'Balanced Budget Amendment' advocates: I agree with them about one thing:

[ProgressiveEconomist]

All but a few billion of proposed budget cuts so far are scheduled to occur after the current Congressional term ends. In 2013 and after, future Congresses are not bound by what the current crew of chuckle-heads scheme and plan.

As long as no 'Balanced Budget Amendment' constrains future Congresses with supermajorities for revenue legislation and deficit spending, and as long as very little is STUPIDLY cut from budgets at a time of 9 percent unemployment, all the sound and fury of the moment signifies NOTHING from a longer-term point of view.

That's my "silver lining" thought for today.

WHAT'S YOUR OPINION?

[PDJane]

1. My opinion is:

I sincerely hope that this administration decides to be a democratic one and that the American people wake up to this bunch of corrupt republicans...and vote them to hell out of office.

[Guilded Lilly]

4. Agree. It is never easy getting rid of arrogant bullies...

and it will be harder to get rid of them when they continue to corrupt the voting processes and fling their contempt at the Constitution.

Their agendas are no longer hidden or subtle. And it will still be massively hard to take out a party who has lost their soul when it comes to caring for humanity. Bone-nasty people eventually die, but corporations don't.Nothing about this is going to be easy in any way. And for a party that backs the humanity of citizens and cares more about people than profits...it is going to be a real test of our fortitude.

I hope we are stubborn enough to handle what lies ahead.

[LonePirate]

2. I would not support the BBA under any circumstances. It is best not to give a handgun to a child.

[ProgressiveEconomist]

3. Did yuu read my OP as supporting a 'Balanced Budget Amendment/" That's certainly not

what I thought I was saying.

IMO, a BBA is the STUPIDEST economic policy imaginable!

There is a phenomenon known as the Business Cycle. When recession occurs, tax revenues decline, and automatic countercyclical spending such as foodstamps and unemployment benefits goes up. Deficits occur automatically, and economically literate Presidents of every Party temporarily worsen these deficits by getting Congress to approve stimulus spending.

A BBA is most likely to go into effect at exactly the wrong time, the bottom of the business cycle, and turn recession into Depression, just as Herbert Hoover did.

[alcibiades_mystery]

5. The BBA is bullshit...I'm glad th current plan on the table completely disables it

Look at the before-and-after:

BEFORE (the Boehner plan): Six month increase of the debt ceiling; the ceiling six months hence CAN ONLY BE LIFTED if a Balanced Budget Amendment has already passed the House and Senate and been sent to the states. In this scenario, PASSAGE of the BBA is a condition precedent to the debt ceiling being raised in December of this year.

AFTER (modified Reid plan): 18 month increase of the debt ceiling; revisiting the debt ceiling NOT contingent on PASSAGE of the BBA. The Senate - the current Senate, must merely agree to bring the BBA to the floor for a vote. No passage of the BBA is required.

So, essentially, the BBA was considered a condition precedent before, and is now merely a weak election year argument.

It takes quite a bit of sophistry to paint the BEFORE and AFTER of the BBA is anything but a Democratic win.

[ProgressiveEconomist]

6. Well said!

[Cool Logic]

7. Nothing is too dangerous to debate...

Why not pitch it to the People and let them debate the merits, then decide whether or not they want it?

[HockeyMom]

8. Balanced Budget Amendment by Congress is moot

just smoke and mirrors. No STATE has ratified it.

[ProgressiveEconomist]

9. Exactly! And apparently it's completely OUT of the debt-ceiling deal McConnell will bless.

The BBA was the BIGGEST threat in the Boeher bill, IMO--even worse than going through another debt-ceiling circus in a few weeks.

[KamaAina]

15. Because it hasn't been passed yet

Lots and lots of state legislatures have fallen into the hands of the teabagger crazies. Remember Wisconsin?

[gulliver]

10. A balanced budget amendment with all tax increases is fine.

Why does a BBA have to be trigger-enforced with spending cuts? Let's have a BBA with automatically triggered special taxation on the wealthy. Advertise it as a way to protect Social Security, Medicare, and Defense. The government will do their best to balance the budget, of course, but if an agreement can't be reached, a special tax surcharge would be placed on those with incomes greater than $X or a net worth greater than $Y to make up the difference. Who could argue with that?

[ProgressiveEconomist]

11. Off-topic. The topic here is the long-term insignificance of the debt-ceiling circus

that is winding down.

[gulliver]

12. I'm not sure I understand your reasoning.

A future Congress would definitely be bound by a law passed by the current one unless the future Congress overturned that law. Since a minority in Congress can sabotage legislation, the future Congress is bound by the will of a strident minority. The Bush Tax Cuts specifically unbound the hands of the lame duck Congress of 2010, and even that didn't stop them from being reinstated by blackmail.

The political ramifications of a "typical" BBA are extraordinarily painful. Picture a long ratification fight with a huge Republican worded, automatic spending cut wedge issue for the next few elections.

A balanced budget sounds good. I just think it sounds better as a way to protect Social Security, Medicare, and Defense. I.e., what is automatic about it should be tax increases on the wealthy. Then I think a BBA would play to our advantage.

[ProgressiveEconomist]

13. But who would advocate such a BBA? Rs like BBAs, but want automatic spending

cuts to ensue. Ds like the idea of the wealthy paying thier fair share of taxes, but generally hate the idea of BBAs tying the hands of future legislators.

Can you name one legislator who has EVER advocated your idea?

[ProgressiveEconomist]

14. The CBO has scored today's debt-ceiling bill. Only $21 billion is cut before 2013!

This means that VERY little of what the current crew of knuckleheads in Congress have planned actually will take place. Future Congresses are not bound by their plans!

[Dawson Leery]

16. Can you confirm this?