Feature
The Answer Is a Balanced Budget Amendment
The question is how to solve our problem of unsustainable debt.
The United States of America is on the road to bankruptcy, with a federal debt of more than $14.2 trillion, almost half of which is owned by foreign countries. (Communist China alone owns fully a quarter of the foreign-held portion). The problem is so well known that it almost came as an anticlimax when Standard & Poor’s recently downgraded U.S. debt from its coveted AAA rating to an unheard-of AA+. As for the budget deficit, it is expected to total $1.3 trillion for this year alone, with tax revenues of about $2.3 trillion and total expenditures of about $3.6 trillion. If a household ran its budget like that, we would say it was headed for a rude shock.
Making matters worse is that our debt is structural rather than cyclical: the federal budget is in deficit both in good economic times and bad. When George W. Bush took office in 2001, the gross federal debt was $5.76 trillion. When he left eight years later, the debt was up to $10.626 trillion, an increase of $607 billion a year. During Barack Obama’s presidency it has risen by $1.7 trillion a year and now almost 40 percent higher than when he took office. Deficits of this size are quite simply unsustainable.
The only way to fix this mess is to radically cut federal spending, cap the budget with pay-as-you-go spending rules, and then enact a balanced budget amendment (BBA).
The most important point is that we need to cut spending, not raise taxes. Total federal spending as a percentage of Gross Domestic Product (GDP) has skyrocketed from around 18 percent, when George W. Bush became president, to more than 25 percent today. This shows that our current deficit problem is entirely due to overspending. If tomorrow we cut spending back to the levels of January 20, 2001, when Bush took office, the deficit would almost disappear.
Then we need to cap and balance the budget, once we’ve cut overall spending back to 2001 levels. To do this effectively, we need to enact a federal BBA to the U.S. Constitution. This amendment should have several features.
First, it should require that the president submit to Congress each year a balanced federal budget with no fiscal gimmicks. Presidential failure to do so would be an impeachable offense. Congress should be constitutionally required to hold a vote in both houses on the president’s proposed budget within three months, with the president and Congress having up to six months to adopt a final budget in any given calendar year (this requirement should be waivable during any time of declared war for up to two years). If they fail to do that, all federal spending except for payments on the debt should be frozen at levels 10 percent lower than in the preceding fiscal year. To help impose this, any one of the several states should have standing to sue in the Supreme Court’s original jurisdiction for enforcement of this requirement.
Second, the BBA should cap federal spending at 18 percent of GDP. A spending cap of this proportion would keep the federal government at the size it was under President Bill Clinton — hardly onerous or severe. The amendment should require a two-thirds vote of both houses of Congress to enact any new taxes or to raise tax rates. Votes to raise the national debt limit should also require a two-thirds majority. These provisions are essential to prevent a BBA from becoming just an excuse to raise taxes.
THE USUAL RESPONSE to calls for such an amendment is that we ought not tamper with the Constitution. Critics of a BBA also claim it is not needed since a majority of Congress could balance the budget today if it really wanted to. There are at least five reasons why those critics are dead wrong.
First, it is a core principle of American constitutionalism that there be no taxation without representation. The American Revolution was fought in part to prevent taxation by a British Parliament in which Americans were not represented. When Congress borrows 40 cents of every dollar it spends, as it is doing today, it passes the burden of paying for current spending on to our children and grandchildren who cannot vote right now — nothing less than taxation without representation.
Second, a core purpose of the Constitution is to protect fundamental principles like freedom of speech and of the press from being whittled away during moments of legislative passion. Exactly the same argument holds true with respect to spending more money than the government collects in tax revenue. Constitutionalizing the balanced budget requirement is as necessary as constitutionalizing the protection of freedom of speech and of the press. This is an argument that was first made more than 30 years ago by Noble Prize laureate Milton Friedman. It is just as true today as it was then.
Third, there is an economic reason why it is easier to assemble lobbies for government spending than it is to assemble a nationwide lobby for a balanced budget. Consider the farm lobby that argues for agricultural price supports, or the AARP that lobbies for benefits for the elderly. It is cheaper and easier for small groups with a shared common interest to lobby Congress than for a large, diffuse majority of the American population to do the same. That’s why the silent majority is silent. A BBA in the Constitution would prevent the special interests from ripping off the children and grandchildren of the silent majority. James Madison wrote in The Federalist No. 51 that the secret of constitutional government was to make ambition counteract ambition. The way to check and balance over-spending is to constitutionalize a pay-as-you-go rule while making tax increases hard to enact.
Fourth, yet another economic reason for a BBA is that it would reduce risk and thereby promote investment. When people are looking for a place to invest, one of their first questions is how risky is the investment and how large is the potential reward. Foreign and American investors since World War II have invested in the U.S. and in its debt because our Constitution of checks and balances makes it hard to do crazy things like nationalize industries or set up a single payer health insurance monopoly.
A BBA would reduce further the risk of investing in the U. S., and that would promote investment and economic growth by constitutionally committing itself not to overspend. The risk of inflationary devaluation of the dollar would thus go way down. This in turn would bolster the dollar as the world’s reserve currency. It would also prevent federal borrowing from crowding out private sector borrowing in the U.S. This would free up a capital for investment in job-creating ventures.
A fifth argument for the BBA paradoxically grows out of one of the arguments commonly made against it: it would be purely symbolic. Or as James Madison would have said, “a mere parchment barrier” against overspending.
This criticism fails for many reasons. A BBA of the kind I argue for would have enforcement teeth. Presidential failure to submit a good-faith balanced budget would be a specific ground for impeachment. Then too, if Congress failed to enact a balanced budget, state governments could sue for an across theboard spending cut of 10 percent.
About the Author
Steven G. Calabresi is a professor of law at Northwestern University and a co-founder of the Federalist Society.
Letter to the Editor View all comments (58) | Leave a comment
More Articles From Feature
http://spectator.org/archives/2011/10/28/the-answer-is-a-balanced-budge
Follow us:
ADVERTISEMENT
SPONSORED LINKS
FLASHBACK TO: 1995
-
Pope Culture
A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
-
Why the GOP Does Not, Like, Totally Suck
Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
-
Dames at Sea
-
In the Absence of Guns
In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
-
The Metaphysical Martini
-
Counting the Costs of Clintonism
The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
-
Chuck McHagel
It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
-
The Legacy of Old John and Mother Fresh-Roasted
-
It’s the Best Time of the Year
The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
-
The Bush Crack-Up
Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?
Clip of the Day
ADVERTISEMENT
Old Soldier| 10.28.11 @ 7:07AM
The BBA is not a cure-all. Breaking the power that has been concentrated in DC will take a lot of steps.
Term Limits for all members of Congress is just as important in my mind.
ECM | 10.28.11 @ 7:16AM
I really, really hate the idea of term limits, but short abolishing the 17th Amendment (and given the stares I get when I suggest such a thing--after explaining what it is, of course--that's never happening), you're probably right that it needs to be done.
RottleBocket| 10.28.11 @ 12:30PM
I've heard other people suggest abolishing the 17th amendment, but can you explain what that's supposed to solve? The reasons given by proponents of the amendment at the time still seem very relevant today.
RJ| 10.28.11 @ 12:44PM
As you indicate, repeal is not directly related to term limits.
I believe that the hoped for benefit of repeal of the 17th Amendment is that it will limit the authority of the Federal government by returning the Senate into the hands of the state governments. However, when the 17th Amendment was passed more than 2/3 of the states had already passed legislation that provided for the popular vote of Senators, rather than selection by the state legislatures. Therefore, the repeal of the amendment itself would have very little impact. Change of state law would be needed to restore one of the original checks on the federal government.
RottleBocket| 10.28.11 @ 12:54PM
Thanks for the reply. If it would have very little impact, what's the appeal? And if states could be persuaded to return to having the state legislatures pick Senators, how would that be a check on the federal government? It creates the potential for the same kind of corruption that motivated the amendment in the first place. Plus, it removes power from voters. To remove a Senator the voters have to first change the composition of the state legislature, and then hope that the state legislature will do the right thing.
RJ| 10.28.11 @ 5:21PM
While I don't believe repeal of the 17th Amendment or passage of the Balanced Budget Amendment will have much of an impact, my guess is that most people pushing for repeal think it will mean that Senators will be elected by the state governments and not remain elected by the people.
The Founding Fathers believed in "checks and balances," which requires that parts of the government (e.g. House, Senate & President) are selected differently. Originally, House members were elected by the citizens; selection of senators was left up to the states with most states deciding through the state legislature; and the President was elected through "electors" who were in turn selected however the state decided, such as through the legislature or perhaps even a special state convention. In all cases, the citizen voters were the primary source of authority, but in the senate and the electoral college, their impact was filtered by representatives, who the founders felt would be more knowledgeable of the candidates being considered. In any event, it was thought that the since the selection process of the House and Senate was different, they could better "check and balance" each other to avoid abuse of power. Today, with citizens voting for both House and Senate, there is more similarity between the two houses of Congress, so there is less of a check and balance. If the senate were chosen by the state legislatures, the states would be much more powerful than they are now and the federal government would be much more limited in legislating mandates on the states as well as other actions which expands the federal government at the expense of state authority.
You are correct that a state selection process could also fall into corruption, however the theory is that the resulting body would reflect different interests and since both houses need to agree to create new law, the government would be more limited than it is today.
sirbourbon| 10.28.11 @ 12:25PM
Agree that BBA is no cure. But neither is a Term Limits amendment.
your score: one right --- one wrong
The answer to both of these false solutions is staring the men gathered on the steps of the capitol- it's the Constitution stupid!
Congressmen that clamor for balanced budgets continue to vote for unconstitutional bills that spend us into debt. There are provisions in the Constitution to keep budgets balanced if the congressmen would just read the Constitution and not just talk about it! There is nothing wrong with the Constitution that requires fixing. The problem lies elsewhere.
For example, there is no constitutional power to steal from some to give to others (redistribute the wealth). Foreign aid bills, welfare transfer payments, housing, energy, student loans, fundings for abortion providers, FOREIGN AID, healthcare legislation, and on and on. All of these are unconstitutional and no BBA will solve our insolvency as long as those laws remain on the books, since everyone of them are unnconstitutional.
Conservatives and liberals love to blame things on something else instead of themselves. Voters who stupidily vote for the Newts, Obama's and Bushes need to get up to speed on what is and what is not constitutional.
jan| 10.31.11 @ 3:26PM
You are SO RIGHT , let's get rid of ALL the DO NOTHING dept's and the self perpetuating empire builders who staff these DO NOTHING institutions, EPA, Commerce, Energy, Fish & wildlife, HUD etc. etc.
potkas7| 10.28.11 @ 7:12AM
The argument that we are subject to the tyranny of taxation without representation because unborn future generations did not have a vote on current spending is the silliest thing I've read in quite a while. Why not add in the dead as well? I'm sure there's more than a few in the Great Beyond watching the shenanigans in Washington and saying, "Hey! That's not what I died in the hedge-rows of France or on the beaches of the Pacific for." And they're right except...outside of Chicago, the dead and the unborn don't get to vote.
The problem lies within ourselves. We're the ones who send the same people back to Washington for 20, 30 or 40 years. Wasn't it Ronald Reagan who pointed out that there was a greater turnover in the Politburo of the old Soviet Union than there is in the Congress of the United States?
Our founding fathers left us a system for self government. If we cannot govern ourselves then no gimmick - like a "symbolic" amendment to the Constitution - is going to save us. The natural political order is to have a King. Self Government requires hard work. There's no autopilot for republic government.
ECM | 10.28.11 @ 7:18AM
That's wonderful, except for: what do we do when there's a large portion (but a sizable minority) that exercises this right, while the majority do not? Are we supposed to sit back and wait for a king to be seated? How is your non-suggestion a viable solution for anything? Or do you simply expect us to accept tyranny while bitching and moaning about how it's impossible to stop on Internet forums?
TrueBlue| 10.28.11 @ 2:15PM
The current voters are not subject to the tyranny of taxation, those unable to vote are subject to it. Passing on debt to future generations is no different than Congress trying to pass a law that limits the power of future Congresses without an Amendment. The ONLY way to further limit the damage that Congress can do is to pass an Amendment. Endebtedness is slavery to the person that holds the debt, if the debt was not your own, but forced on you by another how is that any different than taxation without representation?
Timothey L. Pennell| 10.28.11 @ 7:27AM
We need a Balanced Budget Amendment. Okay. We need it, because we are heading toward Bankruptcy. Actually, we're looking at a COLLAPSE. (Last I looked, Government is not allowed the luxury of a Chapter 11)
Barack Hussein Obama Barry Soetoro Abu Hussain is LEADING in the Polls, against every Republican wannabe. I understand: "It's a TIME Magazine Poll" ( Basically, it's a poll of men sitting on the toilet, in Gasoline Station's Mens Rooms in America's hinterlands. Which is really the only place one is apt to FIND a TIME Magazine these days) But, the idea that people are taking this Poll seriously, is proof that a Balanced Budget has NO CHANCE of clearing its formidable hurdles. What is it? 2/3 of each House, and 3/5 of the States? It doesn't matter. It ain't gonna happen. Not without TERM LIMITS. And those are even MORE IMPOSSIBLE.
We are not the Country that we used to be. That we think we are. The LEFT has done its work Magnificently. Their 60 Years of Dominance in the field of Education, has ERASED our History, and replaced it with something from The Brothers Grimm, or Mary Shelly. Our Children have been "Compromised". CASTRO would be proud.
They have infiltrated every aspect of our lives like a PARASITE. Slowly but surely, consuming us from the inside.
We are a House Divided. Half of us are DEPENDENT on the Pharaoh, for their daily bread. We have entire Communities of Americans, beholden to the Proletariat for EVERYTHING.
They have created Vast Armies of Lawyers, who Clog up the Arteries of our everyday lives, with their Injunctions, and their Writs, and their Incessant Frivolous Lawsuits and Environmental Impact Studies. You put that together with all of the Lunatic Fringe Judicial Appointments by Carter and Clinton and Hussein, and you get a Society of VICTIMS, with their HANDS OUT.
Lastly, you quote our Founding Fathers, and the Documents they put forward, to create this Country. The Articles of Confederation. The Declaration of Independence. The Constitution.
Madison. Jefferson. Adams.
These are things in a Museum. Names in a pre 1970's History Book. We have a PRESIDENT who refuses to ENFORCE the Laws of the Land. A PRESIDENT who seeks to COMMAND the people to make a Purchase. Who defies Federal Judges, Raids our Treasury, and is , right now, in the process of Ruling us by EXECUTIVE FIAT. "Long Live The KING!"
And you think that we can get a Balanced Budget Amendment through?
You're silly.
Penniless & Mindless| 10.28.11 @ 7:56AM
Didn't the capital city of Pennsylvania, Harrisburg, go "bust" bankrupt this week? It's not a backwater. It's a full sized city. And it has financially collapsed. Right there with all of the pols in the Keystone State fully aware and probably shirking all responsibilies.
AmSpec. discussions need to be more concrete. More raw facts. More real up-to-the-minute examples. Like the financial failures of America's cities -- right now. Like Harrisburg.
Mike 3/505| 10.28.11 @ 9:31AM
Tim,
Thanx Mucho. Much easier on my old eyes!
Regards,
Mike
Big Tony| 10.28.11 @ 7:35AM
The BBA is not going to work if the politicians are allowed to place a "National Emergency" exception in it that allows them to get around the amendment. Because they will just keep the country in a perpetual state of "National Emergency" . It will also not work if they are allowed to place some expenditures as "Off Budget". The Ruling Class in this country democrat and republican alike are simply not worthy of the trust or the power they now control.
Never met a politician I liked| 10.28.11 @ 8:07AM
Big Tony, right-o. The pig-trough pork pols love those Hurricanes like Irene and earthquakes like the one in central Virginia. More "emergencies!" Get Homeland Security and FEMA right on it! (and a host of dozens of other federal agencies)
Spend, spend, spend! (because we "care")
Right now you have lots of people in central Virginia whining for Washington, D.C. to cut free federal aid spending on their three-(very rural) county area impacted by the recent earthquake.
That's a state problem. Not a national one.
There should be very precise wording in this Balance Budget Amendment which prevents the ongoing taxpayer underwriting of every little bump and bruise.
Aren't we all still playing for Hurricane Katrina, Rita, and probably Andrew, too.
The real deal: It is not that politicians care about the plight of those with home or businesses damage. No way! It's all about the pork -- dolling out dollars for kickbacks & power.
martin j smith| 10.28.11 @ 8:00AM
The ide of a BBA sounds good, but lets closely examine our leaders in the House and Senate. What are they doing about our economic crisis ? I will be they will not make it better. Maybe worse ?
Big Tony| 10.28.11 @ 8:01AM
Mr Calabresi your "declared war" exception is the same as the "National Emergency" exception others are proposing. We are constantly at "War" with something you name it, Terrorism, Drugs, Poverty. The only way for the "War" exception to work is for every dollar of federal expenditure that goes into fighting whatever happens to be the most recent "declared war" an equal amount is reduced from all other federal expenditures and the budget must remain balanced. Otherwise we will simply remain in state of "Declared War".
TrueBlue| 10.28.11 @ 1:01PM
He did state it should only be waivable for up to two years, so I'm guessing that situation was thought about.
RJ| 10.28.11 @ 8:12AM
We have seen what courts do with ignoring or distorting fairly clear provisions of the Constitution. The proposed Balanced Budget Amendment has many vague areas to it which would not pose a problem for the courts to render it generally an empty-letter.
If we are to restore limited government we need to have it institutionalized in a new branch of government. Constitutions and laws are only as good as the people enforcing them, otherwise, they are ignored. Imagine a branch of government that's only authority is to eliminate existing laws which it determines do not serve the national interest. It would operate similar to a presidential veto, but only after the law has been given a chance to prove itself. It would be a counterweight to the semi-permanence of laws and serve as a more effective process than Congress to do away with ineffective and counter-productive laws
TrueBlue| 10.28.11 @ 1:41PM
Then you'd end up with a branch of government, even if elected, could completely erase the laws passed by the previous administration or Congress.
We don't need another branch of government, we need a SCOTUS that will actually uphold the Constitution instead of twisting it to what they wish it said. Twisting a meaning out of the Constitution that is not specifically, and LITERALLY, written in said document should be deemed counter to the "good Behavior" (Article III, Section 1) required to maintain their seat, and they should be removed. The SCOTUS is not meant to try and determine the intent of a particular part of the Constitution, but to determine if a law passed in the US is allowed by the literal written word.
Congress also has the power to make regulations limiting what issues the SCOTUS has power to decide (Article III, Section 2, paragraph 2). That's why it's called "Checks and Balances," because each Branch of the government has the ability to check the power of another Branch. The SCOTUS for example can't determine that an Amendment proposed by Congress is unconstitutional because that is the express purpose of an Amendment, to make something constitutional.
RJ| 10.28.11 @ 5:31PM
Unfortunately our history shows that the courts can withstand political pressure only for a limited period of time. If the pressure continues, as it did during the Progressive era and the New Deal, the court usually yields, regardless of the clarity of the Constitution. And Congress does not have a good record are cleaning out failed, obsolete or ineffective legislation. This is probably because each piece of legislation has its supporters among organized interests and the bureaucracy whose jobs depend upon it. Elected officials, dependent upon favorable press and campaign contributions, will not take on bad legislation which most people are paying much attention to. For example, we still haven't been able to repeal the ethanol subsidies and the GOP has been getting more and more quiet about repealing Obamacare and Dodd-Frank. In fact, I doubt Obamacare will be repealed. I think it is much more likely that it will be revised. Even the Democrats saw the need for it to be revised when it was passed. Therefore I am calling for a new branch of government with the power to revoke existing law which has been in place for 5 years. If the law is popular with the people, Congress could repass the legislation. Without "institutionalizing" reduction of government within its structure, government will continue to grow. It needs a counter-weight to stay limited and effective.
Taxation with Trepidation| 10.28.11 @ 8:21AM
I agree with Big Tony. We can never again allow overspending. Right now financial insolvency imperils our nation far more than islam, Russian silo missles, and the Reds of Chinese on the military full-scale moblization plan.
Those three things I mentione are REAL threats.
But we cannot combat them with our house in disorder.
I rule: No "emergency spending" clauses in this Balanced Budget whatsoever. None.
If monies are needed in the national budget to fight or finance a war, then those monies must come from other pieces of the federal budget pie.
Big Tony's right.
POST American| 10.28.11 @ 8:38AM
---OVER 85% of the American public,
in polls, is calling for the AUDITING,
PROSECUTION and ABOLITION of
the ILLEGAL, ROT-child CON-trolled,
'Federal' Reserve central bank ----
Og| 10.28.11 @ 4:21PM
Brofathist Oggleebork dumphuq glubbish gorgleframmis is bloppig digronifaction in the fornifazot.
Dan Mathewson| 10.28.11 @ 7:50PM
My God! I understand that. Must've had more to drink last night than I thought.
Len| 10.28.11 @ 8:42AM
Why do people persist with what is really a ludicrous and out of touch proposal? So now we're going to amend the US constitution that has already been discarded, that was implemented for specific purposes, and designed with clear limits to confine government?
NO!!!
NO!!
NO!!
What is needed is to push back against a criminal government that forces itself on the American people until they learn to abide with the limits of the USC. Were the limits adhered to we would not have the financial mess we have, the federal government would be at most 10% of it's current size, it would have little to do with the American people as under the USC it's relations would be between the state governments and foreign governments. It would also have almost no tax impact on us.
BTW, and how many of the current candidates actually talk about specifics when it comes to eliminating unconstitutional departments, about ending unconstitutional regulations that come through the executive branch and are nothing but laws by another name? How many in the congress right now talk about it?
Cut 45% of all federal spendin| 10.28.11 @ 11:04AM
Right, Len. I agree that we need to hear about federal agencies that need to be shuttered/closed. And not just the easy ones like EPA and Dept. of Education. Every candidate OUGHT to be required to produce a by-name list of federal agencies that he or she will axe during the first 90 days after taking office in January 2013.
If you do not have this list (a LONG list with many fed agencies on it) with a solemn pledge to fulfill terminating these agencies, you cannot expect conservative GOP/Tea Party support.
In other words: Your chance of being nominated to face Barracks Obama, is ZERO.
Let's see those very specific, by-name, LONG lists of what must be axed. Produce the lists, candidates, or wither and die.
aware| 10.28.11 @ 9:01AM
Maybe, if enacted 20 years ago a BBA may, a big if with career criminal politicians involved, have prevented the calamity coming shortly. Even 5 years ago might have lessened speed of impact. Now it is closing the gate after the horses are gone. Asking politicians to forgo spending is like asking a drunk to give up the booze.
It's not just the US, the whole developed world is floating on an ocean of red ink. You can fool yourself with debt much like you can with pain killers, but neither one addresses the cause, they just hide it for a while. The plug will be pulled on the ocean of red ink and everything floating on it will go down the drain in spinning pandemonium.
Don't be fooled by stock market "rallies" or corrupted government statistics or even how things are in your own private Idaho, the biggest bubble in all of world history is approaching the bursting point and the effects will be earth moving. All expansion fueled by debt is temporary and ends in collapse, even one that all the powers that be are in on. They are very clever at coming up with ways to expand debt in the hope of future boons that will pay for it. They don't waste more than lip service figuring out how to cut spending, which is the cause of the debt.
Len| 10.28.11 @ 9:03AM
Here is a specific plan that would reduce the federal government and reduce the debt.
http://c3244172.r72.cf0.rackcd.....caPlan.pdf
JeffB| 10.28.11 @ 9:10AM
BBA is no solution. The spending will continue whether as an "emergency" or not. What WILL happen is court ordered tax increases because suddenly the BBA will be the only part of the constitution ever followed by congress or the courts.
Mimi| 10.28.11 @ 9:10AM
To Tax "The Children and Theirs" to pay for the frivolous spending of the congressional class of 2007 and the irresponsibility of the President elected in 2008 to manage an ECONOMY by borrowing so much is making slaves of them, an enormous BURDEN has been placed upon their BACKS.....their way of a good life has been STOLEN!
How will YOU vote in the near future?
We must put a STOP to this....and it TRULY is ...Taxing without representation!!!
hardcard| 10.28.11 @ 9:14AM
I second T.L.P's assessment 100%. Now what?
George S| 10.28.11 @ 10:09AM
A welfare state coupled with a balanced budget amendment can potentially be a recipe for disaster. Your economic ubermodels Germany and Switzerland have a pre-VAT personal tax rate of around 50%.
Back home, over 60 cents of every tax dollar is under Payments To Individuals in the federal budget. Therein lies the unconstitutional problem that no constitutional amendment will ever solve.
A BBA will force us to pay for the promises of long dead politicians. It has to be done, but try convincing the living voter it is him. And it can be done as long as entitlements are cut back. This way everybody suffers and will, in the end, gain support among the grownups.
No taxation without representation and no balanced budget amendment without entitlement cuts.
buckeyeman| 10.28.11 @ 10:15AM
We just passed up the chance to immediately curtail federal spending. Remember the debate over the debt ceiling? If they (democraps and republicraps) can't even block an increase in the debt ceiling, how does anyone think a BBA could ever be passed?
Indy| 10.28.11 @ 10:58AM
Nothing will be done with weak GOP leadership, Mark Levin talked about Boehner last night
http://www.therightscoop.com/m.....ve-agenda/
From CNS -
"House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) indicated at a press briefing Thursday that the House Republican leadership is not ruling out the possibility that it will support a balanced budget amendment that does not cap federal spending as a percentage of Gross Domestic Product or require a supermajority in Congress to increase taxes".
http://www.cnsnews.com/news/ar.....l-spending
Dai Alanye | 10.28.11 @ 11:58AM
Alexander Hamilton saw nothing wrong with government debt, nor do I. After all, credit is a tremendously useful tool, without which few of us would own homes or even cars.
But it must be controllable. That is, there must be a sustainable program for paying down old debt and staying current on recent debt. This is where people with credit cards get in trouble, as do govenments that can't say no to pressure groups.
The BBA seems like a blunt instrument to control the problem. Holding federal expenditures to a modest percentage of GDP is attractive if some genius can come up with a reliable enforcement method.
Len| 10.28.11 @ 1:21PM
Hamilton saw nothing wrong with debt because he didn't care about the burden it placed on the people and believed in mercantilism.
The difference between credit for government and the private individual is vast, for one the private person actually has to risk assets if he doesn't pay up, the government merely binds one generation with another's debt. To talk of there being a such thing as controllable debt ignores history and the reality of government's nature, which doesn't have mechanisms in place to prevent abuse. Let a private individual extend themselves and "boom" lesson learned for being out of control, let a government do so and the burden is passed along, and those responsible no longer around.
fmm| 10.28.11 @ 12:03PM
Any BBA needs to hold the government to accounting practices used in the private sector to have a chance of succeeding. BBAs as structured in the states don't actually work currently. Most states have what they call off budget items where there is no control over the monies actually spent or promised to be spent later. This is how Illinois and other states have gotten into the unfunded retirement mess which is eating them alive.
If a BBA is proposed it needs to have all the conditions mentioned by the author and can not include emergency or off-budget spending. Everything which can be done to reduce the incentives for profligate spending is a necessity if we are to survive as a worthwhile country.
Saint| 10.28.11 @ 1:00PM
A BBA that would cap federal spending at 18% of GDP is a silly idea. This is our Constitution we are talking about here, not a budget resolution. Do conservatives really want to see the definition of “GDP”—not to mention the definition of “spending”—raised to a constitutional question, with all that implies? Do we really want to invite the Supreme Court to rule on questions that are, or should be, political? And remember, the current definition of GDP includes government spending. Ridiculous.
DaveD| 10.28.11 @ 2:14PM
Agreed. Any kind of percentage in there is silly unless you also include the definition of the percentage of what, and that gets even sillier. If you do not define GDP in the amendment - something that would take more words than the entire Constitution as it now stands - all Congress would have to do is redefine GDP to up spending.
A better way would be similar to what is in place in many of the states. Borrowing is allowed for capital improvements but NOT allowed for operating costs. Thus you can borrow to build and/or maintain highways and buildings, but cannot borrow to finance Medicaid.
Even that, of course, presents problems as Congress will quickly act to redefine what a capital expense is.
There doesn't seem to be any clean way around a sneaky and dishonest Congress.
LiveFreeOrDie| 10.28.11 @ 4:11PM
"There doesn't seem to be any clean way around a sneaky and dishonest Congress."
Exactly, BBA would just be another rule for them to circumvent. Term limits would help but there's another impossibility. The current class of crooks will not likely support anything that threatens the gravy train.
PattyMor| 10.28.11 @ 1:42PM
A BBA would not solve the problem, solely. For if you don't elect honest politicans not much would be accomplished. Do you think the Democrats or half of the Republicans would abide by the restraints embedded in the Consitutition? They don't abide by the ones already there.
When John Boehner can look us in the eye and tell us he took 40 million out of the budget, when it was really only a few thousand dollars what chance do we have until we defeat them all. Do we have that much time left?
Pat| 10.28.11 @ 5:01PM
A lecture on law from a law professor is like an obese physician smoking two packs a day arguing for weight reduction and frequent aerobic workouts. The American public doesn’t want to be in hock to China, we never did nor did we desire to watch helplessly while our lawmakers spend us into poverty. But for the past several decades, our legislators have worked hard to exclude the public from their own government, we taxpayers were voted off the island without even that dramatic showdown where our expulsion is announced to the remaining contestants. All of these past “well-intentioned laws” are exactly what has brought us to the edge of the cliff, so one more law easily nullifying decades of previous laws is a child’s dream, a sweet dream to be sure, but a dream just the same.
Every other year on a Tuesday in November, the public gets its one and only chance to make things right. But every day, week in and week out, our politicians manipulate ours laws with an eye toward self-enrichment and job security. Our American form of government is sick, it isn’t working for its citizens any longer and there’s no magical cure which will restore it to health.
Some shout: “Take back our government” – noble sentiments but they don’t tell us when that will happen or how it will happen or what our elected employees will do in response rather than go quietly into that good night. Others argue it isn’t our form of government which is failing, it’s the people within the government. But the people in government are the government - those massive stone edifices in Washington D. C. aren’t borrowing money from China, those warm blooded characters inside the buildings are the ones lacking in integrity.
We seem to be listlessly waiting for a major crisis before we can summon the energy to do what we all realize must be done. Both loudly shouted and silent contempt for our government masters isn’t working – they’re simply not taking the hint.
RND| 10.29.11 @ 2:45AM
Pat, you write some good posts. Good food/thoughts to chew on.
One point above stands out. Our meagre little votes on November Tuesdays (usually when the real decisions on "winners" were made long prior as to 1) who would the party bless to run, and 2) who would actually win in a primary runoff)
My wording: As citizens we're duped and held firmly in the dark. In all the days between those November Tuesdays our elected officials -- in the statehouses and governors mansions, too -- just run roughshod over anything they please: laws, regulations, budgets, debt ceilings.
The joke is on us.
We haven't been a "government of the people" for a century, probably longer.
We're flat broke and nearly in debtors prison. While China now colonizes Greece with an eye on Portugal next.
When you write, "We seem to be listlessly waiting for a major crisis before we can summon the energy to do what we all realize must be done," what do you mean? What specific action(s) do you have in mind?
Pat| 10.29.11 @ 4:03PM
RND
It would be foolishly presumptuous to lay out a specific chain of events as a course of action. History shows changing a form of government occurs in various unpredictable ways, some violent, some peaceful. There were violent French and Russian revolutions but no similarly violent English revolution, yet their form of government did change significantly over time. A democratic form of government can also be followed by an undemocratic dictatorship - the Weimar Republic followed by Hitler as an example. So offering a specific plan of action to create change and assuming Americans would actually follow it requires more smarts than I possess.
However, an escalating dissatisfaction with the current form of government which in turn results in significant political change normally requires a crisis to bring about specific actions, for example losing a war or prolonged economic hardship accompanied by a widespread feeling the hardships aren't equally shared by all. Nor must the crisis be the specific fault of the current members of government, it may merely serve as a timely catalyst feeding off a virulent and widespread dissatisfaction which can't be resolved through maintaining the status quo.
What I meant in my comment was we all sense there is something not right about our current form of government, something very wrong which can't be specifically defined by most of the citizenry - yet, at the same time, generates a widespread effort to verbally express this collectively held dissatisfaction in concrete terms many of our citizens could readily accept based on their own intuitive feelings.
If we drew up a Bill of Particulars like the Founding Fathers did, some Americans would anchor their feelings on one specific complaint while others might lean toward a different complaint. I'd offer the following indictment in my own words, others might phrase them differently but, regardless of the phrasing employed, the intuitive meaning would be accepted.
Our government doesn't follow the will of the people and we, as voters, are powerless to make it do so under present conditions.
Our government employees, elected or otherwise, are engaged in self-serving activities which have very little relation to serving the general public.
Our government can no longer solve this nation's problems, but instead uses these frequent problems, real or perceived, as an excuse to expand its power over the citizenry.
Our government actively - and continuously - works to weaken those Constitutional checks and balances which hold the government's power over its citizens to a healthy level necessary to a self-governing political system.
Our government constantly acts to disrupt domestic tranquility by favoring one segment of the population over others with the goal being an increase of governmental power and control over all its citizens.
Others would probably add to this list but this comment is growing long. However, at the risk of being overly theatrical, we might recall the phrases other Americans once employed to express their dissatisfaction with their present form of government. And I'm sure most Americans would recognize the source of these phrases. "When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another .....". Or, "That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or abolish it .....".
RND| 10.30.11 @ 4:16AM
Once again, Pat, you give us good commentary to mull over.
I like the line you wrote: "Our government employees, elected or otherwise, are engaged in self-serving activities which have very little relation to serving the general public."
Isn't this the truth!
We have ARMIES of bureaucrats at the federal, state, and even local levels (several large city/county government behemoths come to mind for me, having once lived outside Chicago -- the DuPage County governmental apparatus! Massive.)
And it seldom seems to register (when it should "register" every day), "Hey, I am accountable here. The taxpayers, my neighbors, they're funding my....my entire life."
Once upon a time I was a government employee at the national level. I never encountered a colleague who shed any thoughts on proper stewardship of the trust/responsiblities/equipment and money we controlled. Sometimes -- from my perspective -- heaps of money.
Pat, I hear some Patrick Henry in your words. Yes, it is again time....
mortem| 10.28.11 @ 5:04PM
Here's a balanced budget -- $80 trillion revenue, $80 trillion spending. That okay, dimwit? 6 year limit on every person in House and Senate, no repeats.
conserrvative100| 10.28.11 @ 9:05PM
Balanced Budget Amendment (BBA) is good but we have 2 problems.
1. BBA does not take care of growth in entitlements. Nobody can predict the changes in the demographics.
2. During the recession when the revenues dry up, it is difficult to balance the budget.
Like an individual, the government should have rainy day savings and save enough to meet the increase in expenses due to increase in population due to immigration etc.
Dale R.| 10.28.11 @ 10:25PM
Article. I. Section. 10. No State shall ... make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts....
When was the last time a state payed its debts with gold or silver coin? The Constitution is not obeyed now. Why would a new amendment be treated differently?
POST American| 10.28.11 @ 11:26PM
---------------------BOTTOM LINE---------------------
85% of the American public is calling
for the prosecution and ABOLITION of
the foreign owned, psychopathic, USURY
and EUGENICS mongering, 'Federal' Reserve.
----------HUAC Meets NUREMBERG 2012----------
---------Tick----Tick-----Tick -------TICK!
axbucxdu| 10.29.11 @ 12:28PM
Just what we need, another gimmick. No worries, the natural order will balance the budget.
carlj| 10.29.11 @ 9:15PM
Hiding behind the fortresses of government institutions - over regulation, over taxation, and over legislation - politicians are destroying the spirit of America, in a government model that is disastrous and incompatible, in a global economy.
There is no substitute (government begging bowls, stealing money for re-distribution, or big institutions) for a free market, which promotes human self-direction through education, and a natural pursuit of excellence.
Hire Herman Cain, for a restoration of the American spirit
POST American| 10.29.11 @ 11:57PM
-----Tick ---Tick -----Tick --------Tick!
J. Pulley| 10.30.11 @ 1:44AM
We are a republic. Arguments for a BBA, like other attempts to enact law by the citizenry, illustrate the ham-handed and ultimately dictatorial nature of direct democracy. Our republic depends on responsible government, and the modern lack of it is the problem we must address.
We should seek a systemic solution to governmental dysfunction, not a mere particular solution to a single problem. We need a legislature focused on doing right by the nation, but the Congress we have directs its energies only towards continuing its own sinecures. The answer is Congressional term limits. Two terms and done, for Senators and Representatives alike.
Our responsibility is to choose our Representatives and Senators well. A two-term limit is the clearest, simplest, and most effective means to that end.
D Roamer | 10.31.11 @ 1:32AM
We are really in deep kaka if we cannot trust our elected to keep our government, so be it then; There are safeguards to make sure that those elected are over 25 and 35 and presumably sane and a citizen. So with those measly standards, I will agree that the amendment is needed.
While we are at it, lets repeal the 17th amendment so our states can appoint instead of having their Senators grovel and kiss for votes, take bribes and so forth. Just a thought.
NeilBJ| 11.1.11 @ 12:06AM
The reason that we are in such dire straits in the first place is that we have not followed the Constitution. I recall reading sometime ago -- and this may not be accurate -- that 2/3 of federal spending is unconstitutional. Regardless of what the actual number, it is obvious that we should not be spending one dollar on unconstituional programs.
A balanced budget amendment would not solve the underlying problem. Moreover, it would give sanction to the current spending on unconstitutional programs.
If we want to be truly serious about controlling spending we need to eliminate the unconstitutional Federal Reserve and return to sound money.
We are in serious trouble and we need serious solutions. A balanced budget amendment is like wallpapering a house that is structurally unsound and that is likely to collapse someday.
MoT| 11.23.11 @ 9:26AM
You are correct in pointing out that papering over the problems will not solve them. People have to wake up and quit sending the same contractors who built the lousy structure in expectation that they'll somehow "fix" the problems they created in the first place. I say make them personally and financially libel for their shenanigans. If they want to sacrifice for the nation, as they so often babble about, then put the noose about their necks.