Time for a balanced budget amendment
Because 82 percent of American earners pay more in payroll taxes than income taxes, no politically conceivable or economically feasible middle-class tax rate can fund the entitlement state. And America’s political culture rules out funding it with new consumption or energy taxes. By rescuing almost everyone from the restoration of Clinton-era rates, liberals abandoned any pretense of paying for their program of ever- expanding entitlements. Instead, they made trillion-dollar deficits their program.
From 1950 to 2000, economic growth averaged 3.6 percent; since then, it has averaged less than 2 percent. Liberals think today’s correlation between the slow economic growth and rapid governmental growth — including under George W. Bush — is a coincidence. Conservatives do not. And they note some recent actions, done in December’s bright light of public attention and fiscal anxiety, which indicate that this government’s indiscipline is incorrigible and shameless. …
Sixty-seven Senate votes are needed to send a proposed amendment to the states for ratification. There are 45 Republican senators. There are nowhere near 22 Democrats who would vote for an amendment Republicans could support. Still, Republicans, whose divisions cause Democratic gloating, could use a balanced-budget amendment to divide Democrats who threw the remnants of their fiscal self-respect off the cliff.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Here’s how you write it:
“Members of the Senate and House of Representatives shall not receive any pay for every day that the US Government doesn’t have a balanced budget passed and signed into law.”
Steven Den Beste on January 10, 2013 at 10:27 PM
California has one of those. Worked like a charm.
BDavis on January 10, 2013 at 10:27 PM
Also:
2. Every US citizen has court standing to sue to enforce this amendment.
Steven Den Beste on January 10, 2013 at 10:30 PM
Stop it. All a balanced budget amendment means is that to cover the cost of the spending they will raise taxes to equal it out. Nothing is stopping them from spending trillions on unnecessary stuff.
Mitoch55 on January 10, 2013 at 10:35 PM
They don’t obey the laws now, one more law won’t make a difference.
Bishop on January 10, 2013 at 10:36 PM
Just like California…!
… Oh, wait!
Seven Percent Solution on January 10, 2013 at 10:40 PM
True.
I’m more in favor of an amendment that:
1. Drops the salary of ALL elected and political appointees (those requiring confirmation including judges) in the government to ZERO unless a budget is passed.
2. Decreases the salary of the same people by the percentage of each dollar spent in the budget that is borrowed.
3. Would invalidate any raises, bonuses, or reimbursements to the same person while EITHER condition is in play.
If you do all of that, make the whole government feel PAIN if the budget isn’t in force and NOT balanced, you will GET a balanced budget…
wildcat72 on January 10, 2013 at 10:40 PM
Fix the commerce clause back to what it means
CW20 on January 10, 2013 at 10:42 PM
Write the waiver in case of war such that the basic budget must remain balanced and only a supplemental bill may be passed exceeding revenue and that appropriation must be given to the DoD for disbursement.
Dusty on January 10, 2013 at 10:47 PM
The balanced provision isn’t as important as the provision to limit spending as a certain % of GDP. The GOP could force this by predicating a rise in the debt ceiling on the passage of an amendment.
theperfecteconomist on January 10, 2013 at 10:57 PM
The alternative is what we have now, generational theft. Is that what you’d prefer?
FloatingRock on January 10, 2013 at 10:59 PM
Actually I am in favor of doing this.
Nothing will shift the voter AGAINST government spending quicker than having to ACTUALLY PAY for their share a $4 TRILLION dollar budget out of their paycheck.
The only thing that keeps spending from becoming 90% unpopular is the fact that we borrow nearly HALF of it so that most people don’t have to pay for it.
wildcat72 on January 10, 2013 at 11:03 PM
How do you expect a Congress to pass a BBA when they can’t even pass a balanced budget?
pauljc on January 10, 2013 at 11:06 PM
Exactly. We literally do not have the leverage any longer to force the idiots to sit down and shut up; we have hit the 50% mark. The only way out besides LIB is for the welfare class to suddenly have their reality checks bounce and smack them in their ugly faces.
Mind, I’m not saying that will work. But we might at least TRY.
MelonCollie on January 10, 2013 at 11:07 PM
Good plan. It might also be a good idea to forbid them from voting on any changes to the tax and regulatory code until they balance the the budget to make it harder for them to sell favors to their cronies to make ends meet.
If they can’t balance the budget by the end of the year I think the entire Congress should be sacked and new elections held. That way there won’t be a single corrupt congress critter left over to corrupt the new batch that replaces them.
Also, the sacked Congress critters should be forbidden from lobbying or influencing the newbies.
FloatingRock on January 10, 2013 at 11:10 PM
It’s going to be forced on them eventually, regardless of who is the majority. How much longer can we get away with borrowing over 1/3rd of the budget each year? How much longer is accumulating over ONE TRILLION in additional national debt each year? How much longer can we ignore TENS OF TRILLIONS of additional debt not counted that is in unfunded mandates like Socialist Security, Mediscare, and Obamacare?
Answer: Not much longer. When that bubble bursts (and it will be soon) we’ll be running balanced budgets. No one will loan the government a red cent. And the dollar will be worthless, so even if they keep printing it those welfare checks will be equally worthless.
We used to gasp at $250 billion dollar budget deficits a year under Bush. Obama is accumulating more debt ANNUALLY than Bush did in a whole term, with no end in sight, and he wants to INCREASE spending even more.
The looter majority is a temporary thing, because it has created a situation that is unstable that will crash.
wildcat72 on January 10, 2013 at 11:18 PM
The only balanced budget amendment that would be worth more than a random bag of horse manure would state that a budget must be submitted and passed by time X, and that if it isn’t balanced then lots shall be drawn by all legislators who voted for it…..1/10 shall be immediately executed and the rest shall be removed from office and banned for life from ever again holding public office or setting foot in the District of Columbia.
Chance of this happening — I’d sooner bet on a snowball fight between Moloch and Asmodeus.
cthulhu on January 11, 2013 at 1:51 AM
The amendments that were proposed a couple of years ago would also cap federal spending at 18-20% of GDP. If that is included, Congress could pass whatever taxes it wants but could not spend more than a certain amount. Therefore, actual cuts would be inevitable.
Odysseus on January 11, 2013 at 7:01 AM