We read on here as well as hear from some in Congress as well as talking heads that we need a federal Balanced Budget amendment?

 

Is it practical?

 

Is there a downside?

 

How does one enforce it?

 

How do we decide at budget time how much we will spend?

 

What do we do if we need to have emergency spending?

 

IMO this is one of those that seems so logical yet we really have no clue as to how it would work.

As I said in the other thread, it makes much more sense if balanced over a cycle. That way a deficit can be run when times are tight and that deficit can be paid off when there are times of plenty.

I agree with Papa. It simply isn't feasible to expect an annual balanced budget at the federal level.

Where is everyone? I seem to remember people talking about "why can't we expect the govt to work off of a balanced budget when people do it in their personal lives?"

 

No one thinks the BBA is a good idea anymore?

Because I was working while listening to Hannity, I hope I have this correct. Hannity said that Rand Paul and Connie Mack support a proposal to balance the budget, I assume this was for an amendment, by reducing the budget by 1% every year for 8 years. Then set the budget at 18% of GDP to encourage the government to help grow the economy to bring in more money.

As I said I was working and not listening 100%. I do not see why this would not make a good way to balance the budget.

And for those who say you cannot balance the federal budget, of course you will not be able to, if you do not make a realistic effort. An amendment does allow Congress to bust the budget in certain situations.

As I said in the other thread, it makes much more sense if balanced over a cycle. That way a deficit can be run when times are tight and that deficit can be paid off when there are times of plenty.

 

I'm all in support of a BBA, but I confess your idea piques my curiosity. Would you care to explain how this would look on paper?

I'd settle for a term limit amendment for Congress before the BBA anyday. With a TLA, we wouldn't need a BBA.:cool:

I'd settle for a term limit amendment for Congress before the BBA anyday. With a TLA, we wouldn't need a BBA.:cool:

 

I would support both.

While I believe that the Federal Government should have a balanced budget, my concern with an Amendment to the Constitution would be the details.

 

What happens in the case of a national emergency, depression, recession, or conflict if the funds are not there? Would it make these situations worse by tying the hands of Congress and the President?

 

Maybe first Congress should actually pass a budget before they could even worry about balancing it?

Practical? No. Good idea? Yes, if properly worded to give flexibility in times of crises.

In the previous attempts to pass a Balanced Budget Amendment, they allowed for Congress to vote to suspend the BBA during emergencies.

Why is it not practical? 49 states have it and for the most part it has worked for them.

y

In the previous attempts to pass a Balanced Budget Amendment, they allowed for Congress to vote to suspend the BBA during emergencies.

Why is it not practical? 49 states have it and for the most part it has worked for them.

 

Myth.

 

States have two budgets: capital and operating. Operating is the one that has to be balanced. The capital does not so it's not truly a balanced budget. The federal budget is not broken down that way when it comes to a BBA.

What happens if the budget expects a certain amount of revenue which then determines spending and then due to unforseen reasons the revenue collected is actually less?

Because I was working while listening to Hannity, I hope I have this correct. Hannity said that Rand Paul and Connie Mack support a proposal to balance the budget, I assume this was for an amendment, by reducing the budget by 1% every year for 8 years. Then set the budget at 18% of GDP to encourage the government to help grow the economy to bring in more money.

 

I've read something similar except it said "economic output" instead of GDP.

 

What is economic output?

 

Doesn't the GDP constantly get revised?

 

If GDP is the basis we have to forecast what GDP is in order to determine spending? Again, what happens when this guess is incorrect?

 

Again, way too many unanswered questions to put this into law.

y

 

Myth.

 

States have two budgets: capital and operating. Operating is the one that has to be balanced. The capital does not so it's not truly a balanced budget. The federal budget is not broken down that way when it comes to a BBA.

 

As I said for the most part it has worked. Not sure which state does not have it, but the states who are having the most trouble are dominated by Dems.

I will agree that there need to be some items explained, so that everyone will fully understand the amendment. Hopefully that it will be explained and then passed, not passed then have it explained.

Which I am sure will happen as the Republicans support this and are willing to help explain things before hand, not after the fact.