Constitutional convention for federal balanced budget amendment

[Bowfinger]

A balanced budget amendment would be a catastrophic mistake both in the policy making arena and the basic economics arena.

This. The Tea Partiers have a lot of bad ideas, but their fixation on a mandatory balanced budget is one of the most misguided. It's too rigid and ignores basic economics.

 

[SMOGZINN]

Well if you add exceptions then is it a balanced budget amendment? The list you proposed is easily abused right out of the gate. Recessions happen every 3-5 years on avg. Wars about every decade. Hell we are in the middle of a 13 year long war right now.

That is my point. No amendment could pass that didn't leave some room to handle emergencies, and any loophole in the amendment to allow for that will be immediately abused.

 

[Jimzz]

Many states have balanced budget amendments. In Tennessee there is a $200 million shortfall in tax collections... so raises for state employees just got axed. This is exactly what the federal government needs. I know though that this type of amendment would cause more problems with government spending that it would solve though.

The problem is all the federal agencies never authorized to spend money in the first place keep growing exponentially.

States can have balanced budgets because they have uncle sam to bail them out if the sh_t hits the fan. The Fed does not have anyone above to do that.

Not only that but most of the balanced budget laws in states have so many loopholes its easy to say the budget is balanced because you kicked the can down the road with cooking the book on pension funding, selling/leasing state property, etc...

 

[ElFenix]

It's a good idea but it won't happen. Too many moronic big government supporters would be outraged that they aren't able to steal money from the taxpayer.

it's a terribly stupid idea when you can run a few percent deficits from now until forever while still reducing the debt in the only measure that matters without removing your options and flexibility for crises. it comes from a fundamental misunderstanding of how the federal government is funded and complete ignorance of macroeconomics.

 

[Texashiker]

there's 0 need to balance the budget. a balanced budget amendment is a terrifically bad idea.

Besides the budget, this is also an issue of states rights.

When the federal government can not, or refuses to act, shouldn't states have the right to force the federal government to act?

Take immigration for example, our border are like a water faucet that the feds refuse to turn off.

States are prohibited from taking their own action on immigration.

So why cant the states call a constitutional convention and force the federal government to do something?

As for national debt

Yes, some debt is needed, but the current pace of debt is not sustainable. We simply can not continue to print money out of thin air to pay off our debt, which only increases the debt even more.

How much debt is enough? 20 trillion, 50 trillion, 100 trillion? Maybe print enough money that people wipe their ass with it?

 

[ElFenix]

Besides the budget, this is also an issue of states rights.

When the federal government can not, or refuses to act, shouldn't states have the right to force the federal government to act?

Take immigration for example, our border are like a water faucet that the feds refuse to turn off.

States are prohibited from taking their own action on immigration.

So why cant the states call a constitutional convention and force the federal government to do something?

i don't think i've said anything about that in this thread, and this is in fact the first time it's been brought up.

As for national debt

Yes, some debt is needed, but the current pace of debt is not sustainable. We simply can not continue to print money out of thin air to pay off our debt, which only increases the debt even more.

How much debt is enough? 20 trillion, 50 trillion, 100 trillion? Maybe print enough money that people wipe their ass with it?

actually the *current* pace is.

 

[khon]

A balanced budget amendment is a terrible idea. As soon as there is even a small recession, you would have to start firing people, which would immediately make it a bigger recession, which means you would have to fire more people ...

 

[boomerang]

We don't have the political intelligence to pull off a Constitutional Convention. Such an endeavor would be doomed by the political shallowness of our times. Once a convention is convened there would be no limit to the damage it could do.

Who is the "we" you are referring to?

I see in your last sentence I quoted that you are uninformed. Perhaps you get your news from the wrong sources or perhaps you are biased. It doesn't really matter. A Constitutional Convention called by the states under Article V of the Constitution would require a 38 state majority to effect any change through the process. The chances of what is termed a "runaway convention" is nil.

If you choose to believe otherwise, it may be that you fear an Article V convention because it has the potential to restrict power at the federal level. Reducing the power of our out of control federal government is not just desirable, it is a necessity if we're to remain a sovereign nation. We will not survive under the wholly and totally corrupt system that governs us now. History teaches us this. We take it upon ourselves to reign in our government through a process provided to us or we fall. To think otherwise is foolish.

http://conventionofstates.com/

A Convention of States may sound scary but our current system is far, far scarier. It's not sustainable. A balanced budget amendment would require approval from 38 states. That's not going to happen. How about changes to the Constitution that make being a career politician prohibitive? Just to name one thing possible.

 

[Ban Bot]

That is true. Except these people who want a balanced budget also seem to desire blowing up other nations. They don't see it as a good idea once their ability to wage needless wars goes away with a balanced budget.

Your hyperbole can stand as long as an equally asinine ignorant generalization aimed at derailing the discussion is accepted as equal fact. I propose: And the people who want universal health care are all Occupiers lounging around in their Levi's and Nikes at their local Starbucks posting rants online via their MacBooks decrying corporate America and the insane cost of their tuition for their degree in Theater and how they have zero job leads.

I agree with Iron: a balanced budget, especially if it does NOT include a time of war provision, will force congress to sell the merits of war to Americans because they will be faced with imminent tax increases. This is a MUCH better model, forcing consumers to see the real cost of their services, instead of backloading them onto another generation.

 

[Incorruptible]

it's a terribly stupid idea when you can run a few percent deficits from now until forever while still reducing the debt in the only measure that matters without removing your options and flexibility for crises. it comes from a fundamental misunderstanding of how the federal government is funded and complete ignorance of macroeconomics.

Why is it stupid? The government doesn't seem too interested in cutting spending and reigning in the debt. Do you really believe they will balance the budget?

They want to keep spending more money and waste it on idiotic programs. Of course the big government supporters are going to call this dangerous and pull the usual BS.

 

[ElFenix]

Why is it stupid? The government doesn't seem too interested in cutting spending and reigning in the debt.

i wrote why it's stupid in the next phrase, did you lose that part of my post? you quoted it. here, i'll quote it again for you

you can run a few percent deficits from now until forever while still reducing the debt in the only measure that matters without removing your options and flexibility for crises.

Do you really believe they will balance the budget?

no, why would i?

 

[Atreus21]

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.co...eck-the-last-president-to-balance-the-budget/

Fiscal
Year Year
Ending National Debt Deficit
FY1993 09/30/1993 $4.411488 trillion
FY1994 09/30/1994 $4.692749 trillion $281.26 billion
FY1995 09/29/1995 $4.973982 trillion $281.23 billion
FY1996 09/30/1996 $5.224810 trillion $250.83 billion
FY1997 09/30/1997 $5.413146 trillion $188.34 billion
FY1998 09/30/1998 $5.526193 trillion $113.05 billion
FY1999 09/30/1999 $5.656270 trillion $130.08 billion
FY2000 09/29/2000 $5.674178 trillion $17.91 billion
FY2001 09/28/2001 $5.807463 trillion $133.29 billion

Debt went up each year. That's not a surplus.

Adjusted for inflation, he ran a surplus. In raw numbers he ran a deficit.

 

[Incorruptible]

i wrote why it's stupid in the next phrase, did you lose that part of my post? you quoted it. here, i'll quote it again for you



no, why would i?

There is a better way to balance the budget though than what you want.

And you just admitted they won't balance the budget, they just want to spend more money. It's why this is necessary.

 

[ElFenix]

There is a better way to balance the budget though than what you want.

what are you even talking about? i haven't even advocated a balanced budget in this thread. your post makes no sense.

And you just admitted they won't balance the budget, they just want to spend more money.

so?

It's why this is necessary.

why would i want to limit the government to spending only what it taxes? economic-wise, that's a pretty poor idea.

 

[Knowing]

The states aren't supposed to because they can't inflate the currency.

Which is why no one is talking about the issue of unfunded liabilities which are already sizable enough to probably require federal intervention.

The idea of a con-con in our political climate worries me.

 

[Zaap]

My question to my conservative friends who advocate for a balanced budget on the federal level. What will we do when the next war is started and we literally cant fight it because it would be fought with a defict?

So... lets keep spending money we don't have, so that in the event we one day need money we don't have... we won't have money we won't have?

Or something like that?

In other words, very flimsy reasoning for not atleast *attempting* to get out financial house in order.

 

[ElFenix]

So... lets keep spending money we don't have, so that in the event we one day need money we don't have... we won't have money we won't have?

Or something like that?

In other words, very flimsy reasoning for not atleast *attempting* to get out financial house in order.

balanced budget amendment != attempting to get our financial house in order

 

[Zaap]

I'm guessing according to you anything short of politicians rolling around in piles of UOME's yelling "SPEND! SPEND! SPEND!!!!!" isn't either.

 

[ElFenix]

I'm guessing according to you anything short of politicians rolling around in piles of UOME's yelling "SPEND! SPEND! SPEND!!!!!" isn't either.

is there anything i have posted in this thread that gives you that idea?

argue against arguments i'm making, not crap you've made up in your head.

 

[Fern]

We can't get 2/3's of the people to agree, much less 3/4's. It'll never happen.

Fern

 

[Zaap]

is there anything i have posted in this thread that gives you that idea?

argue against arguments i'm making, not crap you've made up in your head.

Your assertion that current spending is sustainable forever, for one. First off, we all know nothing will ever be held at today's "current" level even if it was sustainable. Eventually we'll be talking multiple trillion dollar overspending each year and you'll probably insist that "current" level is just peachy too. And so on and so on. I'd rather see a lid put on all these corrupt political hacks and their out of control spending before they sink everything. Our govt hacks have access to more money than mankind has ever seen on this planet and yet they've convinced people its not enough and that everyone owes them everything, and any attempt to put a lid on them is the most horrible thing ever. Its all pure bullshit.

We can't get 2/3's of the people to agree, much less 3/4's. It'll never happen.

It almost happened in the 80's. The count was only 4 states short of a constitutional convention being called. Same issue, balanced budget. Other issues have come as close as 2 states shy.

It'd be interesting to know what would have happened had a balanced budget amendment been achieved 30 years ago. Of course the govt-sycophant left that believes everything is owed to precious dear leader govt will insist it would have been terribad. After all, depriving their govt massas of their birthright to endless deficit spending could only lead to chaos. In reality, we'd probably be a far wealthier, more prosperous nation, definitely with far less debt hanging over the heads the citizenry. The political hack class would have had to get by via other methods besides the endless Visa card. The political theatre would have probably been epic as well... people still with by far the largest budget ever seen on planet earth pretending they're perpetually on the brink of going broke. It would have been even more hilarious than their current historonics.

 

[boomerang]

The first step is admitting you have a problem. We can't get the feds to the first step. Their idea of cutting spending is taking .5% out of a projected 20% increase in spending in year ten. Cutting an increase ten years away is spun as a cut.

Somehow, we have to get past this being a partisan issue. Common sense has to have a seat at the table. Of course it won't, unless an outside force makes it happen. D.C. has shown us beyond any shadow of a doubt that they are unwilling to do it on their own.

 

[sandorski]

Such a Convention will open up a number of possibilities beyond just Balanced Budget amendments. Others have been pushing for Political Campaign Funding amendments and the curtailment of Domestic Spying, for eg.

 

[ElFenix]

Your assertion that current spending is sustainable forever, for one.

it's not just my assertion, it's pretty widely regarded as being indefinitely sustainable. further, that's better than or roughly equal to where we were at for a decade between 1983-1993 and for every W budget. that's different from the profligate caricature you've described.

First off, we all know nothing will ever be held at today's "current" level even if it was sustainable.

and here's where you go from arguing against me, to arguing against to what you want to argue against and then on to mindlessness.

Eventually we'll be talking multiple trillion dollar overspending each year and you'll probably insist that "current" level is just peachy too. And so on and so on. I'd rather see a lid put on all these corrupt political hacks and their out of control spending before they sink everything. Our govt hacks have access to more money than mankind has ever seen on this planet and yet they've convinced people its not enough and that everyone owes them everything, and any attempt to put a lid on them is the most horrible thing ever. Its all pure bullshit.

and it's almost a mathematical certainty that eventually multiple trillion dollar deficits will also be sustainable.

 

[Greenman]

We don't have the political intelligence to pull off a Constitutional Convention. Such an endeavor would be doomed by the political shallowness of our times. Once a convention is convened there would be no limit to the damage it could do.

On the issue of a balanced federal budget, that is the last thing the states want. Under the current system state level politicians can call "For shame, for shame!" at Congress while the honey still flows to the states. The feds do the dirty work of tax collection and borrowing for the benefit of the states.

Right on point. A Constitutional Convention today would be a clusterfuck of biblical proportions. Every pandering jaw flapper in the US would want to be involved, and all of them combined don't have an IQ that would equal a respectable earthquake.