jumper03 0 #1 January 3, 2005 So how about this one - I know several states have them and I think it's a damn fine idea... A constitutional amendment that each year the federal budget has to balance. I think I'll send my senators an email. JumpScars remind us that the past is real Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JohnRich 4 #2 January 3, 2005 QuoteA constitutional amendment that each year the federal budget has to balance. Unrealistic, as it doesn't account for unforseen emergencies. Imagine if our finances had been constrained by such a constitutional amendment immediately after Sept. 11, 2001... You need to be able to go into debt if an emergency calls for it. However, we should certainly pay that debt off during the good years, so that overall, over time, we run a balanced budget. Like you, I'm distressed by the continuous splurge spending, year after year, especially on the pork. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,120 #3 January 3, 2005 >Imagine if our finances had been constrained by such a >constitutional amendment immediately after Sept. 11, 2001... No problem. Emergency spending bill with corresponding increase in taxation/decrease in expendable programs (arts support.) Budget still balances fine - it's just that the current US population, rather than their grandkids, pays the bill. And we end up having far more money to work with overall since we don't have to service an enormous debt load. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #4 January 3, 2005 QuoteQuoteA constitutional amendment that each year the federal budget has to balance. Unrealistic, as it doesn't account for unforseen emergencies. Imagine if our finances had been constrained by such a constitutional amendment immediately after Sept. 11, 2001... It's not even just about emergencies. The federal budget process is a multiyear process, based on forecasts of future year revenues. That revenue is more cyclic, so it makes more sense to budget around the mean, not each year's actual. If you want to mandate a balanced budget, you need to spell out what the requirement is (rolling 4 year period?) and how to correct for red years. Alternative approaches to dealing with that is the use of a 'rainy day fund' where a large portion of a surplus is bankrolled for the inevitable shortfalls in future years. We could require that new funding come with planned offsets. It's just not at all realistic to apply such cuts to the current fiscal period. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jumper03 0 #5 January 3, 2005 Quote>Imagine if our finances had been constrained by such a >constitutional amendment immediately after Sept. 11, 2001... No problem. Emergency spending bill with corresponding increase in taxation/decrease in expendable programs (arts support.) Budget still balances fine - it's just that the current US population, rather than their grandkids, pays the bill. And we end up having far more money to work with overall since we don't have to service an enormous debt load. Exactly. Just like my current situation - I'm making more money than ever before but have less to spend because I'm paying off so much debt. I think it could be done - balance the budget!! I can't keep borrowing more and more money as an individual - why can we do it collectively? It's absurd to me.Scars remind us that the past is real Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
PhillyKev 0 #6 January 3, 2005 QuoteQuoteA constitutional amendment that each year the federal budget has to balance. Unrealistic, as it doesn't account for unforseen emergencies. Imagine if our finances had been constrained by such a constitutional amendment immediately after Sept. 11, 2001... You need to be able to go into debt if an emergency calls for it. However, we should certainly pay that debt off during the good years, so that overall, over time, we run a balanced budget. Like you, I'm distressed by the continuous splurge spending, year after year, especially on the pork. I've prepared for unforseen emergencies in a way so that if one comes up, I won't need to go into debt. Why can't the gov't? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Tf15 0 #7 January 3, 2005 QuoteQuoteQuoteA constitutional amendment that each year the federal budget has to balance. Unrealistic, as it doesn't account for unforseen emergencies. Imagine if our finances had been constrained by such a constitutional amendment immediately after Sept. 11, 2001... You need to be able to go into debt if an emergency calls for it. However, we should certainly pay that debt off during the good years, so that overall, over time, we run a balanced budget. Like you, I'm distressed by the continuous splurge spending, year after year, especially on the pork. I've prepared for unforseen emergencies in a way so that if one comes up, I won't need to go into debt. Why can't the gov't? because the % of votes needed to be elected to office is about the same as the % of credit card holders who pay only the minimum balance on their credit cards each month? Three times is enemy action Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TomAiello 26 #9 January 3, 2005 Hmmm. Never heard that idea before... Great idea! Let's do it!-- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lindsey 0 #10 January 3, 2005 QuoteSo how about this one - I know several states have them and I think it's a damn fine idea... A constitutional amendment that each year the federal budget has to balance. I think I'll send my senators an email. Jump Makes a lot more sense than a constitutional amendment that defines who can marry whom.... Peace~ linz-- A conservative is just a liberal who's been mugged. A liberal is just a conservative who's been to jail Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
lawrocket 3 #11 January 3, 2005 I don't like it. I doubt any politician would be willing to give up their constituency's share of the gravy train for something like balancing a budget, and making sure it stays there. My wife is hotter than your wife. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
PhillyKev 0 #12 January 4, 2005 QuoteI don't like it. I doubt any politician would be willing to give up their constituency's share of the gravy train for something like balancing a budget, and making sure it stays there. True, because doing that alone would give their opponent an advantage. But if it were an amendment that had to be abided by, then you would have politicians who would have to cater to their constituency on issues rather than advertising dollars. Why is it that you don't like the idea? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
lawrocket 3 #13 January 4, 2005 Perhaps my sarcasm was a bit too subtle. I like the idea of balanced budgets. Hell, I have to balance my budget. The problem with it lies in the fact that both houses of the legislature have to pass the amendment by a 2/3 majority. Then it goes on to the states for ratification. You think 2/3 of congress is going to vote for this to go to the states? Or, there is another vehicle for amending the Constitution that has never been used - two thirds of state legislatures call for a Constitutional convention to convene for purposes of passing an amendment. God, I hate to even think about that. WHo the hell would be the delegates to that Convention? It'd be a "who's who" of ideological self-promoters from both sides. I simply cannot see anything happening that will let the states do such a thing. edited to add: as a sidenote, over 10,000 amendments have been proposed. We've got 33 now. Plenty of amendments haven't passed - the Bricker Amendment (to prevent the US from making treaties or executes agreements that conflicted with the US Constitution (think Gitmo here, folks)), the Federal Marriage Amendment, and flag-burning. These were all Amendments that failed to even make it to the states. Even the Schwartzenegger Amendment to allow foreigners with 20 years citizenship to be POTUS. My wife is hotter than your wife. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TomAiello 26 #14 January 4, 2005 Quote...Plenty of amendments haven't passed... For example, the Balanced Budget Amendment?-- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #15 January 4, 2005 Quoteedited to add: as a sidenote, over 10,000 amendments have been proposed. We've got 33 now. 27. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
lawrocket 3 #16 January 4, 2005 QuoteQuoteedited to add: as a sidenote, over 10,000 amendments have been proposed. We've got 33 now. 27. Thank you. Shows what I get for writing out of my backside. My wife is hotter than your wife. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
PhillyKev 0 #17 January 4, 2005 Simpsons Quote... "That's why you're the judge, and I'm the....law talking guy." -Lyonel Hutz, Esq. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
