Balanced Budget Amendment

Stipulation: Our government often spends too much. This is a problem. We should do something about it. http://zfacts.com...; />[If that chart doesn't show up, please follow this link.]http://zfacts.com... http://www.truthfulpolitics.com...; />[If the second chart doesn't show up, please follow one of these links.]http://www.truthfulpolitics.com... - imagehttp://www.truthfulpolitics.com... - page with imageIf you think you're seeing a pattern here (Republicans generally increase the rate of growth of the debt, and Democrats generally reduce it), well, I see it too. If you want actual numbers rather than graphs, we can look at the third hit. I like the eighth column (Debt as % of [GDP] because it breaks down nearly perfectly by which party is in power.Third hit: [I can't post this chart. I get either a tiny fuzzy chart, or an error message. Please follow this link.]http://www.skymachines.com... - table of debt growthI didn't go searching for sources that blame Republicans, even though I personally believe they are much to blame for the debt. Those were just the top three likely-looking hits when I Googled "national debt." (Not so when I googled that again. Maybe I skipped any hits that said "debt clock." Maybe I Googled something slightly different?) But there is a clear pattern. One of the parties is much more fiscally responsible than the other. Republicans, clearly, are the party of big spending, the party of fiscal ill-restraint. Fiscal conservatives have no business voting Republican. Now, if you don't like the idea of voting Democratic, then you can at least start holding your Republican candidates' feet to the fire. From now on, make sure their votes match their rhetoric. That ought to take care of the problem, because nobody talks fiscal responsibility better than a Republican. (Except when it comes to the BBA (Balanced Budget Amendment), which Republicans favor in spite of the fact that it's fiscally irresponsibile.)The fact that we spend too much money doesn't really need illustration by these graphs and chart, but Pro illustrated the point, so I felt I had to too. I don't want to fall too far behind in the citations race. I'd rather not score sources, if Pro agrees. Keynesian Economics: There are times when government should run a surplus, and times when it should run a deficit. During depressions and recessions, government should spend to stimulate our way out of trouble. During boom times, the government should run a surplus both to cool the boom (so as to prevent a catastrophic bust later) and to reduce government debt. [1]Why does government need to stimulate during a depression? John Maynard Keynes proved that economies can stabilize at 80% of production, or 15% of production, or anywhere. Without government stimulation, there is no reason to think we'd have ever gotten out of the great depression. [1] Economies don't automatically find their way back to full production. The national debt is a problem, and it does need fixing. But the BBA would be a catastrophe, not a fix.Problem with BBA: Suppose you were a bit overweight, so you adopted a BCA (balanced calorie amendment) making it impossible to take in more calories than you burn in any given day. Then, if you ever got sick, and fell below a healthy weight, you could never gain weight back. You'd be a scrawny wretch to the end of your days---which end might be accelerated.Look at corporations. Are they being irresponsible when they borrow money or otherwise spend more than they make in a given year? No. That's often solid business practice. Imagine Google trying to get to where it is without running a deficit during their explosive growth.In fact, corporations would be few and far between they complied with a BBA. If companies restricted their expenditures to match their earnings, there would be little call for raising money from the public.So, clearly, the government should sometimes run a deficit. But the BBA would prevent this. So the BBA would be disastrous.Why would it be disastrous? Look at those charts above. When the Democrats ran the debt up to 120% of GDP, they were buying freedom for the world. If we'd had a BBA during World War II, the Nazis might still rule a great portion of the earth.And a BBA surely would have lost us the American Revolution. [2] There are times when deficit spending is necessary and prudent.Three Possible Loopholes: Three loopholes or escape clauses present themselves as ways to have our cake and eat it too, to pass the BBA but avoid some of its effects. Wars: We could pass the BBA, but say that it doesn't apply during times of war. But do we really want to have to declare wars to end depressions? Emergencies: We could say that the BBA doesn't apply when the president declares a state of emergency. Do you want to spend the rest of your life in a state of emergency? Constitutional Erosion: Or we could pass the BBA, and then ignore it as necessary, the same as we do with the Second Amendment. This solution compels disrespect of the Constitution, a very bad precedent.Alternatives: What if, instead of passing the BBA, we made a rule that whenever we runs a deficit, the House of Representatives has to reallocate so as reduce the number of congressmen by ten. They'd hate that. Boy, would they hate that. But when deficits are necessary, they could accept that penalty like statesmen, for the public good. That might work.What if, instead of passing the BBA, we just called attention to the fact that the only time Republicans complain about the deficit is when Democrats hold the presidency? (Republicans don't complain about deficits when they're the party running deficits.) That might work too.What if, instead of passing the BBA, we just become aware of which specific congress critters overspend? Also might work.What if we just all voted democratic until the Republicans matched their votes to their talk? Might work.What if we gave the president the "line item veto." That could work too. Many things might work. You don't have to like any of my listed alternative solutions to see that there may be many ways of solving the problem.But the BBA does not solve the problem. The reason we want to reduce the debt is that we seek economic health. If the BBA didn't just get ignored (weakening the Constitution), or cause wars or states of emergency, then it would eventually cause a permanent depression---which is not economic health. So the BBA is no solution at all.There are things we can reasonably try, but the BBA isn't one of them.The resolution is refuted. Vote Con. ---[1] John Kenneth Galbraith, “Maynard Keynes (Rhymes with Brains) and the Mandarin Revolution,” Harvard Magazine, May/June, 1977. The same essay is also in the book Points of Departure, but note that there are several books by that title. [2] Money: Whence It Came, Where It Went. John Kenneth Galbraith.