Why is Sen. Hatch's proposed Amendment being called a "Balanced Budget Amendment"?

[Anarchist420]

From Senator Hatch's proposed Amendment:
"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 duly chosen and sworn Members of each House of Congress, which becomes law."

This joke may be up for a vote as SJ3 sometime within the next month.

Isn't this just infuriating?

How could anyone find this so-called "Balanced Budget Amendment" to be anything other than fraudulent?

 

[Anarchist420]

I mean, the least they could do is limit waivers to nothing other than expenditure on war and at no other time than when a declaration of War is in effect.

Preferably, a BBA would be a deterrent to war as Thomas Jefferson intended.

 

[ElFenix]

we'd just declare war on canada and then not do anything :laugh:


i think a balanced budget amendment is a terrible idea as the .gov should be investing in things that generate positive total returns regardless of if they have to borrow to fund it. the fact of the matter, though, is that congress is spendthrift and sometimes you have to cut spendthrifts off.

 

[MotF Bane]

we'd just declare war on canada and then not do anything :laugh:


i think a balanced budget amendment is a terrible idea as the .gov should be investing in things that generate positive total returns regardless of if they have to borrow to fund it. the fact of the matter, though, is that congress is spendthrift and sometimes you have to cut spendthrifts off.

Uh, spend happy?

 

[ElFenix]

Uh, spend happy?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spendthrift

 

[MotF Bane]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spendthrift

Wow, that seems backwards. *shrug* Learn something new every day!

 

[Schadenfroh]

We should only need to run a deficit during a severe recession, formally declared war or state of emergency (ie natural disaster). Build a small surplus to help if something terrible happens during boom times. Deficit spending during good times is poor fiscal responsibility.

 

[Suspicious-Teach8788]

Technically we hit a recession in 2000-2001. Then 9/11, then Afghanistan, then Iraq, and after Iraq formally ended in 2010 according to Obama, we did have a downturn in 2008-2010. Now we have Libya in 2011. So really, the past 10 years you could make excuses to go into deficit spending even with a stupid amendment like this. What I'd like to know is how much teeth does something like this even have? It's like you can impose a rule but use a loophole to get out of it every year. Then what's the point?

 

[Fern]

Sen. Hatch's proposed Amendment

Amendment to what?

I'm going to assume it's the budget bill.

I mean, the least they could do is limit waivers to nothing other than expenditure on war and at no other time than when a declaration of War is in effect.
-snip-

Assuming it's an amendment to the budget bill, let me help you with a little on how Congress works - the 'war exception' is all but irrelevent.

One Congress can pass a law mandating a balanced budget. The new Congress can come along and repeal it or amend it as they wish.

An 'older' Congress can't really limit a 'newer' Congress.

I look at it this way - he wants a balanced budget but put in the war exception because if he didn't he'd look like a fool. Everybody knows a war couldn't be fought under a limitation like a balanced budget. If he hadn't put the war exception in everybody would jump up & down pointing this out.

Fern