Do you support a balanced budget amendment?

[Always in His Presence]

A constitutional amendment that would force Congress to pass a balanced budget every year.

 

[PloverWing]

I definitely support a balanced budget. I've been concerned about our deficit and debt since way back in the '80s, when Mondale and Perot and Tsongas were talking about it.

I don't know whether a balanced budget amendment is the way to achieve a balanced budget, or not. Some states, I believe, have a balanced budget requirement in their state constitutions, so it's worthwhile to look at their experiences and see whether there's some drawback that's not obvious at first glance. I haven't yet done that research, though.

 

[chevyontheriver]

I definitely support a balanced budget. I've been concerned about our deficit and debt since way back in the '80s, when Mondale and Perot and Tsongas were talking about it.

I don't know whether a balanced budget amendment is the way to achieve a balanced budget, or not. Some states, I believe, have a balanced budget requirement in their state constitutions, so it's worthwhile to look at their experiences and see whether there's some drawback that's not obvious at first glance. I haven't yet done that research, though.

There are times you really do need to run a deficit, so no, I do not approve of forcing a balanced budget. I would approve of requiring a supermajority in Congress to have to authorize any deficit though.

 

[Arcangl86]

Depending on how it's written. I agree with chevyon that sometimes deficit spending is needed. But an amendment restricting both deficits and the national debt to certain GDP targets, as well as allowing a supermajority to override it, is something I would support. I also think a useful tool to try and get things back in control is the line item veto. A lot of pork comes in the form of attaching riders to so-called "must pass bills" and a line item veto could reduce that, but would also require an amendment.

 

[chevyontheriver]

I also think a useful tool to try and get things back in control is the line item veto. A lot of pork comes in the form of attaching riders to so-called "must pass bills" and a line item veto could reduce that, but would also require an amendment.

A line item veto OR a requirement that a bill can only have one item. No omnibus bills with pork slid in. Each bill would have to have a complete reading from the House floor and the Senate floor before a vote.

 

[pc_76]

I would be all for an amendment that allowed emergency deficit spending up to a certain amount.

 

[Arcangl86]

A line item veto OR a requirement that a bill can only have one item. No omnibus bills with pork slid in. Each bill would have to have a complete reading from the House floor and the Senate floor before a vote.

I think a single subject requirement, which I have heard before, is not really workable. For instance, it does make sense to have multiple different but related subjects in a single bill, for instance as a form of compromise to make sure the two sides both get something they want. And as for reading out each bill from the floor, that's a great way to guarantee nothing ever gets done. Many bills are large and complex for good reason. For instance, trying that with the NDAA would require something like 2 hours just to get through the contents.

 

[BCP1928]

A constitutional amendment that would force Congress to pass a balanced budget every year.

First they would have to be able to pass a budget, which seems to be beyond their capabilities.

 

[essentialsaltes]

I voted no, but I'm willing to compromise. As long as there are no sacred cows -- all government programs from Social Security to farm subsidies to foreign aid to Kiribati to cancer research at NIH to the military are reduced by half the CBO-calculated deficit, and all corporate and personal tax rates are increased stepwise by an amount that will raise the other half.

 

[Always in His Presence]

I voted no, but I'm willing to compromise. As long as there are no sacred cows -- all government programs from Social Security to farm subsidies to foreign aid to Kiribati to cancer research at NIH to the military are reduced by half the CBO-calculated deficit, and all corporate and personal tax rates are increased stepwise by an amount that will raise the other half.

hmmm... interesting - what effect will slashing Social Security, cancer research and then raising taxes on everyone will have on the poor, lower income and middle class? Not to mentioned the retired and disabled?

 

[Always in His Presence]

It really isn't that hard a concept:

As an example:

Government revenue is about 5 Trillion (rounded up). Mandatory spending would have a budget of $3,300,000,000,000 Dollars and discretionary spending would have $1,300,000,000,000 dollars - the rest going to interest debt.

System wide they could not by law spend any more than their budget - (it is how business run and be solvent) - that means that Congress has to sit down and work together as a team (gasp!).

It is not dissimilar to how we run our home budget (yes, this is very simplified)

We make 50,000 a year - 33,000 would be for necessities (mandatory) housing, food medical, utilities etc. Then we have 13,000 to use on extra's -

Time to reign in the excess discretionary spending - hopefully Vivek and Musk can help point out where it can be done.

 

[QvQ]

We make 50,000 a year - 33,000 would be for necessities (mandatory) housing, food medical, utilities etc. Then we have 13,000 to use on extra's -

We have $50,000, the government has a blank check.
The government revenue is whatever the government decides.
The government approves a budget of $6T.
The Treasury prints the money and passes it out to the Agencies to distribute.
Anything above the $5T revenue become debt the government owes to itelf.
The money is borrowed from the Treasury.
The sky is the limit, trillions and trillions.
The Agencies turn in budgets and the Congress rubber stamps whatever the agencies formulate for the next year.
So the "balanced budget" isn't the issue.

1) The Agencies, for instance, the DOD and IRS cannot account for the money. Neither agency can pass an audit.
2) Where is all the money going?
That is the issue.

 

[essentialsaltes]

hmmm... interesting - what effect will slashing Social Security, cancer research and then raising taxes on everyone will have on the poor, lower income and middle class? Not to mentioned the retired and disabled?

It's going to hurt them.

The effect on the retired and disabled would be twice as bad if they get cut by twice the amount, which appears to be your solution in post #11.

Mandatory spending in FY2024 about $4.2 trillion. So cutting that to $3.3 trillion requires a ~21% cut in mandatory spending. No one will cry if we cut Congresscritters' salaries, but that's not going to save very much out of the mandatory budget. So inevitably it'll get into SNAP, Social Security, disability insurance, Medicare, veteran's benefits -- things people rely on and are literally entitled to.

 

[Always in His Presence]

It's going to hurt them.

The effect on the retired and disabled would be twice as bad if they get cut by twice the amount, which appears to be your solution in post #11.

Mandatory spending in FY2024 about $4.2 trillion. So cutting that to $3.3 trillion requires a ~21% cut in mandatory spending. No one will cry if we cut Congresscritters' salaries, but that's not going to save very much out of the mandatory budget. So inevitably it'll get into SNAP, Social Security, disability insurance, Medicare, veteran's benefits -- things people rely on and are literally entitled to.

I did not use actual numbers, so quoting them doesn’t make sense.

Also there is more to mandatory spending than social security.

Ignoring such is in my opinion fear mongering at best.

If you trimmed the cost behind heavy bureaucracy, it would help lower cost across-the-board.

Or how about approaching it this way

Take what mandatory spending needs whatever that prices subtract the interest payments and what’s left over is discretionary spending.

That means all the things that are discretionary might have to trim their budget

 

[essentialsaltes]

I did not use actual numbers, so quoting them doesn’t make sense.

Did you not say

Mandatory spending would have a budget of $3,300,000,000,000 Dollars

Also there is more to mandatory spending than social security.

All of the things I mentioned in post #13 are part of mandatory spending.

 

[Always in His Presence]

Government revenue is about 5 Trillion (rounded up).

Did you not say

Look above. It is not an exact number. That is what I said. Word for word

All of the things I mentioned in post #13 are part of mandatory spending.

Not when you give numbers based on 5trillion to say how it will impact 4.2 trillion

 

[Always in His Presence]

As I have stated. Take the total revenue. Subtract mandatory spending. Subtract interest payments and viola!

You have the discretionary spending amount.

Time to demand Congress to live within a budget and get all this debt under control.

 

[rjs330]

It's one of those great ideas to discuss, but it's never going to happen.

 

[Always in His Presence]

It's one of those great ideas to discuss, but it's never going to happen.

Why? If voters speak out en masse and not acquis to "it just can't happen" things change.

The days of spend as they please to appease the lobbyist should come to an end. Make the government serve the people, not the people serve the government. Spend as they like and place the burden on the tax payers and employers.

 

[essentialsaltes]

As I have stated. Take the total revenue.

$4.9 trillion (2024)

Subtract mandatory spending.

$4.2 trillion (2024)

Subtract interest payments

$0.9 trillion (2024)

and viola! You have the discretionary spending amount.

-$0.2 trillion