The American Spectator

Bill Hussein O'Stalin| 12.29.10 @ 7:07AM

As Ken Blackwell writes this article the federal government is still expanding in many different directions and for many different purposes. All these enforcement actions will expand government and further increase economic malaise.

In 1996 the same subject arose and Stephen Moore at Cato pointed out that the 1976 Budget Reform and Impoundment Act was a monumental failure at controlling costs. After it passed the American public received 12 tax hikes within a 20 year period, and spending grew fourfold.

That takes us to Gramm-Rudman which slowed spending but failed. Mainly, there was little will by Republicans or Democrats to stop the deficit spending.

Ironically, when the article was written the 90's were booming and 1998, 1999 and 2000 saw massive revenues to the federal government. If you took social security and other future entitlement promises out of the mix, the government had s surplus. But it wasn't an actual surplus because the massive increases poured into the Social Security Trust Funds were borrowed and used to show a surplus.

In 2001 there was again talk of a balanced budget but the government engaged and doubled down on false promises, central economic planning and massive forced giveaways through the banking system, which the government also controls.

Each time in the past this subject has arisen, a constitutional amendment has been proposed.

This indicates that the likelihood of that happening is nil. Maybe 4 years from now as the poisonous after effects of deficit spending and too many government regulations continues to manifest itself, but it doesn't look like Congress is ready to move on the subject.

Raising the debt ceiling again will allow the spenders more time to maneuver to circumvent the need to cut spending. Members of both parties are already trying to circumvent the ban on earmarks and it's clear they still don't understand or don't care what is coming next as the house of cards continues to tumble.

martin j smith| 12.29.10 @ 8:16AM

If geographically our country was the size of say Spain or Greece working on fixing our economy would be hard enough but more manageable -But its not and it will time to get on back If there are " trade offs " on the debt cieling the question to answer is this: Will the trade offs be worth it ? This would have to be convincing. A modest amount and with built in mechanism to re-visit the question. The bottom line is this: a requrement to decrease our deficit.

believer| 12.29.10 @ 8:27AM

Under no circumstance will the Democrats vote for a balanced budget amendment, and Republicans dont have the balls to stand their ground. The result will be more added to the National debt and eventual bankruptcy, and American voters will continue to vote in the likes of Polosi,Reid,Boxer, Feinstein, ect. ect. ect.

Erling| 12.29.10 @ 8:45AM

If this GOP-controlled House will not stop the borrowing (we're on the brink of $14 trillion in the hole) and limit spending to tax revenues, the GOP must go the way of the Whigs: we have a borrow and spend party, so another borrow and spend party is superfluous. Stop the borrowing today!

Clinton Lovell| 12.29.10 @ 8:55AM

We don't want a balanced budget - a balanced budget will never pay off our national debt. We want a budget that includes amortized payments being made on the outstanding balance of the long-term debt so that it actually GOES DOWN.

Bob the Engineer| 12.29.10 @ 9:49AM

I agree, but you can't fill in the hole until they stop digging it deeper. A balanced budget amendment would be a huge paradigm shift for Washington DC the land of baseline budgeting. Baseline budgeting means that every department's budget is last year's budget plus 10% more. Inside the beltway a department that only gets a 5% raise will be whining on TV about the 50% cut in their budget.

Albert| 12.29.10 @ 8:11PM

If the hole gets too deep, the digger can't throw the dirt out high enough to clear the rim. We are at that stage now. We should just dump more dirt right on top of them and keep piling it on. Bury the Democrats. Since that is metaphorical, what it really means is NO INCREASE IN THE DEBT CEILING AT ALL!!! The time is now for Republicans and Tea Partiers to just put a stop to runaway government spending. A COMPLETE stop. A balanced budget amendment is for all practical purposes meaningless. Such an amendment wouold make a balanced budget part of the "Supreme Law of the Land." And that is meaningless at this point in time, since the US government operates in open violation of that Supreme Law. 2/3 or more of what Washington does is flatly illegal, but they still do it. President Bozo is seizing even more power via executive order and bureaucratic regulation, and they lack any legal authority to do what they are doing. But they still do it. If we are to regain control OVER government, instead of the other way around, we must win at the ballot box, period. Once conservatives win enough seats, we can change these usurpations by Law and enact Laws that prevent such usurpations in the future (e.g. making the House of Representin' larger and House districts smaller). Without victory at the ballot box, conservatives can do nothing but watch the criminals in action. Government will NEVER hold that government officials act illegally and are subject to the Law unless We the People DEMAND it. November 2 was a start.

Tom| 12.29.10 @ 9:56AM

A balanced budget ammendment would be fine, if it included realistic accounting methods. The problem I see is things being moved off budget or failure to properly account for future liabilities. Look at some of those states with balanced budget requirements, such as NY, which still have enormous liabilities that are not funded.

An Ammendment is less important than grown up politicians and voters. It is probably easier to get an Ammendment though.

Warrior| 12.29.10 @ 9:28AM

If the debt ceiling is not raised and no ability to borrow additional money, wouldn't this force an immediate balancing of the budget?

Tom| 12.29.10 @ 9:58AM

A good question. It might mean a lot of things, including a default on debts owed. Failure to actually pass a debt ceiling bill would have enormous economic impact. Passing it without reigning in spending would have worse impact, in the long run, so it basically becomes a game of economic chicken.

martin j smith| 12.29.10 @ 10:17AM

I am a believer--in the voters who threw a lot of bums out this last election. The Repubs will get the message from their voter in droves--I think because of the Tea Party Movement there will be organized in-put from us. The Democrat Party will naturally show who they are but I think that it will very hard for Repubs to ignore an onslaught of calls,e-mails and other communication. I am a believer in that.-What they do in the end could change the political landscape and the Repub Party in a big way either way.

George S| 12.29.10 @ 10:38AM

Why would Democrats move on this? This is a win win situation for them. If the debt ceiling is not raised, then government will shut down (hurray, except for those whose social security checks will bounce and their Medicare cards declined) and the pressure put on Republicans. If the debt ceiling is raised in exchange for spending cuts, then the Democrats will demand tax hikes along with spending cuts (why would they accommodate Republicans). Or, better yet, yield to the Republicans which cuts are to be made and how much -- something every politician knows is electoral suicide (spending = votes).

Republicans didn't have the guts to terminate unemployment benefit extension and Democrats wanted to hide under the skirts of a deficit commission. If balanced budgets guaranteed election success, then we would have never run up a deficit in the first place.

martin j smith| 12.29.10 @ 11:01AM

George S: Are planning on moving to another country ? The only conclusion from your perspective I get is "give up" And, you may be right--but I hope you are wrong and i'll waite a while to determine that. Meanwhile there are the voter and there may be a need for a third party. We'll see. Sit tight, buckle your seat belt we are in for a bumpy ride.

PattyMor| 12.29.10 @ 11:02AM

A balanced budget amendment is not the answer. Any politican can simply circumvent the rules or make up new ones. What we have is a gaggle of mostly unprincipled people "leading" our country to ruin. Unfortnately I do not see this bunch making any substantial changes. They all love the power and no wants to be the party that took away the punch bowl. And I don't think we have four years to get off the debt roller coaster. Maybe 1-2 years max. Once the interest rates rise to market levels, its over. Already the Fed is monetizing the debt and China is buying up our industries.
American greatness is about over. Sold to the highest bidder (Russia, China & Islam).

JohnG| 12.29.10 @ 11:12AM

A balanced budget alone cannot work because we have a debt-based monetary system in which every dollar created by the treasury is borrowed from the Federal Reserve and requires interest payments just to maintain the current supply. Congress has used growth and inflation to maintain this mandated interest on our sovereign money. However, the growth requires more borrowing that mandates ever increasing interest on the debt. It's a vicious cysle that cannot be broken and is responsible for the boom and busts in our economy. The massive budgets are simply bringing the debt-growth to an unmanageable end. We must end the debt-based system that only serves to pay international money-lenders huge transfers of our national wealth with nothing in return. Lenders use this wealth to control government. Failure to end this system will require even more borrowing that will make the USA permanent servant to the lenders, as we see exists in Europe. We have never needed to borrow our own sovereign currency supply but our government has fallen prey to this corrupting scheme. It's time to end debt-based money and break free of the lenders. By doing so, we will save trillions in interest payments and obtain the ability to pay off the massive debt in a decade or less.

Les Nesman| 12.29.10 @ 12:52PM

This guy gets it. Why do you think the deficit is always there since the 70's regardless of who is in power. Republicans have as much credibility as Democrats on this issue.

Tom| 12.29.10 @ 2:23PM

The deficits were always there because politicians were gutless. Booms and busts existed long before deficits. There are ways that the Fed can use to create money other than having Treasury borrow.

Louis Jenkins| 12.29.10 @ 11:41AM

A good article Mr. Blackwell, but you're casting about for straws. The District of Criminals will never go for it. We're bound to default on our debt one way or another. Raise the debt spending level? Nothing from nothing leaves nothing. The national government doesn't want the states, who are on the dole from that same government, ratifying anything. We're in a pickle here folks. You'd better learn to be self sufficient, cause that's whats going to see us through this mess.

MacDaddy| 12.29.10 @ 12:24PM

Is what we are living thru now not the Malthusian chickens coming home to roost for the US?

Oldefarte| 12.29.10 @ 1:11PM

Ken, while I applaud your reasoning, I respectfully disagree. SPENDING has always been the main issue, and since Democrats have historically controlled our government, spending has progressively increased over time. Democrats depend upon governmental spending in order to effect their quid-pro-quo system of giveing benefits to their indigent constituents in return of same's votes [to keep said Democrats in office]. If a balanced budget amendment is all that is needed as a bargaining chip against raising the debt limit, then Democrats will futuristically just raise taxes in order to raise expenses [or vise-versa]. What is needed is a chip whereby Republicans refuse to raise the debt ceiling unless/until substantial governmental spending is eliminated/reduced over time. It can be tied to GDP by mandating that spending must be annually lowered as a percentage of GDP, under law. This way, the size/amount of government will constantly be decreased over time, and taxayers will benefit from the lessening amount of their income that the government confiscates in taxes!!!!!!!!!

believer| 12.31.10 @ 10:01AM

Oldefarte- Great Idea but not gonna happen.

Oldefarte| 12.31.10 @ 4:19PM

As the old saying goes, NEVER SAY NEVER! If these corrupt bastards that we elect and send to our nation's capitol/statehouses/government plazas can be made to understand the private sector principle in business [from managers/bosses to underlings/neophites] of NO TICKEY, NO WASHIE [translation: DO IT OR YOU'RE FIRED]!

gary siebel| 12.29.10 @ 4:44PM

The 1787 Convention was correct to require a supermajority for Constitutional Amendments of the future (meaning now). It spares us from complete absurdities such as a balanced budget AMENDMENT.

It would Californicate the Fed, and ruin us all the way Prop 13 has crippled California.

Next they will be demanding a return to the gold standard.

gary siebel| 1.2.11 @ 2:43AM

It would Californicate the Fed, and ruin us all the way Prop 13 has crippled California.

aware| 1.2.11 @ 4:27PM

So we get more debt today for the "promise" of more responsible fiscal behavior in some "tomorrow".
Funny, every time we raise the debt "ceiling" is the only time you ever hear any acknowledgment out of the professional criminal/political class, their owned tools and ignoramuses in media, and unfortunately even more than a few conservatives, that spending at this level is not likely to end happily. What do you think the masses raised and expanded through subsidies(claims on other peoples labor enforced by the State) when the subsidies run out? Rainbows and unicorns?

Mr. Blackwell, you are welcome to all the "promises" out of a class that has a proven talent at duplicitousness, self aggrandizement, lust for power, and outright fabrication you can pack in your old kit bag. But you won't be smiling in the end.

They(The Powers That Be), and maybe even you, don't want to understand that the world that the current economic/political model was designed for is being swept away as we speak. "Changing the world" just takes more treasure than there is or ever will be.

Even the facade, which is all that is actually being propped up with all the treasure being spent, is like a window in an old abandoned house. Brittle and vulnerable, waiting for a punk with a rock to come along.

To control this situation will require REAL cuts. DEEP cuts. Everywhere! World wide! I see no possibility this can ever happen politically. EVER! We will see what lays at the far edge of the uncharted territory we are in because what brought us here is whats in charge of getting us out.