Why a balanced-budget amendment is too risky

[dtotire]

Why a balanced-budget amendment is too risky


By Norman J. Ornstein, Published: July 18


It is no surprise that a constitutional amendment to balance the budget would reemerge now — there’s the symbolism of standing for fiscal rectitude and wrapping that position in the cloak of the Constitution. And nearly all states have constitutional provisions to balance their budgets, so why should the federal government be different?

But the answer to that question is a key reason a constitutional amendment to balance the federal budget would be disastrous.


A sagging economy requires what we call countercyclical policy, stimulus to counter a downturn and provide a boost. The need for countercyclical policy became apparent in the 1930s, after the opposite response to economic trouble caused a dizzying collapse; its application early in Franklin Roosevelt’s presidency succeeded in pulling the United States out of the Depression (until a premature tightening in 1937-38 pulled us back down into it).

Countercyclical policy is what every industrialized country in the world employed when the credit shock hit in late 2008, to avoid a global disaster far more serious than the one we faced. Under a balanced-budget amendment, however, no countercyclical policy could emanate from Washington. Spending could not grow to combat the slump. And while the Obama stimulus did not jump-start a robust economic recovery, any objective analysis would find that absent the $800 billion stimulus, the economy would have spiraled down much further.

more:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/why-a-balanced-budget-amendment-is-too-risky/2011/07/18/gIQAn3PhMI_story.html?hpid=z2

[kick-ass-bob]

1. A national amendment is ludicrous.

what if we are invaded but cannot fund the military because of a BBA? That's all you really need to say about that.

[damntexdem]

2. It is simply stupid.

How would we even know when a national budget is 'balanced'? (Putting aside the spin always used in presenting, or opposing, national budgets.)

How would investments in the future (e.g., infrastructure) be dealt with -- purely as 'debits,' no credit for assets.

And then there are the numerous times when a deficit would be needed, under whatever definition of 'deficit.'

[johnd83]

3. This is just more "starve the beast" BS

[Fearless]

4. Every budget impasse would lead to social programs being cut instead of waste.

Thanks to republicans. We don't need that.