It's time for the Dems to push for a balanced budget amendment

[dolstein]

As long as the Bush administration is able to systematically de-fund the federal government by slashing taxes and racking up trillions in debt, we can forget about ever using the federal government to advance progressive goals.

Bill Clinton realized that the future of liberalism depended on a federal government that was on fiscally sound footing. The Republicans, no fools they, realized this too. That's why they've pushed through massive tax cuts over the past few years.

Look, it's bad enough that the current generation of Republican political leaders want to destroy what's left of the New Deal and Great Society. But they shouldn't have the right to impose their policy choices on future generations. Put simply, we shouldn't be allowed to steal from our children and our grandchildren, who have absolutely no voice in the political process. But that is EXACTLY what we are doing now. We are sacrificing our children's standard of living because we aren't willing to give up our tax cuts and keep spending under control.

[creeksneakers2]

1. Great idea!

If nobody stops the GOP, they'll destroy the government by driving it into bankruptcy.

[proud patriot]

2. Excellent Idea dolstein

:thumbsup: I couldn't agree more .

I just made a sign for my front porch
which has the National Debt numbers
including each individuals share on it .

I know it changes daily but I guess it's the point
of heading in a bad direction that I'm trying to
get across .

[Celeborn Skywalker]

3. Yes, they should.

The actions taken by this administration, such as cutting taxes while at the same time hiking federal spending, are morally bankrupt and cruel to future generations.

[Jacobin]

4. The judicious use of deficits in times of economic slowdowns is

important. When democrats are in charge, they are used properly to help expand the economy in a slowdown. Since the republicans are trying to drown the government in the bathtub, I understand where you are going with this.

But, constitutional amendments are very hard to un-do

[Telly Savalas]

31. Exactly.

Over the course of a business cycle you want expenditures to equal revenue so you're not making your kids pay for current programs, but having wiggle room to oil the economic gears is really important.

Anyway, how effective would such an amendment be? The GOP can just get on the horn with their buddies from Arthur Andersen and "balance" any budget they want with creative bookkeeping.

[Toots]

35. Virtually every single state has one

It hasn't seemed to tie their hands too badly. I think unless you force them to balance the budget by law they will never do so. What Clinton accomplished was truly amazing....

[Telly Savalas]

38. The Canadian government has been running a surplus for several years...

without a balanced budget amendment.

I'm not an economist but it's my understanding that a good national fiscal policy works something like this: when the economy is slumping a bit, modest defecit spending by the government can give it a bit of a kick start, then at the peak of the business cycle you wanna run surpluses to keep the debt in check. Requiring the budget to be balanced every year removes this flexibility.

[Cuban_Liberal]

5. Paul Simon wuld have agreed

Paul Simon was a classical liberal, yet he believed that 'liberal does not mean wastrel'. I am of the same POV.

[senseandsensibility]

6. That would be a great strategy

but apparently, Dems don't do strategy.:shrug:

[illflem]

7. The republican way to balance the budget is anti- American

Their method is to cut funding for research that could create tons of higher paying jobs and thus more tax revenue and substitute it with more military funding that benefits only a few.

[EVDebs]

8. Republican fiscal brinksmanship masqueradeing as "sane leadership"

These R's should be called out to account !

[Pepperbelly]

9. No, we should not ...

It was bad policy before and is still bad policy.

[dolstein]

12. Sorry, but huge deficits are even worse policy. But more than that

there's the fundamental moral question of whether one generation has the right to saddle future generations with trillions of dollars of debt.

The fact is that we currently have a narrow political majority that is making incredibly irresponsible and selfish decisions that will effect many generations to come. Surely it's reasonable to require that there be a true national concensus before allowing deficit spending of this magnitude.

[Pepperbelly]

16. It was repaired quite nicely without a BB amendment

in the 90s. There is no structural barrier to it getting into balance.
It is a political question and not one that bears something as either meaningless or as draconian as such an amendment ... of course, by that I mean that such an amendment, if effective, would, by the nature of BROAD policies, be draconian and if it wasn't draconian, it would be meaningless.

[dolstein]

18. Sorry, it wasn't repaired at all

The Clinton surpluses are an anomaly. You may think it was easy, but it was anything but. First, George Bush had to commit political suicide by agreeing to a budget deal with the House Democrats. Then House Democrats had to commit political suicide by approving the Clinton budget plan. And then you needed a prolonged political stalement on economic policy, accompanied by a prosperous economy. None of these factors is likely to be replicated anytime soon.

Deficits have become the norm in American politics for the simple reason that it is far easier to pass costs onto people who can't vote (i.e., future generations) than it is to raise taxes or cut spending. This is a systemic problem, and it requires a structural remedy.

[Pepperbelly]

21. you are still talking politics, not structure.

And this doesn't at all address my concerns about it either being draconion or useless, with no middle ground.

[More Than A Feeling]

33. took the words right out of my mouth! n/t

[Toots]

36. Is it bad policy for the states also???

:shrug:

[NYC Liberal]

10. It's already been proposed. Albeit, back in 1997:

http://www.senate.gov/~rpc/releases/1997/v5.htm

Section 1. Total outlays for any fiscal year shall not exceed total receipts for that fiscal year, unless three-fifths of the whole number of each House of Congress shall provide by law for a specific excess of outlays over receipts by a rollcall vote.

Section 2. The limit on the debt of the United States held by the public shall not be increased, unless three-fifths of the whole number of each House shall provide by law for such an increase by a rollcall vot

Section 3. Prior to each fiscal year, the President shall transmit to the Congress a proposed budget for the United States Government for that fiscal year, in which total outlays do not exceed total receipts

Section 4. No bill to increase revenue shall become law unless approved by a majority of the whole number of each House by a rollcall vote

Section 5. The Congress may waive the provisions of this article for any fiscal year in which a declaration of war is in effect. The provisions of this article may be waived for any fiscal year in which the United States in engaged in a military conflict which causes an imminent and serious military threat to national security and is so declared by a joint resolution, adopted by a majority of the whole number of each House, which becomes law.

Section 6. The Congress shall enforce and implement this article by appropriate legislation, which may rely on estimates of outlays and receipts.

Section 7. Total receipts shall include all receipts of the United States Government except those derived from borrowing. Total outlays shall include all outlays of the United States Government except for those for repayment of debt principal

Section 8. This article shall take effect beginning with fiscal year 2002 or with the second fiscal year beginning after its ratification, whichever is later.

[dolstein]

14. I particularly like Section 3

Even if Congress weren't required to enact a balanced budget, I think it's important that somebody actually be required to submit a balanced budget, just so people can get a real sense of the kind of sacrifices that are going to be needed to right this fiscal trainwreck.

[stevedeshazer]

22. I agree with you

But I find it ironic that back in 1997 the BBA proposal was used against President Clinton by the Republicans.

[Telly Savalas]

30. Sacrifices?

Like not spending hundreds of billions for some John Wayne fantasy in the Middle East?

Getting rid of the "Star Wars" missile defence system?

Repealing Bush's tax cuts on the wealthy? Or making our tax structure a bit closer to the progressive system we saw under Eisenhower?

Slashing 50 to 100 billion a year by cutting corporate welfare and other frivolous pork barrel spending?

We don't need sacrifices, we need a modicum of sanity. There's no need to tighten the belt when our pants are around our ankles.

[Igel]

11. In addition to the monetary management aspects,

think about what it would mean:

There are three ways to balance the budget. Cut spending, raise taxes, or a combination.

The balanced budget business that was imposed in the mid-'90s was, oddly enough, was really the first two done in a way that amounted to the third: the budget wasn't balanced in a single year, but the spending increases were reduced below inflation. Simultaneously, the tax brackets weren't adjusted as incomes rose, meaning that people paid significantly more in taxes.

A balanced budget amendment would have to be phased in, otherwise there's the risk that all the cuts would happen over one fiscal year. And there has to be the ability to adjust for tax revenue declines--I forget if it was 1/2 or 1/4 of the gap between the f/y 202 projected surplus and the actual deficit was caused by a decline in revenue. (The other two factors being, of course, homeland security/war and tax cuts.)

[Vinca]

13. This is a great idea. At the very least, it would be a noble drum

to beat for the 2006 elections. It would make the Republicans really wonder about what the hell happened to their party. They used to demonize the Democrats by calling them "tax and spend" and for "big government." Then Dubya came along and turned the Repukes into the "charge and spend, big government" party. It's getting weirder by the day.

[dolstein]

15. Credit Card Republicans

That's what I call them. Of course, what the Republicans are doing in Congress mirrors what so many families around the country are doing. The level of personal indebtedness is at an all-time high.

[Vinca]

17. Sadly, in many cases, there's a reason for personal debt.

I read an article recently about seniors who have been squeezed to the max, particularly on health care, running up credit card bills for food. Life is very hard out there for some. Credit card companies are willing to take on anyone with a pulse only to later call in the Republicans to pass a bankruptcy law which will leave some people living in a box and others contemplating suicide.

[fujiyama]

19. For once

I must say I agree with you.

It's a good idea, practically speaking as a matter of policy, and politics.

[Deja Q]

20. 25 YEARS TOO LATE. FAR WORSE, If we do it now, the repukes will use it to

exterminate social programs, scapegoating those and not subsidies to mega-billion corporations as being too expensive to continue.

[w4rma]

25. It might not work out that way. These programs are highly popular.

But the, behind the scenes, corporate welfare is highly unpopular, except with those who benefit from it (which is really only a relatively few people in the world)

[lostinacause]

27. deleted message (replied to wrong post)

[spooky3]

23. I like it. Do you have any way to urge your reps. to do it?

My senators are both rethugs and my rep. isn't very powerful right now.

[w4rma]

24. I agree. (nt)

[googly]

26. Touche! Astrovia!! Salute!!!

[lostinacause]

28. It is a poor idea

When there is a recession the need for funds for welfare programs grow and the funds available decrease. This means that when, in my opinion, the people who deserve social assistance the most need it, it is not available. If any responsible spending amendment is introduced it should include some sort of allowance for spending based on economic indicators to allow more stable spending (deficit spending in recessions, surplus spending in periods of higher growth). This is easy to theorize but likely hard to have a formula that works effectively.

[HereSince1628]

29. I agree though there need to be limits...and the market seems

to be willing to fund all this debt.

[lostinacause]

39. Even with the current behavior by the Bush administration

American debt is still a relatively safe investment. The consequences of not paying back loans are too high for any administration even think about defecting. It is in a government's (especially a conservative government's) best interest to spend more then they take in. People don't generally prefer excessive spending because they partially don't realize that they have to pay it back. While the government is in office they reap the rewards of deficit spending while the next party in power pays the consequences. The question becomes "when will Americans see this as an issue?" It is really the people who have to decide they have had enough.

[More Than A Feeling]

32. It was a bad idea when the republicans did it

and it is a bad idea now.

Look, chronic, long term deficits are bad, absolutely. (especially what we are actually spending them for)

But government spending, stimulus, and deficits in the short term are nonetheless useful economic tools in fighting recession and it would be foolish to deprive them of that.

[Toots]

37. How do States with Balanced Budget Laws manage????

Sometimes it is very difficult I know but they seem to manage....

[WI_DEM]

34. I agree

Clinton proved that we can live within our means and still have a compassionate government. Of course we can't do it all at once, but we should push it.

[enough already]

40. Nonsense

If the goal is a balanced budget as opposed to a cheap political stunt that nobody will take seriously and has no chance of passing, then all we have to do is propose an actual balanced budget and stand unified behind it. Put an actual financial alternative in front the people instead of some abstract amendment that, even in a best case scenario, wouldn't be effective for years.

[Nederland]

41. The Devil is in the details

How would you write such an amendment? Would you seriously write it in such a manner that deficit spending was absolutely impossible, even in the event of something along the lines of the Great Depression or WWII? If you grant exceptions for these types of events, how would you prevent Congress from abusing them? As much as I agree with the principle of a balanced budget, I don't see how an amendment would work in practice.

[Spinoza]

42. TREASON

I would support a constitutional amendment making a congressional vote for any budget which includes ANY deficit an act of treason. The only exception would be during a war constitutionally declared by congress. What we are doing to our children's lives, thru unbridled deficit spending, is unconscionable.

[Nederland]

44. Dumb Idea

If an amendment like you describe were in place when FDR took office the US would never have gotten out of the Great Depression.

[Padraig18]

43. Not neccessarily a balanced-budget amendment, but 'fiscal responsibility'

That will definitely be the Republican's 'Achilles' Heel' in 2006 and 2008.