Chicago Tribune: Steve Chapman- 'A Balanced Budget Amendment?'

Source:Chicago Tribune- The U.S. Congress.

"Almost unnoticed in Sen. Marco Rubio's response to the president's State of the Union address was a drastic proposal: amending the Constitution to require a balanced budget every year. Or rather, it would be drastic if it were serious, which it plainly is not.

It's not serious because Republicans are no more determined to balance the budget than Democrats. Mitt Romney's budget blueprint envisioned the elimination of the deficit only in the last year of his second term. And no one really believed it. President Obama is even less ambitious.

If the amendment would actually force them to balance the budget, they wouldn't be interested. If they were truly interested, the amendment wouldn't be necessary. 

Nor is it clear it would work. States generally require their budgets to be balanced. That hasn't stopped Illinois and many others from making pension commitments that are financially unrealistic -- in effect, getting around the rule by spending future dollars instead of current ones.

The amendment is a cheap gimmick: a way of feigning fiscal responsibility while making none of the hard, politically risky decisions needed to bring it about. Everyone, after all, wants a balanced budget. But hardly anyone in Washington wants to make the spending cuts or enact the tax increases needed to achieve it.

From the Chicago Tribune 

"A balanced budget amendment is a constitutional rule requiring that a state cannot spend more than its income. It requires a balance between the projected receipts and expenditures of the government.

Balanced-budget provisions have been added to the constitutions of most U.S. states, Germany, Hong Kong, Italy, Poland, Slovenia, Spain and Switzerland, among others. The Republican Party has advocated for the introduction of a balanced budget amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

Balanced budget amendments are defended with arguments that they reduce deficit spending and constrain politicians in making irresponsible short-term spending decisions when they are in office.[1] Research shows that balanced budget amendments lead to greater fiscal discipline.[2] However, there is substantial agreement among economists that strict balanced budget amendments have harmful economic effects. In times of recession, deficit spending has significant benefits, whereas spending cuts by governments aggravate and lengthen recessions.[3][4][5][6][7][8] To prevent that, most balanced-budget provisions make an exception for times of war, national emergency, or recession, or allow the legislature to suspend the rule by a supermajority vote." 

From Wikipedia 

I could just  rest my case with the piece that Steve Chapman wrote, but I feel it's my duty as a blogger to weigh and explain why he's damn right about this. Actually, I just want to punish my readers with a lot of boring nonsense, so bare with me. LOL

I agree with Steve Chapman that a balanced budget amendment were even to pass and generally when they do, you are looking a ten-year process anyway and you would probably need some so-called progressive (social-democratic, in actuality)) states like Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Vermont (to use as examples) to go along with this. The Bible Belt states wouldn't be enough. 

But even if a BBA like this were to pass, that wouldn't stop Congress and the executive branch from spending money. Congress by law is required to pass a Federal budget every year, but when was the last time the Senate passed their own budget plan? Whether you like the Republican House, or not and I don't as a Democrat politically and on policy that is, but at least they do their half of the Congressional budget process and have the last two years. 

The Senate will hopefully pass their own budget plan this year, but Congress under law is required to pass a Federal budget every every year. But you don't see members of Congress, House or Senate being arrested for not passing budgets, or appropriations bills. Something they are required to do every year and the same thing would happen even if a BBA were to become the law of the land.

The fact is these are the three things that are keeping the Federal Government from getting their fiscal house in order. And on course for eventually balancing their budget, is a lack of discipline. They can't figure out when they are spending too much, because it's never enough for them. 

Another thing would be priorities, meaning that Congress doesn't have them and the White House is not being much help here. 

The other being courage and leadership that Representatives and Senators are afraid to tell their constituents the real truth about the sixteen-trillion-dollar national debt and 845B$ deficit and that there's a limit to what Congress can for it's people with their money. And that we simply can't fund everything that the government is doing right now and run them the way they are currently being run. 

Money and time is running out and when it does run out, we are going to see high interest rates that we've never seen before. (If and when the Federal Reserve forces Americans to live with real interest and inflation) Which would be largest tax increase we've ever seen in the country with the cost of living going up everywhere.

Once if ever Congress and the Executive Branch get discipline, priorities and leadership, then they'll go where the money is to get our fiscal house and order. Which is, defense, entitlements and the tax code. And an economic plan that leads to economic and job growth and we are still a long way away from seeing any of these things happen. Which is why a balance budget amendment at this point is nothing but a gimmick. 

If the Federal Reserve ever forces real interest rates on the American economy and people, especially with how much the Administration and Congress borrows every year (because they want to continue to lie to their constituents that government services are free and interest rates are low) then American voters will start to give a damn about deficits and debt, because now they'll be forced to live with it because of the real interest rates and inflation because of all the debt and deficits that the U.S. Government has piled on them. 

Once American voters start to care about deficits and debt, then they'll force their members of Congress to care about it and the members who don't, will lose their part-time jobs with full-time pay at taxpayers expense. And at the very least be replaces by members who claim to care about deficits and debt, if only because their constituents care about it.