I had a nice response to the article in your link ready to go. Then I got company and had to stop. Had a blockquote and everything.
Lookit, the things this guy says are problematic with a balanced budget requirement are simply the same things that happen to all companies, individuals and governments that must balance the budget.
Mostly he says what option would we have if the budget turns out to have been woefully out of balance at the end of the fiscal year beyond the proposal?
Well what in the hell is new under the sun? All budgets go kerplooey and go with me here, the solution is NOT to AVOID a balance budget requirement but to come up with an action to be taken after the fiscal year ends and budget projections are shrewdly looked over.
If you work for a company in any capacity responsible for approving budgets you probably have to explain wild variances and plenty times, here’s a concept, YOU GET FIRED!
Taking a stand against a BB because it might be wrong is like saying don’t bother making the bed cause it’ll just get messed up again.
The article also says that there will be issues with such as wars and their impact on the budget.
Hey, you can be a Blue Blood GOP Ruling Class and put hands on hips and purse lips that daring to start somewhere, to iron it out, to make the mistakes and correct them...well we don’t want all the bother. Be sure to lisp and sound hissy when taking this childish position.
Forcing the feds to balance the budget, however wrong they may get it, however much work they must do, poor babies....will put the spending of this gubmint in front of the people out of whose pockets the funds are absconded.
You gotta start somewhere.
The guy that wrote this article does NOT want to start anywhere.
Been checking and monitoring budgets all my life. It can be done, adjustments made, allowances for unanticipated events allocated.
Saying it can’t be done is to pee upon my feet and tell me it is raining.
Here’s the full text of the House version (the text of the Senate version is here):
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.
So 3/5's of congress must approve any time expenditures exceed expenses.
‘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 vote.
So 3/5's of congress must approve a debt ceiling increase.
‘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.
Seems pretty cut and dry to me.
‘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.
Simple majority for tax increases....pretty standard.
‘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 is engaged in 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.
So okay, wars and military conflicts are problems. It's hard to budget for a war that you can't predict will happen. 9-11, for example, would have blown a budget that year. Well why can't exceptions be made for wards? As the above is written, it's like they throw the baby out with the bath water and say in the event of a military threat, conflict....the balanced budget goes out the door. Why not just remove all costs of a war from a presented and approved balanced budget? This is how they handle this sort of thing in the business world. You'd have presidents starting wars or declaring Canada a danger just to blow the budget.
‘Section 6. The Congress shall enforce and implement this article by appropriate legislation, which may rely on estimates of outlays and receipts.
says congress will make all laws needed to make the balanced budget work. In other words they can't say they couldn't collect monies for new fly traps because no law allowed it. They can't put it in the budget if there's legal way to do it.
‘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.
This is where it stipulates that receipts do NOT include money from borrowing.
‘Section 8. This article shall take effect beginning with the later of the second fiscal year beginning after its ratification or the first fiscal year beginning after December 31, 2016.’.
If this is ratified as a constitutional ammendment than it shall begin as stipulated OR by 2016. You gotta start somewhere. The pubs and Tea Party types will have to keep an eyeball on this that they don't forget all about it.
The Senate version differs as follows:
■Provides that total outlays in any given fiscal year shall not exceed 18% of Gross Domestic Product for the immediately proceeding year
It is what it says. I think this is a sneaky way for the dems to keep the pubs from capping expenditures at 10% of gdp or some such.
■Passing an unbalanced budget or increasing the debt ceiling requires a two-thirds vote rather than a three-fifths vote
reducing amount required to approve some things.
■Requires that any bill that levies a new tax or raises an existing tax rate have a two-thirds vote in each chamber
http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/the-balanced-budget-amendment-is-a-bad-idea/
Maybe I’m just too cynical, but this is what jumps out at me:
“If you can cobble together a supermajority, you can blow through this amendment like a cannonball through wet toilet paper. The Democrats managed that for a couple years not all that long ago all by themselves and even got a few controversial votes through with some Republican assistance.”
And this:
“The supermajority also poses a problem in the other direction, though, to the extent that it gives too much power to minorities in both Houses of Congress to block measures that are either popular or, just plain necessary. “
I also think equating running a business, small or large, with running the federal government is too simplistic. We can see from experience that politicians don’t get “fired” for irresponsible financial decisions - the opposite occurs. Currently 40 - 50% of their “employers” want to spend, spend, spend. And of course, politicians have safety in numbers (”bi-partisan votes, bi-partisan committees, blah, blah, blah”).
And I’m also uneasy with the notion of types like Obama, Harry Reid, Barney Frank, Nancy Pelosi, et al using this as a weapon to play politics with our national security, in a situation where a balanced budget might be secondary to more immediate concerns.
If a BBA won’t prevent the problems we’re dealing with already (and it can’t, because it wouldn’t be difficult to do an end run around the numbers through political wheeling and dealing, accounting tricks, shifting items on and off the budget, etc.) then what’s the purpose of pushing it now, when it won’t pass anyway? I think it’s because it provides political cover for republicans.
At this point, energy would be well-spent cleaning house: Defeating Obama, holding the house, and taking the senate. But not with “compassionate conservatives” this time!