Balanced Budget Amendments -- What are They Good For?
Todd Gaziano of the Heritage Foundation and I posted an op-ed on National Review Online on proposals for a balanced budget amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Our position is no matter which version people like, none of them should contain a provision that allows courts to enforce it. Congressmen and Presidents would pass the buck if they knew that courts would make the fundamental taxing and spending decisions. And federal judges have no neutral principle to decide which spending programs to cut or keep to balance a budget.
But that raises the larger question whether a balanced budget amendment is really the solution to our fiscal ills. It is clear that our elected representatives cannot control their spending and taxing appetites. But is an amendment to the Constitution the answer? This may not be the best political time -- won't it allow Congressmen who refuse to balance the budget now to symbolically vote for it in the abstract. On the other hand, states seem to have had success with the requirement; I think it is the only thing that prevents California and other big tax-and-spend states from going completely off the cliff. What about the greater complexity of the federal budget, the larger amounts, and emergencies and war?
Thoughts?
- Comment (11)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (1)
Comments :
Jul '10
Re: Balanced Budget Amendments -- What are They Good For?
I believe we have now reached a level of political fractiousness that it is impossible to pass any constitutional amendment more controversial than one banning the torture of puppies.
So it's a moot point.
Edited on Mar 9, 2011 at 2:43pmOct '10
Re: Balanced Budget Amendments -- What are They Good For?
Most of the proposals were shams. Allowing a three-fifth majority of Congress to override the ban is little different from the status quo (three fifths is what you need for a filibuster-proof Senate, and extending that limitation to the House won't do much).
On the other hand, some proposals had two-thirds overrides, which is much more reasonable (even better would be a four fifths requirement).
Oct '10
Re: Balanced Budget Amendments -- What are They Good For?
Agree with Kenneth. Besides, since the Constitution is now considered an impediment to be ignored by this administration, and congress hasn't developed any consensus that the Constitution matters, what would yet another amendment really mean. Even the Bill of Rights has become simply a nice list of suggestions. Real rights, after all, are only found in the social justice movement.
Jan '11
Re: Balanced Budget Amendments -- What are They Good For?
California isn't going over the cliff? When did this not happen?
Sep '10
Re: Balanced Budget Amendments -- What are They Good For?
I think there is little hope, but I think a balanced budget with 3/5 or 2/3 to override sounds right. However, about half of America would like to automatically raise taxes rather than cut spending which was disastrous when FDR did it.
My adder would be that there would need to be a predetermined balancing strategy. Starting with the simplest form, if Congress cannot balance the budget by the start of the fiscal year, then cuts would be made automatically in some proportional way. It could be across the board, but I might want to work on that.
Oct '10
Re: Balanced Budget Amendments -- What are They Good For?
Rather than a BB amendment that would give irresponsible legislators (but I repeat myself) the green light to raise taxes to cover their profligate spending, wouldn't a better amendment be one that limits spending to a percentage of GDP or some other economic metric? That amendment would keep spending in line with economic growth (or contraction) and in the process would achieve the result we want - it would force the government to live within its means.
Feb '11
Re: Balanced Budget Amendments -- What are They Good For?
Giving Congress cover to kick the problem to the courts is obviously not a solution. How about making it personal? Any Congressman who votes for a budget that is not balanced is automatically fined twenty-five grand. Per vote. Docked from his pay. That would solve it PDQ.
Feb '11
Re: Balanced Budget Amendments -- What are They Good For?
If we had a political class that would adhere to a balanced budget amendment we wouldn't need said amendment. I'm sure congress would love to dump their responsibility for budgeting upon a court but even if the amendment didn't contain such a clause I'm sure there would be another way to pass the buck.
For example I've seen balanced budget amendment proposals that contained an exceptions for war. So I expect that suddenly a congressperson's vision for a park with their name attached to it will become a matter of war.
Edited on Mar 9, 2011 at 11:28pmMar '11
Re: Balanced Budget Amendments -- What are They Good For?
Unfortunately, a BBA will need to be created by a constitutional convention, instead of the usual route. My ideas for a BBA:
1) limit spending to 18% of GDP or the lowest of the previous 5 years revenue (Forces some debt to be paid down, and limits the propensity to raise taxes)
2) overrides: a) Deceleration of war, with full national mobilization (draft) - simple majority (a draft limits the ability to go to war, and simple majority keeps the military from being tied up by groups that are against military spending of any form)
b) 2/3 majority of both houses AND 2/3 of states
3) court enforcement: Court can void spending authority above limits, not raise taxes.
Sep '10
Re: Balanced Budget Amendments -- What are They Good For?
Stu_in_VA:
1) limit spending to 18% of GDP or the lowest of the previous 5 years revenue (Forces some debt to be paid down, and limits the propensity to raise taxes)
Sounds good, but during a recession the govt would have to cut at the wrong time. I think we need to build in some flexibility for individual years. Maybe a 3 year balancing period or maybe 2 year.
Oct '10
Re: Balanced Budget Amendments -- What are They Good For?
My thoughts exactly. If we had political leaders who were responsible we wouldn't need to propose an amendment. Also, if enough people agreed to an amendment we probably wouldn't need the amendment.
I think this makes the same mistake liberals make when they argue for a right to a job, decent home, and whatever other appliances they think everyone should have. The assumption is that we lack a decree that would make whatever it is we want a reality. I just don't see how you can get around the problem of political leaders who don't have leadership skills.