I've been thinking about the balanced budget amendment today

[Tony_FLADEM]

The conventional wisdom is that a balanced budget amendment would be more favorable to conservatives than to progressives. This might not be the case. Being required to balance the budget makes everything more transparent and the effects of any policy change more immediate. For example, Republicans like to cut taxes so as to hamstring Democrats when they get into power and makes them unable to "government like a Democrat." If you had a balanced budget amendment, they would not be able to do this. The effects of cutting taxes would be more immediate and a real debate would have to take place on whether we should the cut taxes or the government program. In addition, you wouldn't have Neocon president's starting wars because they would have to pay for them. Of course, if unemployment went above a certain level the BBA wouldn't apply.

[frazzled]

1. Think again

It's a horrible idea. Plus, it will never be ratified. Let's move on.

[OmahaBlueDog]

5. I'll pick that bone. I think it could get ratified currently

I will admit it would be tough, but it wouldn't even be what I'd call a longshot

27 legislatures are Republican-controlled (I'm including Nebraska, which is theoretically non-partisan, but as a practical matter is Republican). The only one that might not approve is New Hampshire, but for this purpose, I'm assuming they would.

8 are split, but those include states like Alaska, Iowa, Kentucky, Mississippi, and Virginia that I'd bet would approve the measure.

So that's potentially 32 right there.

I would bet against approval in New York, Colorado, and Oregon, but the legislatures are split, so you never know. Arkansas and WV theoretically have Dem legislatures, but tend to be pretty conservative.

I think they could definitely strong arm a Constitutional Convention (which only requires 2/3, as opposed to 3/4 of the states).

[markpkessinger]

2. Thank about our history if our forbears had been saddled with a Balanced Budget Amendment

• If the Continental Congress had been subject to such an amendment, they couldn't have borrowed the money to finance the Revolutionary War;
  
  
• Lincoln couldn't have afforded to fight the Civil War;
  
  
• Virtually none of the New Deal or Great Society programs could have been started (no WPA or CCC hence none of the infrastructure construction that resulted, no Tennessee Valley Authority);
  
  
• FDR could never have mobilized the nation to fight WWII;
  
  
• Eisenhower could not have undertaken construction of the Interstate Highway system

The list could go on and on. There is nothing inherently wrong or bad about debt. And why on Earth would you want to hamstring future generations from responding to the crises of their times as they saw fit?

[jmowreader]

3. War spending would be exempt from any BBA

The biggest problem with even the idea of a BBA is, there isn't really anything wrong with deficit spending--SO LONG AS YOU CAN PAY THE BILLS WHEN THEY COME DUE! A constant $100-$200 billion deficit is very affordable, and it does a couple of things for you. Most important, it keeps money flowing into the economy.

I'll tell ya right out: I believe in government spending. When the government spends money, it does it in the private sector and it does it in large, job-creating, economy-stimulating chunks with two commas in them.

The other thing a modest deficit does is keeps Republicans from getting stupid. If the budget is balanced or goes into surplus, Republicans get stupid and slash taxes to "give the money back to the taxpayers." If you have a large deficit like we're looking at now, Republicans get stupid and slash benefit programs to "keep the burden off our children's backs." (Which explains why we've moved PART of the burden of caring for mom and dad from our children's backs by cutting benefit programs and replaced it with ALL the burden by having our parents move into their kids' homes so they won't starve.) With a nice, affordable deficit that is still large enough to hold the Republicans' attention, both those alternatives can be avoided.

[Major Hogwash]

4. Good luck with that. They've kicked that canard around for 40 years in Washington.

Like kick the can.

Jerry Brown proposed getting a balanced budget amendment passed back in 1976 when he ran for President, and he used the Laffer curve to "prove" that it was a good idea.
The Laffer curve was debunked as pure fiction within 6 months, but the Republicans and the Libertarians still spout to this day about it's creamy smooth goodness every other year like there is some sort of magic to it.

Well, there is some magic to it, it doesn't add up!!

It's hocus-pocus using numbers.