BudgetBalanceAmendment - Print...

Info iconThis preview shows pages 1–3. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Print 1 of 17 8/8/2006 11:37 AM committee of correspondence The Balanced-Budget Amendment The committee: Jim Miller, Robert D. Reischauer, Robert Shapiro, and Sen. Paul Simon. By Herbert Stein Updated Saturday, Dec. 14, 1996, at 12:30 AM ET From: Herb Stein Posted Tuesday, Nov. 30, 2004, at 4:18 PM ET The idea of amending the Constitution to require the federal government to balance its budget has been an active issue for many years. In 1995 the House of Representatives passed a resolution to forward such an amendment to the states for ratification. A similar resolution failed, by one vote, to obtain the necessary two-thirds majority in the Senate. The Republicans, who will have a larger majority in the Senate in 1997 than they did in 1995, promise to bring the issue up again, and a vigorous debate can be expected. The federal government is now closer to reaching a balanced budget than at any time in many years. That fact may put a new twist on traditional arguments about the amendment proposal. The issue is sometimes framed as whether balancing the budget is a good rule of fiscal policy, or whether it is the best of all possible rules. More realistically, the issue is whether the results--under a constitutional amendment, with all the imperfections that can be foreseen--would be better or worse than the results without the amendment, with all the imperfections we know about. Proposed balanced-budget amendments come in various forms. Some would require balancing the budget while excluding Social Security trust accounts, and some would not make that exclusion. Some would, and some would not, place additional restrictions on the power of Congress to raise taxes. All would permit exceptions from the balanced-budget rule in some emergencies, but different proposals vary in which kind of emergencies would be recognized. For some people, support or opposition to the amendment depends heavily on which of these particular provisions are included. We have this week an especially able and distinguished group of panelists to discuss the issues that revolve around the idea of a balanced-budget amendment. Posted Tuesday, Nov. 30, 2004, at 4:19 PM ET Jim Miller 7:12 a.m. Monday 12/9/96 THE BBA SHOULD BE PASSED AND RATIFIED A large body of academic (especially "public choice") literature suggests that the way the federal government goes about taxing, borrowing, and regulating leads to a public sector that is "too big." This is borne out by studies which: (a) find that tax rates are far higher than the levels which would maximize economic growth, (b) question the efficacy of many government spending programs, and (c) determine that much of our regulatory efforts cost far more than they should and/or generate little in the way of benefits to society. While none of these studies is beyond criticism, it's hard to draw any but the obvious conclusion.
Background image of page 1

Info iconThis preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full DocumentRight Arrow Icon
Print 2 of 17
Background image of page 2
Image of page 3
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

This note was uploaded on 03/31/2008 for the course ECON 2010 taught by Professor Mertens,wi during the Fall '07 term at Colorado.

Page1 / 17

BudgetBalanceAmendment - Print...

This preview shows document pages 1 - 3. Sign up to view the full document.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Ask a homework question - tutors are online