[MacOSR]

A question for everyone...party affiliation aside.

Would you support a balanced budget ammendment to the constitution?

Would you support a provision to the balanced budget ammendment that if the budget is out of balance that ALL budgets are cut the same percentage in order to be balanced?

Would you support a provision to the balanced budget ammendment that would require a budget surplus of xx% to get the national debt paid-off within x years (including paying back all borrowed money into the SS fund and other accounts)?

When I say balanced buget I am talking all TAX income vs governemnt spending. None of this borrowing from the SS fund, etc.

[nonhuman]

How would it be a "balanced budget ammendment" if it required a surplus?

[Ω]

I think the point that was trying to be made was "fiscal responsibility", and not a lesson in semantics.

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by MacOSR:
A question for everyone...party affiliation aside.

Would you support a balanced budget ammendment to the constitution?

Would you support a provision to the balanced budget ammendment that if the budget is out of balance that ALL budgets are cut the same percentage in order to be balanced?

Would you support a provision to the balanced budget ammendment that would require a budget surplus of xx% to get the national debt paid-off within x years (including paying back all borrowed money into the SS fund and other accounts)?

When I say balanced buget I am talking all TAX income vs governemnt spending. None of this borrowing from the SS fund, etc.

sounds good, except the only problem I have is the percentage scheme will grandfather in beneficially those programs already overfunded and unfairly slash those already underfunded.
for example, if the widget making portion of the budget is already grossly overpadded, but the burgersnort subsidies are already inadequate, a flat percentage cut will not diminish the ability to make widgets, but may in fact kill the burgersnort subsidy program altogether.
the only way it would work fairly is if all programs were equally funded and equally efficient. then, an across the board percentage cut would make sense.
But different budget portions are alrealdy out of whack proportionally, so you'd have to sort that out FIRST, which would mean your first cuts would have to be disproportional anyhow.

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by _?_:
I think the point that was trying to be made was "fiscal responsibility", and not a lesson in semantics.

but arguing over semantics accounts for probably one half of all debates here. If you're gonna cut THAT out, you're gonna have to let us do some other specious and irrelevant sidetrack or we'll all go through withdrawal.

[GG Allin]

I think the lack of interest in this thread should probably be seen as support for what is the only logical way to run a country. Whether you can have a balanced budget while waging constant warfare and subsidizing corporations at the expense of the public is the real question. And um... No you can't.

So as long as you support the funding of weapons over all the various programs that support the people you cannot balance the budget. If the welfare state is bad then why is corporate welfare ok? If socialism is bad why is corporate socialism ok?

The debt will never be paid down until we get the military industrial complex and the Bush Oil Cartel out of politics. We have politicians, current and former, making money directly off military and energy policy. DIRECTLY. Sickening, morally reprehesible and half the population doesn't care.

Pass the Velveeta dip Everybody Loves Raymond is on.

[nonhuman]

Fine, I'll give a real answer.
"Would you support a balanced budget ammendment to the constitution?"

No.

"Would you support a provision to the balanced budget ammendment that if the budget is out of balance that ALL budgets are cut the same percentage in order to be balanced?"

No.

"Would you support a provision to the balanced budget ammendment that would require a budget surplus of xx% to get the national debt paid-off within x years (including paying back all borrowed money into the SS fund and other accounts)?"

No.

A necessarily balanced budget would force the country to be very inflexible and unable to make decisions in a time frame smaller than a year. If such an amendment were passed and some major issue came up in the middle of the year we wouldn't be able to apportion funds to deal with it until the next year when we were able to work it into the budget. In the case of an unexpected disaster of some sort, what would we do?

What would be better, I think, is to require that if we ran a surplus or deficit one year, the budget for the next year take that into account and adjust accordingly to try and bring us back to a balance point.

[spacefreak]

Originally posted by nonhuman:
What would be better, I think, is to require that if we ran a surplus or deficit one year, the budget for the next year take that into account and adjust accordingly to try and bring us back to a balance point.

Or at least a plan outlining what the estimated time frame would be for running a deficit or surplus.

I see what you're saying, but I don't know if a one-year allowance for a deficit/surplus (with the ext year's correction) is the flexibility desired.

[nonhuman]

Originally posted by spacefreak:
Or at least a plan outlining what the estimated time frame would be for running a deficit or surplus.

I see what you're saying, but I don't know if a one-year allowance for a deficit/surplus (with the ext year's correction) is the flexibility desired.

I agree. That's kinda what I meant by "try", but it would probably be better to be more explicit. Perhaps if it just stipulated that if we end up with a deficit or surplus we have to come up with a plan for restoring the budget to a balanced state during which we would be required to have a balanced budget except for what is necessary for paying off the debt already incurred (according to the plan that's been established).

[djohnson]

You know how to balance the budget? Stop paying ex conregressmen and expresidents and ex anyone who gets paid after they quit! This would save many millions, maybe even billions a year!!! I wish I could work somewhere, make about 100000+ each year, and then quit and continue to make that same amount...

[Fanatic]

Originally posted by djohnson:
You know how to balance the budget? Stop paying ex conregressmen and expresidents and ex anyone who gets paid after they quit! This would save many millions, maybe even billions a year!!! I wish I could work somewhere, make about 100000+ each year, and then quit and continue to make that same amount...

I've always found it ironic that these so called public servants make more money than the average American citizen will ever make. No wonder these guys don't mind dipping their hands into Social Security... they'll never need to fall back on it!

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by Fanatic:
I've always found it ironic that these so called public servants make more money than the average American citizen will ever make. No wonder these guys don't mind dipping their hands into Social Security... they'll never need to fall back on it!

well, in fairness, even if you eliminated the pensions of all the congressman and the president, it wouldn't be but a drop in the 577 billion budget (which is actually more but Bush refuses to include war efforts in the total).

It wouldn't make that much difference in the grand scheme as far as accounting, though its arguable there are ethical concerns.

[BRussell]

Here's the text of the Constitutional Amendment that was brought up back in the mid-1990s.

JOINT RESOLUTION

Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States to require a balanced budget.

Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, (two-thirds of each House concurring therein), That the following article is proposed as an amendment to the Constitution, which shall be valid to all intents and purposes as part of the Constitution when ratified by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several States within seven years after the date of its submission to the States for ratification:

`Article--

`SECTION 1. Total outlays for any fiscal year shall not exceed total receipts for that fiscal year, unless three-fifths of the whole number of each House of Congress shall provide by law for a specific excess of outlays over receipts by a rollcall vote.

`SECTION 2. The limit on the debt of the United States held by the public shall not be increased, unless three-fifths of the whole number of each House shall provide by law for such an increase by a rollcall vote.

`SECTION 3. Prior to each fiscal year, the President shall transmit to the Congress a proposed budget for the United States Government for that fiscal year, in which total outlays do not exceed total receipts.

`SECTION 4. No bill to increase revenue shall become law unless approved by a majority of the whole number of each House by a rollcall vote.

`SECTION 5. The Congress may waive the provisions of this article for any fiscal year in which a declaration of war is in effect. The provisions of this article may be waived for any fiscal year in which the United States is engaged in military conflict which causes an imminent and serious military threat to national security and is so declared by a joint resolution, adopted by a majority of the whole number of each House, which becomes law.

`SECTION 6. The Congress shall enforce and implement this article by appropriate legislation, which may rely on estimates of outlays and receipts.

`SECTION 7. Total receipts shall include all receipts of the United States Government except those derived from borrowing. Total outlays shall include all outlays of the United States Government except for those for repayment of debt principal.

`SECTION 8. This article shall take effect beginning with fiscal year 2002 or with the second fiscal year beginning after its ratification, whichever is later.'.

[edit]Some thoughts about it:

1. The budget doesn't have to be balanced if 3/5 of Congress say a deficit is OK.

2. The budget doesn't have to be balanced if we are at war or under imminent ( ) threat.

3. There is no year-to-year fudging - you have to balance the budget every year, no matter what the conditions (unless you get the 3/5 vote). This seems sorta silly to me. There's a difference between temporary cyclical deficits, as during a recession, and long-term structural deficits. But that's more of a judgment call - Bush is essentially arguing that we currently have a cyclical deficit right now, when I think it's clearly not. So I can understand why they wouldn't want to leave that big of an opening.

4. Interest payments on the debt are excluded from the budget. Not sure why.

5. Taxes can't be raised except for by majority roll-call vote. I'm not sure what that means - isn't that the way it is now? Or is "roll-call" the key, meaning that it can't be an anonymous voice vote, your name has to be down on record?

6. There seems also to be a lot of room for play in making the estimates. If you believe in the Laffer effect, can you cut taxes and then include increased revenues in your estimates? Who makes the estimates? What if you submit a budget, as Bush has done, that doesn't include obvious costs?

In the end, I'd really just prefer that we elect responsible people and that we communicate to them that we care about this. If they want a balanced budget so badly, why don't we have one now?

[MacOSR]

Thanks to everyone who gave their input. I certainly agree that there is no way this could be done each 12-month cycle. Our economy goes up and down too much.

Unfortunately, I do not think that we will ever see consistancy in our governement for fiscal responsibility. There is too much of the socalistic mentality that "I deserve my project or benefit". The general populous (sp?) is too focused on the actual project or sensationalism through politics.

It is too easy for opposing sides to say "cut military" or "cut welfare", etc. No one wants something cut that impacts them.

Maybe a better determining factor is what would be considered "fat" in our budget.