Poll: Balanced Budget Amendment

[Larry]

Doing some research for the "political theater thread", and I wound up digging up the actual text (OK, I'm working from the Library of Congress' summary. If you want the actual text, follow the link.) of one of the Constitutional Amendments which the House has proposed.

The "Cut, Cap, and Balance" bill, which the House has passed, demands that this amendment, or one of two others (which I haven't looked at), must be passed, by both houses of Congress, before the debt ceiling can be raised. Meaning, before Tuesday.

I observe that, although the House has passed legislation demanding that this measure must be passed, by both houses of Congress, by Tuesday, that the House has not even scheduled a vote on the amendment that they're demanding the Senate pass.

HJRES 1

I also observe that, near as I can tell, Library of Congress links expire after 30 minutes, and I'm probably close to the 30 minute limit, even as I type. If the link is dead, then you can call the thing up, yourself, using the bill number.

The entire summary, from Library of Congress' web site, supposedly quoting CRS:

Constitutional Amendment - Prohibits outlays for a fiscal year (except those for repayment of debt principal) from exceeding total receipts for that fiscal year (except those derived from borrowing) unless Congress, by a three-fifths rollcall vote of each chamber, authorizes a specific excess of outlays over receipts.

Limits total outlays for any fiscal year to 18% of the U.S. economic output, unless two-thirds of each House of Congress provides for a specific increase above this amount.

Requires a three-fifths rollcall vote of each chamber to increase the public debt limit.

Directs the President to submit a balanced budget to Congress annually.

Prohibits any bill to increase revenue from becoming law unless approved by two-thirds of each chamber by rollcall vote.

Authorizes waivers of these provisions when a declaration of war is in effect or under other specified circumstances involving military conflict.

For some information, I will point out that the "18% of GDP" limit, using numbers from usgovernmentspending.com, looking at FY2012, would require a 28% cut in total federal spending, to comply. (And that's if the 28% cut in spending had zero effect on GDP.) (And those numbers assume that in FY2012, that GDP grows by 5%).

The question is simple: Should the US Constitution include this amendment?

[twa]

Ya darn tooting

[Teller]

In theory, I support a balanced budget amendment 150%. But I admit I haven't look at the numbers enough to fully understand the practicality of it.

[December90]

the bill as it stands in the OP could use some tweaking, but we could use a balanced budget amendment and it is a decent framework to start from. As such I vote Yes.

[mardi gras skin]

I think its good for us to carry some debt. I wouldn't mind some sort of cap on the amount of debt as a percentage of GDP or something like that.

[Teller]

I think its good for us to carry some debt.

Why? Not trying to stir the pot at all, just curious. As I said, this is an area in which I'm not very well versed.

[Tulane Skins Fan]

The problem with this kind of thing is that it unnecessarily raises the bar to pass fundings now.

For example, say we go to war, and we need to fund it. Now, instead of needing a majority of the house, you need two thirds of each house? Same with a real financial crisis that required we spend some money. (Although I realize a lot of people think that there is no such thing.)

Ultimately, we have a procedure in place for a balanced budget: its called making a law. And the Congress should vote on doing so. Why make it so impossible to use some credit? No business would be able to survive without some credit flexbility. Why would we do that to ourselves, limit our own ability to react to crises?

[Larry]

the bill as it stands in the OP could use some tweaking, but we could use a balanced budget amendment and it is a decent framework to start from. As such I vote Yes.

Feel free to propose tweaks.

(For example, I observe that the "Cut, Cap, and Balance" bill that got me looking at this, referenced three balanced budget amendments. The one I posted in the OP is simply the first one of the three. I have no idea in what way the other two differ from this one. I haven't looked at the other two.)

---------- Post added July-28th-2011 at 02:26 PM ----------

Ultimately, we have a procedure in place for a balanced budget: its called making a law.

Actually, it's called "pass a balanced budget".

[Tulane Skins Fan]

Also, why would we require the President to submit a balanced budget? Congress legislates and funds. The president executes the law. It should be Congress' job.

---------- Post added July-28th-2011 at 02:29 PM ----------

Feel free to propose tweaks.

(For example, I observe that the "Cut, Cap, and Balance" bill that got me looking at this, referenced three balanced budget amendments. The one I posted in the OP is simply the first one of the three. I have no idea in what way the other two differ from this one. I haven't looked at the other two.)

---------- Post added July-28th-2011 at 02:26 PM ----------

Actually, it's called "pass a balanced budget".

I'm just saying, there's no reason they don't pass a balanced budget now. They can pass a balanced budget at any time. Requiring it to be balanced just limits us. It doesn't improve us in any way.

[Larry]

Also, why would we require the President to submit a balanced budget? Congress legislates and funds. The president executes the law. It should be Congress' job.

Oh, as a mater of reality, the budget process begins every year when the President submits a budget request. Congress then sends the request to committee (actually, I assume, several committees), and they start modifying it.

But again, as a practical matter, everybody then refers to the rest of the process, by noting how this change makes things different from the President's proposal.

[Tulane Skins Fan]

Oh, as a mater of reality, the budget process begins every year when the President submits a budget request. Congress then sends the request to committee (actually, I assume, several committees), and they start modifying it.

But again, as a practical matter, everybody then refers to the rest of the process, by noting how this change makes things different from the President's proposal.

True. But my point is that the Presdient actually doesn't even vote on what the budget looks like it when its passed. That's Congress. So, as a more practical matter, no matter what the President submits, it has nothing to do with what ends up on his desk. Not "nothing," but you get my point.

The reason the budget isn't balanced is not because the President doesn't ask for a balanced budget, its because Congress doesn't pass one. Regardless of who controls congress.

[mardi gras skin]

Why? Not trying to stir the pot at all, just curious. As I said, this is an area in which I'm not very well versed.

I don't think most people realize the unifying effect a national debt has. Obviously, it creates a lot of division but that division is over a disagreement about what we will, together, do about that debt. It sounds counterintuitive, but everyone jointly responsible for any debt is bound together. If it gets out of hand it will cripple us, but no debt whatsoever would create greater regionalism and a weakening of national unity.

Yes, co-ownership of debt (or any other obligation) is a powerful unifying force.

[Larry]

True. But my point is that the Presdient actually doesn't even vote on what the budget looks like it when its passed. That's Congress. So, as a more practical matter, no matter what the President submits, it has nothing to do with what ends up on his desk. Not "nothing," but you get my point.

The reason the budget isn't balanced is not because the President doesn't ask for a balanced budget, its because Congress doesn't pass one. Regardless of who controls congress.

Uh, yeah, the President doesn't attempt to submit a balanced budget.

Just as an example, I recall reading that under Reagan, back when every year, Reagan would submit a budget to the Democrat Congress, and every year, Tio O'Neal would loudly announce that the budget was "dead on arrival", that if you actually compare the budget that actually passed, against the request that Reagan submitted:

That the total amount actually budgeted was 1% more than what Reagan asked for.

And that the total differences between Reagan's proposals and the budget that got passed, differed by 3%. (Congress trimmed 3% of the budget from some places, and added it to others.)

Something like 97% of the budgets that actually passed, were identical to what the President requested.

The President has a huge influence on the budget negotiations, because he gets to set the baseline against which all other proposals are compared.

[Tulane Skins Fan]

But the Congress does not have to do anything the President asks in submitting a bill.

If you really wanted a balanced budget amendment to actually produce a balanced budget, it wouldn't require the president to submit anything. It would require the budget to be balanced when it leaves Congress. The President doesn't write laws, he executes them.

[Larry]

I'm just saying, there's no reason they don't pass a balanced budget now.

Oh, yeah, there is. It's things like "Keep the government off my Medicare!"

A lot of politicians might really, really, like to cut Medicare and Social Security by 30%, right now.

But they know that if they propose it, and vote for it, right now, then

1. They'll lose the vote. Less than 1/4 of the politicians, in their own party, would actually vote for it. Even the ones who want it.
   
2. And anybody who actually voted for it won't just get kicked out in the next election. No, his recall petitions will be circulating within the week.

Therefore, we have fallback positions:

Try to force somebody else to cut Medicare and Social Security.

Try to intentionally create a situation where somebody else has to vote for cutting them, or something bad happens. (Or, create a situation where the people who want to cut it, can vote to cut it, and use the something bad as an excuse. "Gee, I had to vote to cut Medicare, because of this other reason.")

[Tulane Skins Fan]

Oh, yeah, there is. It's things like "Keep the government off my Medicare!"

A lot of politicians might really, really, like to cut Medicare and Social Security by 30%, right now.

But they know that if they propose it, and vote for it, right now, then

1. They'll lose the vote. Less than 1/4 of the politicians, in their own party, would actually vote for it. Even the ones who want it.
   
2. And anybody who actually voted for it won't just get kicked out in the next election. No, his recall petitions will be circulating within the week.

Therefore, we have fallback positions:

Try to force somebody else to cut Medicare and Social Security.

Try to intentionally create a situation where somebody else has to vote for cutting them, or something bad happens. (Or, create a situation where the people who want to cut it, can vote to cut it, and use the something bad as an excuse. "Gee, I had to vote to cut Medicare, because of this other reason.")

Ok, so now because the President submits a balanced budget, Congress is going to pass one? All these really hard votes are suddenly going to become easy and Congress is going to pass this terribly painful budget?

Or, they won't get the votes from each chamber you're talking about and pass no budget? Hmm.... I wonder which one will happen.

The problem is not that no one has submitted a balanced budget. The problem is that no one has passed one. The answer is not having someone submit a balanced budget that everyone hates. The answer is getting people to make tough choices and VOTE for a balanced budget.

Plus, there are times when it would be very ineffective to have a balanced budget.

[Larry]

But the Congress does not have to do anything the President asks in submitting a bill.

If you really wanted a balanced budget amendment to actually produce a balanced budget, it wouldn't require the president to submit anything. It would require the budget to be balanced when it leaves Congress. The President doesn't write laws, he executes them.

Agreed. Congress is perfectly free to completely ignore the President's request. In fact, they are free to start from scratch and write their own budget, from the ground up.

(And, if they do, then the media will sit down and draw up a list of "this proposal is different from the President's in the following ways". Their proposal will still get compared against the President's, anyway.)

(That's one of the things about being President. You have a lot of power to at least frame the political discussion.)

---------- Post added July-28th-2011 at 02:55 PM ----------

Ok, so now because the President submits a balanced budget, Congress is going to pass one?

Dunno. It's been a long time since pigs flew.

All these really hard votes are suddenly going to become easy and Congress is going to pass this terribly painful budget?

If the President proposes cutting Medicare by 30%, then the President "owns" the plan to cut Medicare by 30%.

If the President proposes leaving Medicare alone, and the hobbits propose cutting it, then they "own" it.

(Guess which option the Brave Little Hobbits prefer.)

[Tulane Skins Fan]

Yea, I think its just a stretch at this point. You're assuming whatever wily mother****er becomes president isn't going to figure out some political way around looking bad on this.

If you want a balanced budget, just require that the one passed be balanced. And do something to CONGRESS if they don't pass one in a certain amount of time. Like have a special election if there's no budget six months into the term. Boom. Then those mother****ers will pass something if it means they hvae to run again.

[Riggo-toni]

I think its good for us to carry some debt. I wouldn't mind some sort of cap on the amount of debt as a percentage of GDP or something like that.

It's certainly more beneficial to have a modest deficit and strong growth than a budget surplus and no growth. The most important factor is the pct of debt to overall GDP. If this is shrinking then the debt becomes easier to service crowds out less of the private sector.

[mardi gras skin]

It's certainly more beneficial to have a modest deficit and strong growth than a budget surplus and no growth. The most important factor is the pct of debt to overall GDP. If this is shrinking then the debt becomes easier to service crowds out less of the private sector.

Do you have an idea of a healthy percentage of debt relative to GDP? I know its a moving target and that all debt isn't created equal (some debt helps expand the economy better than other debt) but when would the debt level be low enough that you'd consider it healthy? 75%? 50%?

[December90]

I think its good for us to carry some debt.

Why? Not trying to stir the pot at all, just curious. As I said, this is an area in which I'm not very well versed.

Debt can be a powerful source for economic growth when used wisely (how many people do you know that have made major purchases without debt (house, new car, etc...)

The problem comes from the abuse of debt. If you borrow more money than you can afford to pay back, then you have yourself a major problem. The conservative side of the debate should focus on the belief that we have reached the tipping point where debt is more damaging than helpful. I don't think any reasonable person expects or wants the national debt to be ZERO; We do however see the folly in spending 50% more than you take in this year and each year in the foreseeable future.

If it make you all feel better, this is 112% George Bush's fault. Now that we have established blame can we move on to real solution that we the people of the country can afford.

[Tulane Skins Fan]

Debt can be a powerful source for economic growth when used wisely (how many people do you know that have made major purchases without debt (house, new car, etc...)

The problem comes from the abuse of debt. If you borrow more money than you can afford to pay back, then you have yourself a major problem. The conservative side of the debate should focus on the belief that we have reached the tipping point where debt is more damaging than helpful. I don't think any reasonable person expects or wants the national debt to be ZERO; We do however see the folly in spending 50% more than you take in this year and each year in the foreseeable future.

If it make you all feel better, this is 112% George Bush's fault. Now that we have established blame can we move on to real solution that we the people of the country can afford.

If you pass a balanced budget amendment, the debt is going to get to zero eventually (mathematically). You'll have several years where the government actually profits off the tax payers but can't spend the money.

[Predicto]

Is there any country in the world where their law requires a balanced budget every year and no debt?

[twa]

Is there any country in the world where their law requires a balanced budget every year and no debt?

This bill does not do that

[Larry]

FWIW, while researching another matter, I've looked at the other two proposed Constitutional Amendments that the "Cut, Cap and Balance" law mandates.

They're very similar. The difference is that some of them require a 60% vote to raise taxes, and some of them require 66%. And the other two contain language forbidding courts from ordering tax increases to comply with the amendment.

---------- Post added July-28th-2011 at 04:05 PM ----------

This bill does not do that

It does unless a supermajority approves it.

Tell Predicto about how that works out, in practice.