The Balanced Budget Amendment is a bad policy response to the 2011 debt issue.

ï¿½ While we could debate the use of the term "inappropriate" vis a vis my grandmother, my intent was more that among the smorgasbord of policy tools available in this default debate, the BBA should be off the table. The BBA itself is not some sort of taboo, that's why this debate is focused on it specifically pertaining to 2011. ï¿½ Pro 1: In terms of stopping the current risk of downgrade, what is necessary (but not sufficient) is meeting the August 2nd deadline. This point does not apply to BBA-related legislation that would pass after the ceiling lifted. It would similarly apply to legislation for 100% defense related cuts. ï¿½ TARP and other "bailouts" are quite different from the simple ability of FDIC to back banks. Thanks to the BBA, for the first time since the Great Depression, consumers could not be positive that their money is safe in banks. TARP isn't a great example of Congress pulling through. It was first voted down in the House in 2008. It only passed after the Dow lost almost 800 points. Even then it only got 60% of the House. ï¿½ Pro 2: A faux pas on my part. Let's say Congress decides to not balance the budget several years after the BBA goes into effect. How can it be constitutionally enforced? ï¿½ Since the initial problem comes from legislators not acting constitutionally, legislators won't be providing a remedy themselves. If the President is unable to veto, can he just unilaterally balance the budget? Does he jail any legislators who say the BBA shouldn't be enforced? If the budget isn't balanced or if the President vetos a balanced budget, is it the court who will make decisions? Can the Supreme Court declare a veto invalid? Will we give the court the power to invalidate appropriation bills that don't balance? There would be an inevitable shift in the balance of power. As to the states analogy, your argument is misleading. As a statement from five Nobel Laureates argues, of the many reasons a Balanced Budget Amendment is unsound is that, unlike the federal government, states only have to balance their operating budget [1]. They can borrow as much finance capital as they like. ï¿½ Pro 3: If we are using a version that waits to implement the BBA for approximately seven years, then no the cuts will not be immediate. However, once the BBA comes into effect, we may find ourselves in the situation described in 2009. Once the BBA is active we will face those extreme cuts. Pro 4 I can't agree with your definition of a recession. Overspending is one way to get a recession. However, there are many other ways. For instance, stock market crashes due to bubbles, exogenous shocks, positive feedback loops (ex. Mark to market pricing) etc. Recession does not mean "government takes in less revenue than it spends. " It means, among other things, that trade and industrial activity is reduced, credit markets cooling, and/or a fall of GDP for two successive quarters. Automatic stabilizers dampen fluctuations of real GDP. There is a good reason we have "automatic" and "nonautomatic" stabilizers. Something like TARP is a stabilizing tool that had to be voted through. The Balanced Budget Amendment would make it unconstitutional for automatic stabilizers to function if the government takes in less money than it makes or the rainy day fund isn't enough. Pro 5. Your definition casts far too wide a net. A "Balanced Budget Amendment" involves a program where at some point the budget must on a yearly basis have outlays (or similar term) less than or equal to revenue. A line item veto is most certainly not a BBA. Con 1. While you can argue that the founders were for fixing the constitutional issue you just mentioned, it does not follow that they would agree with the reasoning of the balanced budget. Founders like Alexander Hamilton, while very interested in the US paying debts, was adamantly opposed to such policies (not to mention amendments). Hamilton favored the US having flexibility as to responding to slowing of credit or other tools. This makes it especially hard to think that the Founders wanted such specific and restricting economic policy as an amendment dictating yearly fiscal budgets. Jefferson was suggesting the amendment in a letter about reigning in John Adam's spending. Like Jefferson, Hamilton also argued that the US should not incur debts that it cannot pay off. However, he would not accept a yearly balanced budget. His plans for paying off debts, none of which involved amendments, occurred over decades. And after 30 years, his plan worked and the war debts were paid. He used debt and credit in order to start off the immense banking system we have today. Under BBA none of Hamilton's policies would be possible. The BBA will only solve Burke's problem if it is enforceable. Con 2. See intro for reference to "inappropriate. " [1] . http://blog.ctnews.com...