Posted on 08/10/2011 3:15:23 PM PDT by NoLibZone
House and Senate Republicans have rallied around the notion of a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution as a solution to the country’s dire fiscal straits. But over the weekend, the head of Standard & Poor’s sovereign ratings division dismissed the idea, arguing that it would be more harmful than helpful to the country’s creditworthiness.
“In general, we think that fiscal rules like these just diminish the flexibility of the government to respond” to crises, S&P managing director John Chambers told CNN’s Wolf Blitzer on Saturday when asked whether it’s important that Congress send a balanced budget amendment to the states in order to restore the country’s AAA credit rating.
Chambers made the remarks one day after S&P downgraded the U.S. credit rating from AAA to AA+ for the first time in the country’s history.
Since the start of the 112th Congress, Republicans in both chambers have voiced increasing support for a balanced budget amendment, and a pledge to “cut, cap and balance” the federal budget — first raised during the debate over raising the country’s debt ceiling — has become a rallying point among conservatives in the broader battle over the federal budget.
During the fight over the country’s borrowing limit, the push for a constitutional amendment became so strong that House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) was forced to rework his original debt-ceiling plan after several House Republicans declined to support it unless it called for congressional passage of such an amendment.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...
Horse feathers.
A Balanced budget amendment would thwart the DNC vote buys.
Well of COURSE!!! After all, EVERYBODY knows that nations which continue to spend themselves deeper into bankruptcy make for the best credit risks!!!! Un-frigging, frigging believable!!!
EXACTLY on target!
BRAVO!!!
Well DUH!!! Can you imagine what would happen on Wall Street if they discovered that our Govt. would no longer be in a position to bail them out? Their losses would suddenly become.....THEIR LOSSES....EGADS!!!! :-D
...so, we’re to believe that if we keep going deeper and deeper into debt, it’s better for our credit rating.
It would be REALLY NICE if these people weren’t all extensions of this administration.
““In general, we think that fiscal rules like these just diminish the flexibility of the government to respond” to crises, S&P managing director John Chambers told CNN’s Wolf Blitzer ....”
IMHO, he’s correct.
The Balanced Budget Amendment is at best a TOOL. IT is not a solution. The solution involves cutting our spending severely, and promoting economic growth. The BBA merely puts additional pressure on the legislature to either cut spending or raise taxes.
And if they were only doing it beause of this pressure, they’d likely use gimmicks and tricks, and surely would push for tax increases since they were “forced”. And if they didn’t, the courts would either ignore their failure to follow the amendment, or would have to impose some sort of solution of their own — and who knows what a court would do to “balance” a budget. They are prone to raising taxes because it’s the easy thing to do.
The Cut, Cap, and Balance was good primarily because of the Cut and Cap.
The wrong Balanced Budget Amendment would be worse than the status quo but the right one would "fundamentally transform" the corrupt budget culture in Washington.
Balanced Budget Amendment, HJ RES 56 (same as SR RES 10) This is the version associated with "Cut, Cap & Balance."
The major difference is the newer version is tighter and more specific. Courts can't mandate tax increases to balance a budget, total spending is limited to 18% of GDP, there are specific supermajority provisions for protecting tax rates for example.
A balanced budget amendment is, unfortunately, necessary. The crooks in Congress like to pretend that they might need the capability to spend more than they take in for a national emergency. That’s like a cook claiming she needs a gallon of cream in the refrigerator in case a recipe calls for it. It’s plausible and has a grain of truth, but if you find that she’s drinking that entire bottle of cream (1400 g of fat, 13000 calories) every day like a college kid chugging beer, you have to take it away. Losing the ability to follow the occasional recipe that calls for a tablespoon of cream is a small price compared with the overall health benefit. The difference is that our deficit spending is far more destructive to the body of our country than a daily gallon of cream is to a person.
Big Government delenda est!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.