Interesting Balance Budget Amendment RSS article forwarded today

C: Thoughts on the balanced budget amendment push? I’m personally against it at a visceral level, and with some thought as well. I think it is largely a push for political cover to allow elected officials to save some face when they have to make hard choices about entitlements. (And other reasons as well.) In any case, I think the unintended consequences of it are very real and dangerous, and this article states many of them clearly.

To be sure, I understand the apparent intransigence of elected folks over many years to govern in a fiscally sound manner–both Republican and Democrat. That doesn’t mean you have to take the priviledge away. I think a more sound public discourse is needed. Something beyond sound byte journalism and 10 second video clips. That is probably hard in a climate of “reality” TV and stardom worship, but I think this is something we have to work our way back to. It probably starts with families and education.

There is a paradox in the position of the “tea party” conservatives that has so far escaped much comment. On the one hand, they think the country would be better off if we governed ourselves according to the principles of the Founders and the Constitution, from which the tea partiers think we have departed drastically. On the other hand, they favor an amendment to the Constitution requiring a balanced budget. Such an amendment, however, would not simply add to the work of the founders; it would positively undo part of it. For the Constitution, as it stands and as the Founders crafted it, empowers the Congress to “borrow money on the credit of the United States.” The Founders, evidently, intended that the government be capable of incurring debt.

…….


Moreover, an inability to borrow would not only hamstring the government in responding to grave public evils; it might also prevent the government from seizing positive opportunities that could produce public benefits for generations. America might, at some point, have a chance to purchase some valuable new territory, perhaps rich in natural resources, that will enhance the nation’s prosperity. Such a purchase, however, might require an immediate transfer of money that would be impossible without the ability to borrow.


via The Balanced Budget Amendment: What Would Hamilton Say? by Carson Holloway on the website Public Discourse

M responded to this request for thoughts on a Balanced Budget Amendment with his top of mind thoughts

M:
Full disclosure:

1. I have not yet read the article, but will this evening or in the morning
2. Until this moment, I have been a die-hard proponent of the Balanced Budget Amendment (with one exception, which I will begin with below).

Historically, my one objection to the BBA has been that I think it might guarantee tax increases and/or leave us undefended. When Congress is unable to make the hard decisions to cut entitlements under a Balanced Budget Amendment mandate, it will resort to defense cuts or tax increases “because the 28th Amendment forced us to do it”. I can promise you that when asked if he’d rather get his government check or have the latest super weapon, one is going to look no more beyond his own living room and say, “screw the stealth helicopter, gimme my dam’ check.” So defense will go by the wayside. However, you could probably cut defense to its 1930 levels and still not balance the budget. Therefore it seems to me that the BBA could be a green light for “mandatory revenue increases”, which is code for tax hikes.

Now, given that having a line of credit is both desirous (even for the most fiscally austere) and embedded within First Principles of the Constitution (OK, I lied – I glanced at the first paragraph of the article), I would propose a modified Balanced Budget Amendment in which continued fiscal irresponsibility would kick in a BBA mechanism that would required future budgets be balance until such time that the total debt is below a trigger point (some percentage of GDP or what have you). That way, you wouldn’t have to tax the hell out of people or completely defund vital (and Constitutionally necessary) programs if we got into a shooting war or have some major series of disasters, etc. But I do believe that we have the better part of a century of data points indicating that our government, and an increasing number of the electorate, cannot be trusted to tow the line when it comes to the fiscal health of the nation.

Now, I may need to change my tune some once I read and research what is presented below. Stand by.

T: So as I stand by for some more thoughts on the Balanced Budget Amendment, what do you think about this possible amendment to the constitution? Worth it or just smoke and mirrors to save an elected official’s ass?

Watching this is just like watching a successful Thanksgiving Day game against the boys in burnt orange. I don’t care if you call it political posturing or not. It’s dead-on accurate.

Earlier this month, Governor Jan Brewer sat in the Oval Office with President Barack Obama to discuss the critical issue of border security. The Governor personally related to the President the concerns of millions of Arizonans over the lack of security on Arizona’s southern border. During their visit, President Obama committed to present details, within two weeks of their meeting, regarding his plans to commit National Guard troops to the Arizona border and commit to spend $500 million in additional funds on border security.

Arizona Governor Jan Brewer Website

If you had $15.6 septillion and 94 cents in your account, would you save the world from the economic crisis or build a Death Star, destroy the world, and move on to invade the galaxy?

And if the construction firm set up shop in Connecticut, Chris Dodd could probably have gotten the funds appropriated!

Yes, that’s a whooping 1.4 trillion times the current US Debt. Or a sightly more meaningful number: 124 trillion years of war in Iraq.