I think that there should be no limitations in a balanced budget, not even for war. Here's why:
It would be a deterrent to war.
It would be a deterrent to wasteful war spending.
If there was an exception for declared wars, then they'd just declare more wars.
Wars can be funded completely by taxation (no inflation, no borrowing) if they're done efficiently and without waste. For example, Madison didn't manage the war of 1812 right (American troops were paid way more than British troops). Polk wanted to pay the volunteers too much, and they were using far too expensive weaponry considering what they were up against. I don't know much about the SpanAm War, but I'm sure that McKinley paid the volunteers too much. World War I was expensive because Wilson raised marginal taxes rates too high, spent too much on other things, there was high inflation, the banksters offered to finance it and Wilson took their offer. And of course, WWII costed too much as FDR was the father of the Military Industrial Complex. He paid the soldiers way too much and he also raised the marginal rates through the roof, so few people paid income tax.
Lincoln had to keep on borrowing excessively for the Counter-Revolution because he paid the troops too much (he was reelected largely because he gave the soldiers so many perks), because he kept on inflating, and because he didn't tax enough (if he had taxed 15% of income after the first $500 and hadn't inflated, then he would've been able to pay for it without borrowing, as the 2% after first 2k only paid for 21% of the war) Also, the fact that the Union was probably using unnecessarily expensive weapons was why he had to borrow excessively. He also could've sold confiscated property rather than waste it. Jackson's fiscal management of Indian Removal was responsible (most presidents would've done it fiscally irresponsibly), and Jefferson was able to fight the barbary pirates while having a surplus.
The only possible limitation I'd support is 2/3 of both houses to lift the balanced budget requirement, but it would have to be for each individual piece of legislation. The only reason I'd support that is because it takes 2/3 of both Houses to repeal an amendment, and it's a lesser evil to have an unbalanced budget for just a piece of a legislation at one time than to have the whole amendment repealed.
Some think we always need to borrow for war expenditures, but we don't.
Note that I don't support any of the wars I mentioned nor do I support indian removal, but I was just trying to get my point across.
It would be a deterrent to war.
It would be a deterrent to wasteful war spending.
If there was an exception for declared wars, then they'd just declare more wars.
Wars can be funded completely by taxation (no inflation, no borrowing) if they're done efficiently and without waste. For example, Madison didn't manage the war of 1812 right (American troops were paid way more than British troops). Polk wanted to pay the volunteers too much, and they were using far too expensive weaponry considering what they were up against. I don't know much about the SpanAm War, but I'm sure that McKinley paid the volunteers too much. World War I was expensive because Wilson raised marginal taxes rates too high, spent too much on other things, there was high inflation, the banksters offered to finance it and Wilson took their offer. And of course, WWII costed too much as FDR was the father of the Military Industrial Complex. He paid the soldiers way too much and he also raised the marginal rates through the roof, so few people paid income tax.
Lincoln had to keep on borrowing excessively for the Counter-Revolution because he paid the troops too much (he was reelected largely because he gave the soldiers so many perks), because he kept on inflating, and because he didn't tax enough (if he had taxed 15% of income after the first $500 and hadn't inflated, then he would've been able to pay for it without borrowing, as the 2% after first 2k only paid for 21% of the war) Also, the fact that the Union was probably using unnecessarily expensive weapons was why he had to borrow excessively. He also could've sold confiscated property rather than waste it. Jackson's fiscal management of Indian Removal was responsible (most presidents would've done it fiscally irresponsibly), and Jefferson was able to fight the barbary pirates while having a surplus.
The only possible limitation I'd support is 2/3 of both houses to lift the balanced budget requirement, but it would have to be for each individual piece of legislation. The only reason I'd support that is because it takes 2/3 of both Houses to repeal an amendment, and it's a lesser evil to have an unbalanced budget for just a piece of a legislation at one time than to have the whole amendment repealed.
Some think we always need to borrow for war expenditures, but we don't.
Note that I don't support any of the wars I mentioned nor do I support indian removal, but I was just trying to get my point across.
Facebook
Twitter