I'm just curious on what is wrong with a balanced budget? Its odd that many are being labeled as extremest for wanting to live within our means.
It's obvious that we can't count on most of the politicians to control spending.
Printable View
I'm just curious on what is wrong with a balanced budget? Its odd that many are being labeled as extremest for wanting to live within our means.
It's obvious that we can't count on most of the politicians to control spending.
I think the problem is two-fold. First, the politicians will lose much of their power to write amendments to bills that get money spent in their own back yard. Second, it's hard to get to being balanced when we're so far in debt, as so many people are personally aware.
I think a balanced budget in principle is a great idea but if you are talking about a balanced budget amendment then that is a entirely different story. We only have to look at the states and how well their balanced budget mandate has worked. Example after example of off-budget spending by all of the states, where there is a will politicians will always find a way.
At the federal level we already have lots of example of off-budget examples. SS is the perfect example, military conflicts are often declared off-budget, and on and on. These types of entities would just get larger and larger. Another issue would be the inevitable "constitutional crisis" that would probably be decided ultimately by unelected judges - is this what we really want?
I don't think it is extremest at all to live within our means but the present BBA is nothing more than political grandstanding and everyone knows it.
The only way out of our budget crisis now and in the future is for some sort of balanced approach which means cuts in everything no exceptions and no reason why we can't and also a revenue component which increase revenue - IMO, without that we are pushing a string going nowhere.
But to answer your question a balanced budget should be how we run our country, it is how I run my household because I have absolutely no other option! :)
Peace
I was raised in Michigan. A balanced budget is required by the state constitution.
http://www.michigan.gov/budget/0,160...055--F,00.html
I believe there are other states that require a balanced budget, but I'm not sure.
For years, I've said I wish we could just wipe the federal Dept. of Education off the books in one fell swoop and return education to the states.
The timing of the thing of course. Not a good time to negotiate a balanced budget when you're a few days short of defaulting on the debt. Now look everybody knows the U.S. is heading for default in the long run, but noone suspected they would willing bring it on themselves! It's like everyone knows all men are mortal, but its no reason to slit your wrists.
It would be kind of interesting, we might be the only country on earth to try it (some countries are clearly disasters and not at all to be imitated but even those with very sound fiscal policy don't have anything like this as far as I know).
There's no reason to believe the U.S. will go into default, but there is every reason to believe we'll suffer the consequences of our failure to live within our means. A balanced budget requirement would solve that problem as well in the long run, but I don't think our leaders have the will to do the right thing.Quote:
Originally Posted by ApatheticNoMore
I watched c-span today and was amazed and looked up a lot of facts that people stated. Holy cow, can some people talk.
The constitution has 27 amendments and if you read them they regard women voting, prohibition then it's repeal etc.
But here is the most interesting. Over 11,000 amendments have been proposed, about 35-40 per year in modern times. They include such things as banning same sex marriage, banning abortion, no citizenship for children born of illegal immigrants.
http://www.senate.gov/pagelayout/ref...nstitution.htm
and
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...s_Constitution
the balanced budget amendment has been proposed multiple times in the past (I could not find the exact number, I think someone said around 200 but I have no link)
My problem is the kick the can mentality. Don't make the hard decisions to cut spending and increase taxes this year but make people do it down the road while you continue to spend now. Doesn't seem right.
If there were a practical way to require balancing over a period of more than a year (say three) then it would have wider support among experts than it currently does. A year is arbitrary. It's how long it takes the earth to revolve around the sun.Quote:
Originally Posted by dmc
More importantly, the current offers effectively take tax increases off the table, and the first one "caps" spending at an unrealistically low level. So they are more political/ideological shams than anything.
I was reading Time Magazine (August 8 issue, just out) today in Barnes and Noble, and the Curious Capitalist writer had a piece in there regarding this subject, and why it would be a terrible idea for the country, although great for a family, and even reasonable for a state, since the Federal government would still be spending, but not the Federal government.
I tried to link to it, but you can't look at the article online unless you are a subscriber to Time, but the gist of it was that during downtimes is when government NEEDS to spend more to stimulate the economy and make up for private spending that isn't being spent, that having a balanced budget amendment (such as in times of recession or war, etc.) would actually create a feedback loop that has a down economy, lowered spending in the private sector, so less revenue, accompanied by lower spending by government, which increases the downturn, and it would throw us into depression quite easily.
It's one of those things that sounds good on paper, and most don't realize the faulty logic of the comparison between a government balancing its budget and a family doing the same thing. I'm not explaining it well, but hopefully, you'll look for the piece, because it was instructive as to why this would be a very bad idea.
Another thing I read today is that Federal government revenue is 15% of our GNP, which is the lowest rate since the Korean war, so like it or not, and contrary to conservative thinking, what we really need, in addition to some spending cuts is increased revenue in the form of taxes, because many of our problems arose because we've reduced our revenue over and over again, which has made the rich much, much richer, made most of the rest of us stand still financially, or fall backward, and managed to put ever larger proportion of the country's wealth into fewer and fewer hands of the top few percent of citizens.
The wealthy in this country are paying HALF of the taxes that they paid just a few decades ago, and much of the problem stems from the constant transfer of more and more wealth to the few, more and more of a burden on the middle class, and lower classes that have fallen behind steadily over that period. We've been engaged in "class warfare" all right, but in the direction of taking from everybody else and handing over more to the richest of the rich.......
Don't expect THAT to sit well with the conservative contingent here, hahahaha..... ;-)
To say that we need to collect additional revenue is absolutely correct. To say that it should all come from the top few percent of earners (not that that's exactly what you said, LC) is also faulty logic. The math is pretty simple: there just aren't enough people in that class to get us to the finish line even if you take everything they have. It's going to require the 200,000,000 or so of us that are somewhere in between vast wealth and poverty to step up to the plate and pay more, too. IMO the tax rates are plenty high enough, we do, however, need to reduce or eliminate some very expensive deductions that effectively subsidize high earners and corporations that don't need them. Corporate subsidies are a far easier and vastly larger target. We should absolutely not go so far as to create an environment in which making a profit is difficult, but the Federal government can no longer afford to INSURE corporate profits.
Back on topic, the writer for Time seems to have the right idea. The Republicans shot themselves in the foot (IMO) by adding constitutional amendment language to their proposal. Not that it isn't worth considering, but to try to do that in the 11th hour is absurd. Having a debt ceiling at all is even more absurd. Budgets and spending need Congressional approval anyway so what does a debt ceiling accomplish? Nothing beyond making us look ridiculous to the rest of the world (from whom we borrow money). It's been raised a couple times a year for the past 40 years so is pretty meaningless anyway. I think this might be a good time for Reagan style budgeting in at least one sense. Three dollars in cuts for every one in increased taxes. Decisions need to be lucid and action needs to come swiftly if we are going to save any face at all. I'm not convinced that ANYONE in Washington has the kahunas to act do that. Probably going to come down to the Fed offering overdraft protection on the checks the Congress will have to continue to write if they want to keep their jobs.