we have direct democracy?
I don't trust the states anymore than I do any other level of government--I would rather be governed by Congress than the California state legislature!
Re: A Few Thoughts on a Balanced Budget Amendment
The problem in this case is, as you indicate, the voters, right? I don't believe that most districts are doomed to "incompetent and/or corrupt representatives." If we reach that situation, then freedom is impossible, because a majority of the American public would be happy with incompetent, corrupt, and even tyrannical government.
I am advocating radical change--a return to the Constitution!
CJRun: This assumes that we actually are allowed to elect our own representatives; for many that is not possible. For years, I lived in the gerrymandered district in Florida that sends Corrine Brown to the House. There's not a darned thing a person in that district can do . . . .Many Americans are not able to vote out incompetent and/or corrupt representatives. . . . Don't dare be "radical" and push for serious change at the local, state, and federal level.
. . . .
Nothing will ever change unless we change it ourselves. I am tired of waiting for the system that has brought on these problems to judiciously and prudently self-correct. It is delusional to expect anything like that. Slap 'em with a BBA that precludes raising taxes without two thirds of both houses. · Jul 28 at 4:02pm
Nov '10
Re: A Few Thoughts on a Balanced Budget Amendment
All three branches of government ignore the constitution all the time, so why on Earth would they obey a balanced budget amendment? As several posters have noted, the Ruling Class would construct a million loopholes and accounting gimmicks to get around it.
Not only that, our judiciary is so badly broken that justices like Kagan and Sotomayor would "interpret" it out of existence almost immediately.
America's problem is spending, and a public that votes for the guy who promises them the most free stuff. Our debt is a symptom of that problem.
A balanced budget amendment is like putting a band-aid on a broken arm; not only is it treating the symptom instead of the problem, but it's a completely useless treatment of the symptom.
Edited on Jul 28, 2011 at 6:41pmSep '10
Re: A Few Thoughts on a Balanced Budget Amendment
Generally-speaking, a BBA will only serve to rigidify our national capitalization. The key thing about rigid social structures (this includes financial structures) is that they tend to become brittle / fragile - and as close to an axiom as exists in the social world is that anything fragile will eventually break.
Implement this thing and one can imagine any number of potential circumstances that will inevitably arise during which the general public will feel compelled to either allow law makers to "ignore" or otherwise circumvent the measure - thus diminishing the rule of law - or to repeal the measure, thus wasting precious resources. Either way, it's difficult to see it standing for long, even if we can get it passed in the States.
There is no Constitutional "Easy Button" that can help us prevent our elected officials from distorting our national finances to the point of depriving us of our liberty. Liberty, as the framers well-knew, requires constant vigilance.
May '10
Re: A Few Thoughts on a Balanced Budget Amendment
Excellent post, John. I completely agree.
May '10
Re: A Few Thoughts on a Balanced Budget Amendment
Good points, John. So the BBA is out.
It's a good thing you're not a politician, though. It almost sounds as if you're blaming the tax-paying voters for our current financial crisis. Careful, careful.
I guess you mean that the sly politicians haven't informed the good folk who make up 'The People' as to the importance of the Constitution?
Mar '11
Re: A Few Thoughts on a Balanced Budget Amendment
John--agree. Moreover, and not to take our bearings always from the extreme situation (which is pernicious), but should we ever need to violate such an amendment, I'd prefer that we be violating the rules of common practice in Congress and not The Law of the Land. I'm in favor of Executive prerogative, but used judiciously.
Also, as to the election of corrupt representatives and gerrymandering--there have various sorts of solutions that ameliorate the problem. For example, many states have already adopted independent panels that adjust districts and are able to squash the worst kinds gerrymandering. That kind of decentralized solution closer to the people is much more in keeping with my preferences.
Mar '11
Re: A Few Thoughts on a Balanced Budget Amendment
I'm in agreement with the arguments against the BBA. Until we can return as much as possible to a Congress populated by "citizen legislators" devoted to smaller government, a BBA is not going to make much difference. Reasonable term limits and (apologies to George Will) restriction on the money flowing into the coffers of our reps.will do a lot more to bring this country back to the dream of the Founders.
When elected representatives can accumulate unlimited funds from any sources and KEEP IT after they leave, what hope do we have for an uncorrupted legislature with no limits government spending?
Dec '10
Re: A Few Thoughts on a Balanced Budget Amendment
I'm late back to the game, but I just have to ask, what?
"The problem in this case is, as you indicate, the voters, right? I don't believe that most districts are doomed to "incompetent and/or corrupt representatives.""
You got from my post that districts gerrymandered at the sate level are a problem with the voters? Corrine Brown is in the fight of her life and rightfully so, as Florida redistricts under new law; she has filed a court challenge. The 20 years of her blight upon the House is the fault of the voters? It's the voters that are finally forcing a change! On its own, Tallahassee would never have done anything about her ridiculous, serpentine district. Even a black, female Republican could not dislodge her from that mess and that former person is now the Lt. Governor of the state! Professional politicians will never fix anything, so citizens have to do the work that the politicians are paid for.
"(M)ost districts are doomed"...? Who said anything about most? I made the point that many people are forced to live in such districts, and thus not represented at all. You got "most" from that?