Poll: Do we need a "Balanced Budget Amendment" to the Constitution?

[HombrePequeno]

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie
Economies are too unpredictable, and balanced budget legislation simply hand-cuffs governments.

Are balanced budgets important? Hell yes. Should they be legislated? I don't think they should.

The government definitely needs to be handcuffed a lot more than it currently is. The amount the government is growing per year is appalling.

 

[Engineer]

Originally posted by: Budarow

Originally posted by: Engineer


Maybe I'm looney in thinking that the gravy train of borrowing will eventually crumble the very nation that we live in. I just don't know.

No it won't...when we claim "national bankruptcy" the debt holders will lose their shirts (e.g., China, Japan, U.K., Pimco, etc.) but within 1 or 2 years look how much money the U.S. will save by not having any interest payments on the ~$10+ Trillon worth of debt (my estimate of how much we'll owe after Bush's next 4 years). Federal taxes could be cut by ~45%.

Of course anyone trying to buy a house will have to pay ~30% interest rates but within a couple of years, the rates will be down to ~10% or so. If it works for Brazil, Argentina, etc., why not the U.S.?

By the way, if any politician thinks average Joe's like myself will pay 40%-50% federal tax rates in order to keep paying ever increasing $$$ to pay interest on the national debt, they will soon be out of work.

I'd rather the economy be screwed up for 1 or 2 years verses being railed for the rest of my life with unGodly tax rates.

Our current yearly deficit was 413 billion. Our interest was 350 billion this year. How could you cut Federal taxes by 45% when our current yearly debt is more than the yearly interest alone?

Bankruptcy is not an option for the US. It would not only collapse the economy of the US, but many of the world economies (although many may be based on the Euro before that point). Stock market crashes would destroy the paper wealth that so many will be depending on for retirement. Inflation, similar if not higher than Brazil, would rip the US consumer.

People need to be accountable for their debt (I hate the ease of bankruptcy in the US). The US MUST be accountable for it's bills also.

But....back to a possible solution to managing or reducing long term debt.......

 

[eclavatar]

Spending more than the government can bring in through taxes sparks rapid economic growth. It circulates more money in the hands of the people. To expect anything but a deficit during war time and after a recession is asinine. A surplus means the government is hoarding tax payers money and in the end such a practice will negatively effect our economy. and spiral us into a recession.

To add such an amendment would incite the government to raise taxes, and again raise taxes till US surpasses Canada's taxes. I will not allow the government a free ticket towards a socialist government. You cannot put such restraints on the government and not expect a major backlash on the American people.

 

[3chordcharlie]

Originally posted by: HombrePequeno

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie
Economies are too unpredictable, and balanced budget legislation simply hand-cuffs governments.

Are balanced budgets important? Hell yes. Should they be legislated? I don't think they should.

The government definitely needs to be handcuffed a lot more than it currently is. The amount the government is growing per year is appalling.

Government spending needs to be curbed in almost every government in almost every nation. But it needs to be done with some intelligence - someone above rightly pointed out that if you force budget reductions legislatively, the beaurocratic response is to immediately cut programs, not ioverhead, and tehn scream 'bloody murder' because the budget redctions are 'stopping us from providing services'. If the will isn't there at high levels of government to push spending hanges through propoerly, then balanced budget legislation leads to even less efficient government.

I would compare the balanced budget initiatives in the provincial Ontario government (1995-2000) with the same program at the federal level (1993-1999ish). While both resulted in service reduction, the federal changes were driven by a better government (within means) philosophy, and the provincial ones by a slash-and-burn (and hold asset fire-sales, so we can acheive tax cuts) philiosophy. The result was a balanced budget and tax cuts in both cases, but the quality of government programs remained much higher at the federal level than the provincial level.

 

[Budarow]

Originally posted by: Engineer

Originally posted by: Budarow

Originally posted by: Engineer

Our current yearly deficit was 413 billion. Our interest was 350 billion this year. How could you cut Federal taxes by 45% when our current yearly debt is more than the yearly interest alone?

Here's my projection of economic trends in the U.S. over the next 4-8 years:

1. Unemployment will steadily grow. I mean the REAL unemployment as in people who used to/still want to have full time jobs but can't find a full time and I'm NOT speaking just of people collecting unemployment. I believe this will happen for 2 main reasons:

1. technology is really coming into its own with productivity gains and MANY MANY white collar workers (mostly middle management) will lose their jobs permanently and WHOLE job categories will be reduced to ~40% of their current positions (the number of jobs will actually continue to decrease as consumers become more comfortable and are willing to depend on technology verses "sales help"). The above includes, but is not limited to the following: insurance agents, loan officers, administrative workers (i.e., paper shufflers), cashiers (mostly at large stores with lots of cashiers such as grocery stores), sales people of every variety, and construction trades (especially carpenters) to name a few. Also, entire industries will be GREATLY reduced or wiped out completely to include: paper industry, photographic chemicals (and photo paper and film), and brokerages (stock, bond, and mortgage) to name a few. And yes, some new industries will be created, but in large, these will require many, many less employees than the industries they are replacing. It's simply amazing how the development/production of "technology" requires SO FEW employess albeit, top-shelf employees.

With fewer workers, there will be less and less tax revenue for the feds (and states) which will continue to help ballon the national debt (i.e., less taxes but NOT less spending).

2. The debt will steadily grow because the republicans refuse to cut spending AND collect more taxes (at least for the past 25 years and through 3 republican presidents). This will cause ever increasing $$$ of U.S. Treasuries being issued (i.e., 10-year bonds). With all this new dept (supply), yield (interest rates) on this debt will increase UNLESS more and more countries are willing to continue buying our debt. With greater debt (i.e., increasing supply) and increasing interest rates, the "interest payments" on U.S. dept will go much, much higher than it is today. The above assumes the demand for U.S. debt does not increase or decrease, but if I were a betting man I'd say demand for U.S. debt would decrease and NOT increase over the next 10 years.

As the debt ballons the interest payments will increase with it and over the last 15 years or so, the U.S. has paid relatively low interest rates just like consumers. IF the strength of the economy determined interest rates for the most part, rates going forward would be relatively low. However, the $$$ value of bonds sold (supply) and the bond market (demand) controls what interest rates are MUCH MORE than the strength of the economy.

Anyway, if much of the above comes to be, federal taxes are going to be a BEEEACCHH in the next 10 years!!!

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: alchemize
I think it would be fantastic. Something our forefathers didn't think about. Of course, that was because the concepts of economics that are taken for granted today were non-existant when the constitution was written.

Not true at all. Your knowledge of history is lacking. Adam Smith published his "Wealth of Nations" in (ironically) 1776, and the Constitution was not ratified until 1789. Quite the contrary, our Founding Fathers were well aware of the debt-and-deficit issue, as they had just financed the Revolutionary War on the basis of massive debt and a rapidly inflating fiat currency. They did not write a "no deficit" clause into the Constitution because they founded our country deeply in debt.

What is different today is that we run deficits needlessly, simply because the people want more services from government than they are willing to pay for in taxes, and that needs to be stopped. Good luck though. As was just proven by this past election, a candidate who is dishonest enough to promise to both cut taxes AND increase spending at the same time is pretty much unstoppable.

Anyway, when inflation and interest rates go double-digits from all this deficit spending, I sincerely hope that our country remembers just who did it to them (but I doubt they will).

 

[Engineer]

For people who voted "NO", is there some magical way to reverse over 1/2 century of borrow and spend policies?

Same people, how about the states that have balanced amendments? Do they seem to be doing it OK?

 

[Engineer]

Originally posted by: Engineer
For people who voted "NO", is there some magical way to reverse over 1/2 century of borrow and spend policies?

Same people, how about the states that have balanced amendments? Do they seem to be doing it OK?

Vote:

49 for
14 against

I wonder if brought before the American people for a vote, would this pass?

 

Originally posted by: Engineer

Originally posted by: Engineer
For people who voted "NO", is there some magical way to reverse over 1/2 century of borrow and spend policies?

Same people, how about the states that have balanced amendments? Do they seem to be doing it OK?

Vote:

49 for
14 against

I wonder if brought before the American people for a vote, would this pass?

I'm not sure. As much as people bitch and moan about others lack of intellect on here, most seem to be better informed than the masses.

 

[Syringer]

Gov't deficits are required for recessions to bring the US out of it.

 

[Engineer]

Originally posted by: Syringer
Gov't deficits are required for recessions to bring the US out of it.

Have we been in recession for nearly 50 years or more?

 

[Engineer]

Originally posted by: Rainsford
I think forcing the government to have a balanced budget is a good idea. If people don't want to give the government enough money to do what the government wants to do, then the government probably doesn't need to be doing it. They serve the people, not the other way around. If the government really needs money for something, make the case to the people, I'm sure if it's necessary they would be alright with it.

Of course I'm no budget expert, but this seems like it would be a good idea.

This story reminded me of what you posted. 23 of 31 highway and transportation projects passed on ballots. 40 Billion total!

 

[StageLeft]

Maybe, but since democrats and republicans both love a good deficit, I can't see much support for it

 

[Mill]

Is this poll made by Diebold or something? I clicked yes, and then it moved my box down to no and submitted my vote. Subtract another no please.

We should have such an amendment.

 

[Engineer]

Originally posted by: Mill
Is this poll made by Diebold or something? I clicked yes, and then it moved my box down to no and submitted my vote. Subtract another no please.

We should have such an amendment.

LOL....

Maybe, but since democrats and republicans both love a good deficit, I can't see much support for it

Maybe the voters step up after a few more trillion? They did right after the election

Only 2 percent named taxes as a priority. By more than a 2-1 margin, voters said they preferred that the president balance the budget rather than reduce taxes further.

 

[Mursilis]

Originally posted by: Engineer
Maybe I'm looney in thinking that the gravy train of borrowing will eventually crumble the very nation that we live in. I just don't know.

<----- Hates debt. Hopes to be debt free before the age of 38.

I don't think you're looney - in fact, I agree 100% with you on that. Deficit spending (and the resulting economic instability) will be the ruin of this nation.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

I voted no. While the idea looks good as a headline -the details would be excruciatingly painful. What constitutes an "emergency"? Do the voters get a direct say in whether it could be broken? If not -then it's a BS amendment from the start. If they are allowed a vote - then how exactly would it help in an emergency - it's not like we can just roll out a nation-wide vote in a day or two. The thought is a good one - and it's intentions I support - but this isn't the vehicle to impose fiscal policy. I'd have HUGE concerns over how it was written and what it fully details - because after it becomes an Amendment - it brings the courts into our budgetary process - which is NOT where our courts need to be. Heck - we've seen it right here in Iowa - it causes HUGE problems when/if courts overturn spending issues.

I think a better proposal is for the Gov't to have only one budget - none of this on-budget/off-budget BS. I think if our gov't was held to the same laws corporations are(or stricter ones) - things would be a bit better - because even with a balanced budget amendment - they'd still play hide the money...

WE need to fix how they budget things before we hold them to balancing the budget. An Amendment at this point would be like trying to tell your wife she can only spend so much money per month on the credit card...without limiting her number of credit cards

CsG

 

[Engineer]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
I voted no. While the idea looks good as a headline -the details would be excruciatingly painful. What constitutes an "emergency"? Do the voters get a direct say in whether it could be broken? If not -then it's a BS amendment from the start. If they are allowed a vote - then how exactly would it help in an emergency - it's not like we can just roll out a nation-wide vote in a day or two. The thought is a good one - and it's intentions I support - but this isn't the vehicle to impose fiscal policy. I'd have HUGE concerns over how it was written and what it fully details - because after it becomes an Amendment - it brings the courts into our budgetary process - which is NOT where our courts need to be. Heck - we've seen it right here in Iowa - it causes HUGE problems when/if courts overturn spending issues.

I think a better proposal is for the Gov't to have only one budget - none of this on-budget/off-budget BS. I think if our gov't was held to the same laws corporations are(or stricter ones) - things would be a bit better - because even with a balanced budget amendment - they'd still play hide the money...

WE need to fix how they budget things before we hold them to balancing the budget. An Amendment at this point would be like trying to tell your wife she can only spend so much money per month on the credit card...without limiting her number of credit cards

CsG

I understand what you are saying, but am not sure how WE, as a nation, can get the point across. Politicians are so easily sold out to groups of people (voters) or corporations (sources of easy money) on issues that 99.999999% of the people don't give a shtz about.

I just don't know. This is one of the very few passionate issues I have with governement. Sure, I want my taxes lower and I do really want a smaller government (I could go into details of local economies that just eat the social programs from the hard lines of Byrd (WV) etc). I just don't think the goverment will care until a payment is missed because we can't borrow money fast enough.

 

[Mursilis]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

I think a better proposal is for the Gov't to have only one budget - none of this on-budget/off-budget BS. I think if our gov't was held to the same laws corporations are(or stricter ones) - things would be a bit better - because even with a balanced budget amendment - they'd still play hide the money...

WE need to fix how they budget things before we hold them to balancing the budget. An Amendment at this point would be like trying to tell your wife she can only spend so much money per month on the credit card...without limiting her number of credit cards

CsG

I'm usually with you on most things political, CAD, but this doesn't seem like nearly enough to get Congress to kick the spending habit. Virginia has some strict requirements regarding budgeting (I'm not sure if there's balanced budget requirement in the state constitution, but I believe so), and I don't know that the courts ever have to get involved.
Regarding 'emergency' triggers in the amendment, I'd think a Congressional Declaration of War would be one (obviously, war is a national emergency). Regarding periods of severe recession/depression, maybe we could select a percentage decline in GDP as another trigger. Anyway, I understand criticism that a Balanced Budget Amend. would be 'gimmicky', but at this point, I think drastic measures are required.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: Mursilis

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

I think a better proposal is for the Gov't to have only one budget - none of this on-budget/off-budget BS. I think if our gov't was held to the same laws corporations are(or stricter ones) - things would be a bit better - because even with a balanced budget amendment - they'd still play hide the money...

WE need to fix how they budget things before we hold them to balancing the budget. An Amendment at this point would be like trying to tell your wife she can only spend so much money per month on the credit card...without limiting her number of credit cards

CsG

I'm usually with you on most things political, CAD, but this doesn't seem like nearly enough to get Congress to kick the spending habit. Virginia has some strict requirements regarding budgeting (I'm not sure if there's balanced budget requirement in the state constitution, but I believe so), and I don't know that the courts ever have to get involved.
Regarding 'emergency' triggers in the amendment, I'd think a Congressional Declaration of War would be one (obviously, war is a national emergency). Regarding periods of severe recession/depression, maybe we could select a percentage decline in GDP as another trigger. Anyway, I understand criticism that a Balanced Budget Amend. would be 'gimmicky', but at this point, I think drastic measures are required.

I didn't say drastic measures weren't needed - I'm just saying that this won't work unless we also make them clean up the process. Like I said - I can tell my wife to only spend X per month on our credit card...but it won't do any good unless I get her to stop signing up for new creditcards in her name only. Our budgetary process is what needs the greatest amount of reform - and a balanced budget doesn't address those issues.
I'd support an Amendment if we can have an open and clean budgetary process - but at this point an Amendment wouldn't do much and might actually make things worse due to them hiding even more of the budget.

CsG

 

[Engineer]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: Mursilis

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

I think a better proposal is for the Gov't to have only one budget - none of this on-budget/off-budget BS. I think if our gov't was held to the same laws corporations are(or stricter ones) - things would be a bit better - because even with a balanced budget amendment - they'd still play hide the money...

WE need to fix how they budget things before we hold them to balancing the budget. An Amendment at this point would be like trying to tell your wife she can only spend so much money per month on the credit card...without limiting her number of credit cards

CsG

I'm usually with you on most things political, CAD, but this doesn't seem like nearly enough to get Congress to kick the spending habit. Virginia has some strict requirements regarding budgeting (I'm not sure if there's balanced budget requirement in the state constitution, but I believe so), and I don't know that the courts ever have to get involved.
Regarding 'emergency' triggers in the amendment, I'd think a Congressional Declaration of War would be one (obviously, war is a national emergency). Regarding periods of severe recession/depression, maybe we could select a percentage decline in GDP as another trigger. Anyway, I understand criticism that a Balanced Budget Amend. would be 'gimmicky', but at this point, I think drastic measures are required.

I didn't say drastic measures weren't needed - I'm just saying that this won't work unless we also make them clean up the process. Like I said - I can tell my wife to only spend X per month on our credit card...but it won't do any good unless I get her to stop signing up for new creditcards in her name only. Our budgetary process is what needs the greatest amount of reform - and a balanced budget doesn't address those issues.
I'd support an Amendment if we can have an open and clean budgetary process - but at this point an Amendment wouldn't do much and might actually make things worse due to them hiding even more of the budget.

CsG

How about making that a provision of the Amendment?

Edit: and would a "Line Item Veto" help in this process? ( I understand that it gives huge power to one...and would require a large majority to override....just asking for thoughts)

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: Engineer

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: Mursilis

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

I think a better proposal is for the Gov't to have only one budget - none of this on-budget/off-budget BS. I think if our gov't was held to the same laws corporations are(or stricter ones) - things would be a bit better - because even with a balanced budget amendment - they'd still play hide the money...

WE need to fix how they budget things before we hold them to balancing the budget. An Amendment at this point would be like trying to tell your wife she can only spend so much money per month on the credit card...without limiting her number of credit cards

CsG

I'm usually with you on most things political, CAD, but this doesn't seem like nearly enough to get Congress to kick the spending habit. Virginia has some strict requirements regarding budgeting (I'm not sure if there's balanced budget requirement in the state constitution, but I believe so), and I don't know that the courts ever have to get involved.
Regarding 'emergency' triggers in the amendment, I'd think a Congressional Declaration of War would be one (obviously, war is a national emergency). Regarding periods of severe recession/depression, maybe we could select a percentage decline in GDP as another trigger. Anyway, I understand criticism that a Balanced Budget Amend. would be 'gimmicky', but at this point, I think drastic measures are required.

I didn't say drastic measures weren't needed - I'm just saying that this won't work unless we also make them clean up the process. Like I said - I can tell my wife to only spend X per month on our credit card...but it won't do any good unless I get her to stop signing up for new creditcards in her name only. Our budgetary process is what needs the greatest amount of reform - and a balanced budget doesn't address those issues.
I'd support an Amendment if we can have an open and clean budgetary process - but at this point an Amendment wouldn't do much and might actually make things worse due to them hiding even more of the budget.

CsG

How about making that a provision of the Amendment?

Write a simple Amendment that could hold them to all that and I might support it. Again, the problem here is trying to simplify an hugely complex process. I'm not arguing that we don't need one - I'm just saying that I don't want to have one without having the control in place to stop politicians from gaming the system which could make things worse rather than better.

CsG