I would support a modified form of a balanced budget amendment, assuming there were provisions included for increasing revenues to meet expenses.
I imagine shortfalls being covered on a progressive basis. 90% of any budget shortfall in a given fiscal year shall be made up for with tax increases on the top 10% of income earners and large-cap companies. The other 10% is raised from everyone else on a sliding scale. The bottom bracket shall be a 1% income tax- yes, let’s go ahead and tax those at the bottom too, otherwise there will continue to be complaints about free riders.
ITSM this would solve our budget problems quite handily- no more deficits! Of course we can’t allow social programs to be gutted- social security, medicare, the ACA, police, firefighters, infrastructure repair and so on all need to remain in place. The military is the best place to make cuts. Growing the economy is the best way of all to meet expenses. Shortfalls are made up by those who are benefiting the most from the system, as bviously they are benefiting slightly too much if there is a government shortfall. If you think it is people taking payments from social security who are benefiting too much, again, start at the top 10% of those earners and work your way down. We can’t simply cut anyone off though.
This is a rough sketch and I’d need some help hammering out the details. What say ye dopers?
Growing the economy is the best (and only) thing we can do. How does a balanced budget help the economy grow? And do you think anyone will support an amendment that sets tax policy like that?
You are on the right track with economic growth. Don’t waste time on the balanced budget distraction.
I’d like to add an addendum- taxes may be increased under this system to meet the demands of the day, but they may not be lowered again until the national debt is paid off. I might compromise and agree to taxes being cut (in the reverse order they are added) in proportion to how much the debt has been reduced. 50% of the debt is paid off? Say 25% of the new taxes may be undone. 100% debt reduction brings the system back to meeting expenses.
This would help the economy grow by relieving the pointless burden of wasting billions of taxpayers’ money on interest. It really isn’t necessary that our government be as far in debt as it is- it is the result of bad policy. Today ITSM a small group of wealthy people are on the receiving end of interest on this $14 trillion debt. They aren’t putting this money back into the economy- mostly they seem to just sit on it. Lose the debt and money that is now being spent on interest could go toward public works programs, education and such. There’s your ‘job creator’, and not wealthy people sucking on the treasury like some kind of parasite.
Who would support it? Pragmatists perhaps? We wouldn’t have to worry about runaway spending as the people making these decisions are almost always wealthy themselves. Starving the government on the other hand would just lead to someone else getting elected.
I’ve heard balanced budget amendment talk going around lately, but tying the plan to spending cuts only seems like a formula for setting up the nation for insolvency. At some point the country will only be able to meet its interest payments, then go bankrupt under that plan. The sober recognition of the role revenue plays in the balancing of a budget ought to play a part in any budget plan, so I took a stab at it.
The problem with your proposal is that as soon as a recession hit, revenues would go down, but taxes would automatically increase, thereby making the recession far worse.
The balanced budget amendment is pure hokum, smoke and mirrors. The Goober Norquist branch of the Pubbies are hoping to take a one-time election victory and expand it to tie the hands of the next set of Congressgits, effectively writing their own agenda in stone.
Ideally, the government would be good (and would have been good) at saving money. i.e. they’d have reserves that could be used in case of a recession that would enable them to maintain tax rates, pay for increased services, and have lower revenue. However, its too late, they’ve never had that sort of discipline, and when they have (at a state level) taxpayers HATE the idea that the government has “their” money and it gets rebated or taxes get cut. Tax money sitting in a government reserve waiting for a rainy day is money Joe Taxpayer could be using to take his wife to Cancun! (or, charitably, use to fund his own rainy day fund).
I think most competent accountants are capable of creating balanced budgets on paper. The problem is that it is seemingly impossible for our elected officials to adhere to a balanced budget. All of our congresscritters have their own pet projects that they add to bills as a price for their vote; “If I don’t get what I want, I won’t support your bill.” If you don’t know what these congresscritters want in advance, how do you allocate funds for them? I suppose that a balanced budget could be written that includes something like a jillion dollars for unexpected expenses and at that point, the budget becomes worthless. Insisting on a constitutional amendment for a balanced budget is a red herring, pure and simple. At a time of crisis such as we are seeing now, it is just a dog and pony show and it is a shame that so many voters will nod their heads and say, “Yeah, this is just what the doctor ordered.”
Would it? Right now the ‘job creators’ are sitting on their money, waiting for the debt crisis to spike interest rates so they can invest in bonds with artificially inflated rates. That isn’t doing us one bit of good, but rather is counter-productive. Under this plan, those who can afford it take up the slack, allowing for things like rescuing the middle class for instance.
I admit this is a reactionary idea. I think the balanced budget amendment proposed by the pubbies is perfectly stupid, and so I floated the reverse idea- a budget balanced by revenue increases instead of cuts to seniors’ pensions- to see how it would go over. Looks like it isn’t very well received.
Still, I think it makes more sense than the spending-cut version. At least wealthy congresscritters and the corporate entities who buy them would have some skin in the game as far as bloated spending is concerned. Except for cases where it is the Chinese taking advantage of Citizens United to persuade pubbies to oppose raising the debt ceiling so that they (the Chinese) can roll over all their bonds at a higher interest rate- not sure how to deal with that one yet.
Just as an aside, what is the board’s cutsie insulting name for democrats? Republicans = pubbies, Democrats = ?
Anyway, IMO I don’t think a balanced budget amendment is stupid in theory. But the amendment would have to include language that permits a presidential line item veto, something that neither side wants. Yeah, they all talk the good talk when their party is out of the White House, but the truth is, everyone in congress uses the budget to send money back to their voting district (at least they try to). Doing that successfully will get you re-elected! That’s what it’s all about. Provide a presidential line item veto, and I suspect you could balance the budget relatively easily once you start cutting the pork provided for just about everyone’s pet project.
One of the many things that Democrats and Republicans have in common is their shared desire to be re-elected. Therefore, no presidential line item veto power. Therefore, balancing the budget becomes virtually impossible (an amendment without presidential veto power would never pass… neither party would want to hamstring their own interests when they get their turn at the checkbook).
While I do think the Republicans deserve to be insulted right now, I am not doing it consciously with the word ‘pubbies’. The Democratic version is ‘dems’. I’d simply say ‘pubs’, but obviously that word is already taken.
Clinton balanced the budget. His successor, President Asswipe, undid that and then some.
Clinton (and I vote Democrat more often than not) only balanced the budget on paper because the economy gave him a fantastic bump in tax revenue. i.e. he got lucky.
Bush (and I don’t think he was a great President) had the bad luck to govern during a time of crisis and change. Yeah, he got us in over our head in wars (I think Iraq was a mistake, but some action in Afghanistan wasn’t), but he also had to deal with the impact of the dot com bust and the post 9/11 economic issues. I don’t know that anyone else would have been able to not dig some sort of hole - maybe not as deep.
You can’t blame - or credit - any president for the economy too much - which means you can’t blame - or credit - them for too much variation in tax revenue that is tied to the economy. You can blame Bush for a loss in revenue tied to tax cuts though.